special report our federal landlord

42 • RANGE MAGAZINE • WINTER 2012

PART IEarly Westward Expansion, 1784 to 1891The U.S. Constitution specifically prohibitsthe federal government from owning largeblocks of land. The reason for this hasbecome obvious in the past 50 years. Ruralresidents who make their living from westernfederal lands today are finding that Washing-ton is regulating them toward bankruptcywhile an ill-informed population in the Eastis complicit by default.

The closest form of government thatdescribes federal dominance over the lives ofpeople is feudalism/manorialism, which is aform of government whereby only royaltycan legally own land. The all-powerfullandowner then rents his land topeasants with the condition ofreceiving a large portion of thecrops or other services from theworkers. The peasant toils only tobarely survive.

Today royalty has beenreplaced by the federal govern-ment. This new king/landlordserves Washington special inter-ests, usually environmental andinternational dictates, which are contrary tothe economic and fiscal interests of the localland user. Often they are even contrary toenvironmental health.

As with almost everything else that hasbeen twisted from the original, the Foundersnever intended that there should be large fed-eral landownership. When they wrote theConstitution, feudalism and manorialismstill existed in France and many of theFounding Fathers were eyewitnesses to thebrutal treatment of the peasants under such asystem. Today, that same brutality is crushingwestern landowners. In 1783, Thomas Jeffer-son insisted that all federal land should besold as quickly as possible, and “shall never

after, in any case, revert to the United States.”Following the Revolutionary War, the

individual states were so fearful of an all-powerful central government that they gaveno power to the federal government underthe Articles of Confederation. The federalgovernment was deeply in debt, but had noway under the Articles to repay it except byprinting paper money that had no value.

To pay the debt, the states west of theMississippi River eventually ceded their west-ern public lands to the federal government ina trust. The trust limited its use to that ofrepaying the debt. The states of Kentucky,Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama werecreated this way and their admission into theUnion established the principle of the EqualFooting Doctrine, whereby every state

entered statehood on an equalfooting with all states alreadyexisting.

The Equal Footing Doctrinewas formalized with the pas-sage of the Northwest Ordi-nance in 1787 that created theNorthwest Territories (nowOhio, Indiana, Illinois, Michi-gan, Wisconsin, and a portionof Minnesota). The Northwest

Ordinance also codified the principle thatland would not be held in perpetuity by thefederal government. Historians consider it tobe the most significant achievement underthe Articles of Confederation. It set the formby which subsequent territories east of theRocky Mountains were created and lateradmitted into the Union as states.

When the U.S. Constitution was alsoadopted in 1787, it ensured that the federalgovernment never amassed large landhold-ings. The Constitution incorporates the keyprinciple of the Northwest Ordinance byallowing only three forms of federallandownership and jurisdiction in Article I,Section 8:

“To establish post offices and post roads;To exercise exclusive legislation...over suchDistrict [of Columbia] (not exceeding tenmiles square)...and to exercise like authorityover all places purchased by the consent ofthe legislature of the State...for the erection offorts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, andother needful buildings.”

That’s the extent to which the federal gov-ernment can constitutionally own land. Until1891, the U.S. policy was to put federal landinto private hands as quickly as possible andto retain no federal land not authorized bythe Constitution. To accomplish this policy, aseries of Preemption and Homestead lawswere passed in the 1800s that gave federalland to squatters and homesteaders at little orno cost. Those laws allowed the land east ofthe Rockies to be quickly settled and placedinto private hands.

With these constitutional constraints anda hundred years of legal precedent, how didthe federal government wind up with morethan 50 percent of the land in many stateswest of the Rocky Mountains? ■

PART IIThe F ederal L andlord:The Road to TyrannyAfter rapid western expansion to the RockyMountains in the 19th century, the UnitedStates suddenly reversed its land disposal pol-icy in defiance of 100 years of well-estab-lished law and constitutional limitation. Itdid so by stopping privatization of publicland as new states were created. The resultingfeudal/manorial system is now destroying acenturies’ old way of life.

Since Article I, Section 8 of the Constitu-tion severely limits the type of land the feder-al government can actually own, it is obviousthe hundreds of millions of acres now con-trolled by the federal government west of theRocky Mountains do not qualify constitu-tionally. (See map.)

Federal laws passed until 1891 were faith-ful to the U.S. Constitution and the North-west Ordinance and all federal land wasquickly sold or deeded to settlers, mainly eastof the Rocky Mountains. However, becausethe federal land west of the Rockies is arid,very little was homesteaded so it remained inthe public domain.

Without any oversight, western miningand timber companies were causing harm tothe resource base on public lands in the late1800s. Progressives of the day used the exag-

Special Report

OUR FEDERAL LANDLORDMost Americans who live east of the Rockies or in large urban areas in the West are surprised to learn that the federal government controlsmore than 30 percent of the landmass in the United States. Most of that land is in the western states. Why is that?By Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D.

Thomas Jefferson.

WI12 l.o 10.20.q_RANGE template.q 10/20/11 1:45 PM Page 42

WINTER 2012 • RANGE MAGAZINE • 43

gerated writings of naturalists like John Muirto enrage eastern audiences to the allegeddestruction and—just as they do today—anill-informed population demanded it bestopped.Although exaggerated, some of the abuse

was very real and something had to be done.The government could have just deeded theland to the ranchers, timber and miningcompanies that were actually using the landas a Preemption Right as they had done eastof the Rocky Mountains. However, givinghuge areas of arid rangeland and forestlandthat was required for economic survival stuckin the craw of Easterners.In addition, the early progressives argued

that the Preemption and Homestead lawspassed in the 18th and 19th centuries hadfailed to accomplish their intended purpose.(See “Federal Laws” sidebar, page 47.) Insteadof being settled by long-term farmers andranchers, most of the 160-acre homesteadswere too small to be economically viable.Consequently, homesteaders were forced tosell out to speculators, who combined thehomesteads into larger, more viable landhold-ings and then resold them at a large profit.

It is not surprising that abuse of theHomestead Act was repugnant to Easterners.Ironically, the seeming failure of the Preemp-tion and Homestead acts would eventuallyprovide a great blessing. The land consolida-tion allowed very productive farming and theMidwest became known as the Breadbasketof the World.At the time, the program seemed to have

failed. Congress revoked the Preemption lawsand passed the Forest Reserve Act of 1891that reversed a hundred years of U.S. policyand ignored the Constitution’s severe limita-tions to federal landownership. The ForestReserve Act gave the president vast powers to“set apart and reserve, in any state or territoryhaving public land bearing forest...as publicreservations.” In addition to violating the con-stitutional limitations, it also trumped theEqual Footing Doctrine and effectivelysacked the 10th Amendment. Although the states complained bitterly,

none challenged the constitutionality of thelaw. They couldn’t. One of the conditions setby Congress for statehood required the newstate to “declare that they forever disclaim allright and title to the unappropriated public

lands lying within the [state’s] boundaries.” If the territory wanted to become a state,

it could not demand equal footing. Norcould it force the federal government totransfer the ownership rights to the publicland to the state. In fact, like Utah, the stateswere forced to sign a proclamation acknowl-edging that the state was “deemed admittedby Congress into the Union…on an equalfooting with the original states.” (Italics added)That was an unmitigated lie, blatant extor-tion, and blackmail.The Forest Reserve Act marked a turning

point in U.S. history. Until the end of the19th century, the federal government histori-cally did all it could to settle and develop theland and its resources (including minerals) asfast as possible. Water rights clearly belongedto the state or to the individual landowner,not the federal government, even on federallands. That changed radically with the ForestReserve Act by reversing the Preemptionlaws. That loss destroyed any hope that west-ern ranchers had in gaining title to the publiclands they had used for grazing. Althoughnot obvious at first, it set up a feudal/manori-al system where the federal government was



landlord over the land that local citizensdepended upon for their existence.Lack of congressional funding delayed

implementation of the Forest Reserve Act formore than a decade. Congress finally passedthe Transfer Act of 1905 which created theForest Service (FS) within the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture. The Weeks Act of 1911(aka the Organic Act) allowed the FS to pur-chase and create additional national forests inthe East. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 cre-ated the U.S. Grazing Service in the Depart-ment of Interior. That agency was combinedwith the old General Land Office in 1946 tocreate the Bureau of Land Management(BLM). Together the FS and BLM todayemploy about 40,000 people who manage446 million acres, at a cost of more than $7billion a year.If it were not for the Forest Reserve Act,

much, if not most, of this federally managedland and its associated management costswould now be in private or state ownership.Environmentalists accuse private owners ofdestroying these vast tracts of lands. That istotally unjustified. History has shown thatonce a resource is in educated private hands,management quality generally improvesbecause of self-interest and the need to pro-tect the resource for future income. The dete-rioration of forests and rangelands managedby the FS and BLM today (including massivefires) is a sad testament to what happens withpublic ownership subject to special-interestpolitical pressure.

Modern ConflictsFollowing the creation of the federal landagencies, there has been an increasinglyuneasy working relationship between citizenswho make a living from the public land andthe federal employees who manage it. Thatrelationship took a nosedive with the passageof the Federal Land Policy and ManagementAct (FLPMA) and the National Forest Man-agement Act (NFMA) in 1976.Both acts were pushed through Congress

with enormous pressure by environmentalgroups. The acts demanded endless planningto achieve idealistic environmental goals thatare not necessary or are based in pseudo-science. Since then, both agencies have hiredcollege grads steeped in environmentaldogma that nature knows best and man is acancer to the earth. (See RANGE, “TheGreening of America,” Fall 2006; “The Green-ing of America, Part II,” Winter 2007; and“The Greening of America, Part III,” Spring2007.) As a consequence, ranchers, timber

outfits and mining companies began to besingled out for deliberate destruction. (SeePart III, “The Hage Saga,” page 46.)Since the early 1970s, there has been a

well-orchestrated plan to implement “eco-spiritual” management of the environmentthrough coordination between federal land-based agencies like the FS and BLM, U.N.agencies, and environmental groups (akaNGOs or nongovernment organizations).

The plan was conceived by these groupsbehind the closed doors of the IUCN (Inter-national Union for the Conservation ofNature), a U.N.-affiliated organization dedi-cated to the religious concept of sustainabledevelopment.The IUCN also created the U.N.’s Agenda

21, a 40-chapter plan to massively transformthe world by implementing sustainabledevelopment (see “Agenda 21 Goes Country”page 25). If successful, it will affect everyaction of every human on this planet. The animosity between the federal agents

and ranchers, miners and timber companiesincreased exponentially when President Clin-ton’s Council on Sustainable Developmentimplemented the core tenets of Agenda 21.Its publication, “Sustainable America,” and itsnine subdocuments essentially changed themission statements of our federal agenciesfrom assisting citizens in using naturalresources to protecting those resources fromcitizens. This is not idle speculation. A 1994 BLM

internal working document on “ecosystemmanagement” brazenly declared this con-tempt of humanity: “All ecosystem manage-ment activities should consider humanbeings as a biological resource.” The reduc-tion of humanity to the level of a “biologicalresource” carries over into the majority of

federal and nearly all U.N. land-managementprograms. It has become so pervasive thatold-school personnel within the agencieshaving a traditional conservation/multiple-use ethic found their work environmentbecoming so hostile that many took earlyretirement in disgust.This shift in agency purpose had a dra-

matic impact on both agency personnel andthe private federal land users. Although it wasinitially subtle, the agencies began developingpolicies to maximize environmental protec-tion by minimizing resource use. The EPAcirculated an astonishing internal workingdocument on March 9, 1993, that laid out aneight-year ecosystem management plan toconform U.S. environmental regulationswith those of the United Nations. The EPAdocument included: “Natural resource andenvironmental agencies...should...develop ajoint strategy to help the United States fulfillits existing international obligations [e.g.,Convention on Biological Diversity, Agenda21]...the executive branch should direct fed-eral agencies to evaluate national policies...inlight of international policies and obligations,and to amend national policies to achieveinternational objectives.” (Italics added)It is shocking that federal high-ranking

bureaucrats arrogantly believe they have thepower to “amend national policies,” some-thing that the Constitution specifically givesto Congress. It is equally disturbing that thesebureaucrats believe their priority is to imple-ment the international agenda rather thanserve the people of the United States. Alsoincluded in this amazing EPA game plan is aperceived mandate to fulfill the “obligations”of the Convention on Biological Diversity,which President Clinton signed quickly buthad not yet been sent to the U.S. Senate forratification. Ironically, the following year thebiodiversity treaty would be defeated on theSenate floor by this author and three others.The feudal/manorial relationship always

resulted in tension and conflict between thefederal agencies and resource users. With thepassage of FLPMA and NFMA, resourceusers felt they had become the “enemy,” andwith the implementation of SustainableAmerica they found themselves literally in awar for their survival. The agencies imple-mented more and more restrictive regula-tions making it increasingly difficult to ekeout a living.To be fair, the federal agencies were also

under enormous pressure. Environmentalradicals have used FLPMA and NFMA as

Bill Clinton stopped real production in Utah.



weapons to force the agencies to destroy thelives of the families who have lived andworked on the land for more than a hundredyears. It is a modern-day range war. PatrickDorinson, writing for Fox News, expresses itwell: “This range war isn’t about water rightsor ranchers against homesteaders or bigranchers versus small ranchers like the John-son County War in Wyoming in 1892. It isbetween ranchers who have worked the landraising cattle and sheep for over a centuryand environmental outlaws whose statedgoal is driving them off the very land theyneed to survive and prosper. And this timethe weapon of choice is not a Colt .45 or aWinchester rifle, but something much moredeadly and destructive—the lawsuit.”The Equal Access to Justice Act of 1970

(EAJA) made it very easy and cheap for anaverage citizen to file an environmental law-suit. Critics call such lawsuits “postcard law-suits” because, for the cost of a stamp, the suitcan literally fit on a postcard. While such suitsare cheap for the filer, they are not for thegovernment or for permit holders using fed-eral lands. Hundreds of thousands of dollars,even millions of dollars, are needed to defendagainst the lawsuits.Since most of these cases are heard in the

West in the 9th District Court of Appeals, thecourt usually finds for the environmentalists.When that happens, environmental law firmslike the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund areawarded millions of dollars to cover the costof their attorney fees. Recent studies byCheyenne, Wyo., attorney Karen Budd-Falenfound that the western regions of the U.S.Forest Service alone paid out over $1 billionin EAJA funds between 2003 and 2005 toenvironmental attorneys. These environmen-tal organizations get paid by taxpayers fordestroying the lives and livelihoods of ruralcitizens.The combat-like treatment of resource

users was not all that was happening. In1996, President Clinton invoked the Antiqui-ties Act of 1906 to set aside 1.6 million acresof land in Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The actcalled for “the protection of objects of his-toric and scientific interest.” It has been usedby 14 out of 17 presidents since 1906 to cre-ate national monuments.There is no authority in the Antiquities

Act to set aside 1.6 million acres when no his-toric or scientific value exists. While Clinton’saction appears to be illegal, Utah did notchallenge it, so it stands. It was so successful

that Clinton used the same trick to createthree more national monuments just beforehe left office in 2000, containing another mil-lion acres in California and Arizona. Again,neither state challenged it.President Obama is now considering

three or more national monuments using theAntiquities Act containing over 13 millionacres in 11 western states. He also directedthe BLM in December 2010 to review 200million acres of its land for inclusion intowhat is called “wildlands.” (See “Where theWild Lands Are” by Dave Skinner, Summer2011.) The problem with national mon -uments and wildlands is that it is a backdoorway to lock up federal lands from use. Clin-ton’s designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument locked up the

largest clean coal deposit in the world. Itsdevelopment would have provided all thelow-cost clean coal we need for generationsand hundreds of permanent jobs.Instead, the world is now forced to go to

Indonesia, the second largest clean coaldeposit in the world. Owned by the Riadyfamily’s Lippo Group, the entire debacle washighly suspicious when it was revealed thatJames Riady contributed millions of dollarsto the Clinton campaign in 1992 and 1996.Although grazing is allowed on BLM-

controlled national monuments, it providesanother layer of restrictions to users. Whenunder national parks, grazing and mining aredenied. The same denial applies for any BLM

land that is eventually designated as wild-lands. This is critical, since huge portions ofthe largest oil and gas shale deposits in theworld can also be locked up. Many criticsbelieve that is exactly what President Obamawants to do in order to force Americans touse alternative fuels like wind and solar—even though alternative fuels are proving tobe huge failures around the world. As foreignoil supplies become more unstable and unre-liable, the designations could create majornational security problems.

What It Means To YouLest you think this is not an issue that affectsyou because you don’t live in the West,understand that much of the beef and lambyou eat originates on these rangelands. Manyof the two-by-fours you buy at the lumber-yard also originate in western forests. Theminerals used to make many of your every-day home products come from the West.Locked up oil shale denies us decades’ worthof cheap natural gas and gasoline, as well asmyriad products made from oil. Every envi-ronmental regulation on the books increasesthe cost of these products. Some of these reg-ulations are absolutely necessary; tragically,most are feel-good regulations that advancean ideology and do very little to actually pro-tect the environment. Some actually harmthe environment in the name of protecting it.The spotted owl controversy in the 1990s

caused the eventual closing of hundreds ofsawmills and the loss of tens of thousands ofjobs. Entire communities became ghosttowns. After the damage was done, it wasdetermined that the spotted owl was declin-ing not because of timber harvesting, butbecause the barred owl was more competitivefor the habitat and food the spotted owlrequired. The damage was done, however,and lives and communities were destroyed.After two sucker fish were declared

endangered, 200,000 acres of lush farmlandnear Klamath Falls, Ore., were suddenlywithout irrigation water, turning the fertileland into a dust bowl. Land value was slashedfrom over $1,000 an acre to less than $50.Many farmers had to sell for pennies on thedollar. Most alarming, the farmers had deed-ed water rights from President Rooseveltfrom 1940. Yet the sucker fish got the water.What the federal government giveth, the fed-eral government taketh away. The NationalAcademy of Sciences later found that therecovery plan for the sucker fish was based onfalse science. The controversy still rages.These are but a few examples of hun-

The spotted-owl controversy in the 1990s causedthe eventual closing of hundreds of sawmills andthe loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

© J

oe

Mc

Do

nal

D/T

oM

STa

ck

& aS

Soc

iaTe

S

Wi12 l.o 10.20.q_RanGe template.q 10/20/11 1:45 PM 5

dreds, maybe thousands, of abuses perpetrat-ed by the federal government. If the Endan-gered Species Act can trump a deededproperty right, no American is safe. In thenext few years, the Obama administrationhas announced it will accelerate the review ofmore than 250 species that are backlogged.The federal government has long been

chipping away at water rights historicallybelonging to private landowners or the indi-vidual states using methods other than theESA. New regulations are pending that willgive all water rights to the federal govern-ment, right up to the rain that gutters onyour house collect.On April 27, 2011, the EPA and U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) releaseddraft guidance for the federal Clean WaterAct. If implemented, analysts are concernedthat the new regulations will basically allowthe EPA and ACE to control any stream,pond, or even puddle they determine “has aphysical, chemical or biological connection”to any larger body of water, which includesprivately owned water sources.These new regulations are still being

developed but will give these agencies a freepass to arbitrarily develop and establish theirown rules. Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ)angrily denounced the new rules: “Under thisnew guidance, a bureaucrat at the EPA will beable to dictate radical new rules. This is justanother example of the [EPA’s] attempt tocircumvent Congress and develop rules andregulations that far exceed the authoritygranted to the agency under existing law.”Despite 170 members of Congress opposingthe new regulations, there is no indicationthe EPA or ACE will back down.There is a feeding frenzy to lock up not

only federal lands in the West, but all land useon private land according to the dictates ofradical environmentalists and ideologuespopulating our federal agencies. If the EPAand ACE implement these new rules, alongwith the EPA’s new greenhouse-gas rules(fortunately postponed on May 18, 2011),there is a real danger that our economy willbe strangled even more.The power being grabbed by these bloat-

ed bureaucracies must be stopped or rolledback. Way back. The best way of doing that isby voting candidates into office who haveexhibited a working understanding of consti-tutional principles. This nation cannot affordto reelect the progressives who have given usthe disastrous policies that have created the$14.7 trillion mess America is in today. ■

PART IIIThe Hage Saga:Attempted federal destruction of one Nevada ranch familyWayne and Jean Hage, along with their fivechildren, purchased the Pine Creek Ranch innorthern Nye County of central Nevada in1978. The ranch consists of 7,000 acres ofprivate fee patented land and some 1,100square miles of U.S. Forest Service (FS) andBureau of Land Manage ment (BLM) moun-tain range allotments used for seasonal graz-ing. Based on records dating back to the Actof 1866, the Hages own the water, ditches andall improvements made on their federal allot-ment. The agencies have traditionally con-trolled Hage’s grazing through grazingpermits.In the 12 years following the purchase,

the Hage family faced relentless harassmentfrom the federal agencies. The harassmentwas encouraged by several major environ-mental groups. Daughter Margaret HageByfield recounts the harassment: “The federalagents fenced off a major spring from ourcattle and piped our water into their rangerstation without our permission. In 1979, over

a period of 105 days, we received 70 visits and40 certified letters from the Forest Service cit-ing us with various violations, most of whichdid not exist or were created by the ForestService itself. I remember how one of theseaccused us of not maintaining our driftfences on Table Mountain. After two daysriding the fence [horseback], one of ourhands found the Forest Service flag marking

a single missing staple. We were also chargedwith trespass citations where they claimedour cattle were in locations not permitted.They dropped these charges once they real-ized we had eyewitnesses watch Forest Ser-vice employees move our cattle into theseareas, and then within hours notify us of thealleged offense.” (Italics added)This kind of systematic harassment rep-

resents the consequence of employing federalemployees who honesty believe that humanslike the Hages are a cancer on the earth. Theyharass the ranchers to create extreme frustra-tion and tension until they are out of busi-ness. Ranchers and miners report this kind ofharassment by federal employees all over theWest, and it is not exaggerated.The Hages filed three administrative

appeals during this period and won eachcase. “The problem was,” says Byfield, “noneof these cases stopped them from findingnew ways to harass us. By 1991 they had can-celled, suspended and burdened the grazingpermits to the point that we could no longereconomically use our allotments, and, there-fore, our ranch.”Even when the Hages realized they were

out of business in 1991, the federal gestapo

did not let up. That’s when the story goesfrom outrageous to the twilight zone. As thefamily was rounding up the last of their cattlefor sale, “the Forest Service brought in about30 armed riders and gathered every cow theycould find, which only amounted to 104 aftertwo earlier roundups. Half the riders werearmed with semiautomatic rifles and wearingbulletproof vests. Clearly unskilled at han-

The Hage family at the ranch in Monitor Valley in 1978, before the federal pressures and pain. From left,Margaret, Wayne, young Wayne, Jean, Laura, Ruth and Ramona.


© C

.J. H

adle

y

WI12 l.o 10.20.q_RaNGe template.q 10/20/11 1:45 PM Page 46

dling wild cattle, they ran a bull and cow todeath. They contained the cattle on our pri-vate meadows and when finished handed myfather a bill for their confiscation expense.”

Wayne Hage was out of business, but notintimidated. He filed for a taking of his waterand private property rights in the U.S. Courtof Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., onSept. 26, 1991. This was the first time a feder-al agency had been taken to that court on thegrazing and water right issue. Before this,injured property owners had gone to federaldistrict court, which only decides if the feder-al agents were following the administrativelaw rather than constitutional civil libertyissues. Suddenly the tables were turned.

“Hage v. United States is about more than

just property rights,” says Byfield. “It is alsoabout government accountability. The land-management agencies have gone virtuallyuntouched even though they violate lawsdaily. The employees know that before alandowner can file any substantive actionagainst the agency, they will most likely betransferred to another area and never beaffected by the outcome. However, one of theadvantages of filing in the Claims Court isthe ability to depose, under oath, the individ-uals involved in the action. And as we foundin our case, once this happens it becomes afeeding frenzy as bureaucrats scurry for coverpointing at someone lower on the foodchain, which for once was not us.”

The ability to depose witnesses under

oath proved the FS singled out Wayne Hageas an example to intimidate other ranchers.During his deposition, Jim Nelson, ToiyabeNational Forest supervisor, surprised every-one by admitting that Wayne Hage was tar-geted because he had written “Storm OverRangelands.” That book provides strong his-torical and legal evidence that ranchers have“valid private property rights…in federallands.” Since its publication in 1989, judgesand lawyers have used arguments from thebook in court cases. The Forest Service decid-ed Hage needed to be taught a lesson.

As with all people who challenge federalpower, Hage was demonized and punished.The government filed countersuits and lev-eled felony charges against him for cleaning

Federal Laws EncouragingRapid Western Migration and Privatization of Land, 1784-1891

Virginia’s Cession of Western Lands tothe United States, 1783. Set the example forall states to cede land in western holdings tothe federal government for immediate saleto pay war debts and deed land to officersand soldiers of the Revolutionary War inpayment for their services. Also establishedthe Equal Footing Doctrine whereby newstates will have equal rights as the old ones.

Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Createdthe Northwest Territories north of the OhioRiver and east of the Mississippi River. Cod-ified the Equal Footing Doctrine andrequired that federal land should be sold asquickly as possible to pay war debts. Provid-ed the basis for settling what became thestates surrounding the lake states. It provid-ed a legal foundation for all future states eastof the Rocky Mountains to enter the Union.

PreEmption Acts of 1830 and 1841.Allowed squatters on federal land preemp-tion rights to buy the land very cheaply. The1841 act limited the purchase to 160 acres.Provided the basis for settling the Kansasand Nebraska territories. Repealed in 1891.

Homestead Act of 1862. Federal govern-ment deeded 160 acres of free land tohomesteaders west of the Mississippi. Verypopular and created a land rush.

Act of 1866. Extremely important law,giving preemptive rights to water and min-

erals to ranchers and miners actively grazingor mining on federal land. Led to “splitestates” whereby the rancher or minerowned the water or minerals on federal landbeing actively grazed or mined. Water andmineral rights were kept by the federal gov-ernment on land that was inactive in 1866.This act is still in effect today.

Laws Reversing Former U.S.Policy to Privatize Federal Public Land & Allowing the Federal Government to KeepWestern Lands, 1891-2011

Forest Reserve Act of 1891. Ended thePreemption Act of 1841, thus denyingranchers and miners any hope of ever own-ing the federal land they were using.Allowed the president to declare forests andsome grasslands as reserves. Allowed vastlandholdings by the federal government (seemap) and denied states any rights to theland in opposition to the U.S. Constitutionand Equal Footing Doctrine. The radicalchange in purpose is the basis of the abuseby the federal government on land and leaseholders today.

Transfer Act of 1905. Created the U.S.Forest Service (FS) within the Departmentof Agriculture which manages 190 millionacres of federal forest and grasslands today.

Weeks Act of 1911. Also called theOrganic Act. Allowed the U.S. Forest Serviceto purchase and create new national forestsin eastern states.

Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909.Enlarged the acreage of a homestead to 320acres because 160 acres proved too little forthe arid West. The two homestead acts wereinstrumental in settling the land betweenthe Rocky Mountains and Mississippi River.

Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916.Increased the acreage to 640 acres toencourage more ranching homesteads westof the Rockies. Not extensively used because640 acres were still not enough to economi-cally raise livestock.

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. Created theU.S. Grazing Service in the Department ofthe Interior. That agency was combinedwith the old General Land Office in 1946 tocreate the Bureau of Land Management. Italso manages the FS (created in 1905) andestablished the structure for the tyrannicalfeudal/manorial forms of governance.

Federal Land Policy and ManagementAct and the National Forest ManagementAct, both in 1976. Created under heavypressure from environmentalists, thesealtruistic environmental laws changed therelationship between federal agencies andlandowners/miners to one of much greaterconflict.

Sustainable Communities, Early toMid-1990s. Not a law passed by Congress,but a radical shift in U.S. policy to adaptenvironmental regulations and manage-ment to the “eco-spiritual sustainable” poli-cies of the U.N.’s Agenda 21. This shift isdevastating resource users and communitieswhich depend on federal land to survive inthe West. ■

FEDERAL LAWS



out debris in his own ditches. The suits andcharges were made in Federal District Court tosidestep the Claims Court. The governmentwon on some charges, but those were later re-versed by the 9th Circuit Court on appeal. Thedeath in 1996 of Wayne’s wife Jean from astroke dulled the victory, however. Doctors at-tributed an earlier stroke and heart attack tothe stress created by the harassment. The federal government continued filingsummary judgment motions and failed eachtime. The trial on the Hage property rights fi-nally came before the Claims Court in October1998. Ten years after they had initially filed thesuit, the court finally issued its preliminary de-cisions on Jan. 29, 2002—in favor of the Hages.The court found in Hage v. United States thatproperty rights owned by Hage were preexist-ing to the permit system by the Act of 1866,and “the court is not of the opinion that lackof a grazing permit that prevents access to fed-eral lands can eliminate Plaintiff’s vested waterrights and ditch rights.” The Hages owned the water rights and alltheir improvements. This precedent is signifi-cant. Even though the government eliminatesa landowner’s grazing permit, it cannot pre-vent the landowner from pursuing a takingsclaim for the property the government haskept them from accessing. “This is a tremendous victory for Ameri-can landowners, and a staggering defeat for theenvironmentalists’ agenda,” says Byfield.“These organizations have understood for along time that control of the water in the Westbrings with it control of the land. They haverecognized that to enforce their agenda, andeliminate ranching and the natural-resourceindustries on the federal lands, they wouldhave to win control of the water. The govern-ment has been their tool in trying to gain thiscontrol. And now they have lost this pivotalbattle.” This is a serious blow to the Forest Serviceand BLM. They cannot control, let alone de-stroy, ranchers if they don’t control the waterrights. It would be eight more years before theClaims Court would award damages to theHages. Jean Hage’s death didn’t even stop thefeds from continuing their hellish attack on thefamily, using the same tactics as they had in thepast. Tragically, Wayne also died of cancer be-fore the Circuit Court rendered a decision ondamages. Even so, the case continued. On Aug. 2, 2010, 18 years after it started,Claims Court Judge Loren Smith awarded the

Hage estate $14,240,853.92 and ruled that thefederal agencies must pay all legal fees. Unfor-tunately, it is still not over. On Oct. 1, 2010, thefederal government appealed the decision.“The government had too much at stake to letthe Court of Claims decision stand,” says By-field. “The government has to win at any costand will likely take it to the Supreme Court.” How many families would put up with thisagony for more than 18 years (likely 25 yearsbefore it is truly over)? Not many. How manycould afford it? Very few. That’s what theseagencies depend on. They have all the time inthe world and dozens of attorneys with accessto unlimited taxpayer dollars to try any tacticto take private property away from owners.The Hages provided the determination. Hun-dreds of donors provided the funding. Waynewould be proud of the result so far. The root problem is still not addressed,however. The federal government has no con-stitutional right to own this land. It retainedthese public lands by using blackmail and ig-noring a hundred years of established law. It istime to give the land back to the states as prom-ised when they entered the Union. Utah is thefirst state so far to attempt this. Other statesmust be encouraged to do the same. ■

Dr. Coffman is president of EnvironmentalPerspectives Incorporated (epi-us.com) andCEO of Sovereignty International (sover-eignty.net) in Bangor, Maine. He has hadmore than 30 years of university teaching, re-search and consulting experience in forestryand environmental sciences. He produced thehighly praised DVD, “Global Warming orGlobal Governance” (warmingdvd.com). Hisnewest book, “Rescuing a Broken America”(rescuingamericabook.com), is receiving wideacclaim. He can be reached at 207-945-9878or [email protected]. RANGE storiesmentioned can be found in “Back Issues” onour website at www.rangemagazine.com.

special report our federal landlord

Documents