Category Archives: water rights

Selling What Isn’t Theirs

By Anna Von Reitz

On top of all the other odd news I am in receipt of, there are people going around trying to sell (with a straight face) — “Water Districts”.
They think that because they bought the “Water District” from some one or another of the bankrupt levels of a fraudulently operated governmental services corporation that they now own the water in say, part of California. Or Nebraska. Or North Dakota.
And having been honestly deluded themselves, they are now wandering around trying to sell Water Districts to investors.
Trying to sell a Water District is like trying to sell The Big Rock Candy Mountain. Or Dog Patch, USA. Or any other totally made-up mental construct.
A “Water District” doesn’t actually exist.
It’s only an “administrative service area” created by a bankrupt corporation and has nothing whatsoever to do with actual water, which belongs absolutely and irrevocably to the people of the actual state.
Which brings up the fact that none of the wildlife refuges, ranges, game management areas, parks, monuments, or other “federal lands” in the western states and elsewhere are federal lands in fact. They are areas under “federal management”.
Read that: these corporations have had the job held in trust to manage— take care of and protect— our lands. They are filling in the function of the King’s Gamekeepers, and the people of each actual state are the “kings” in this country.
All the “federal government” has or has ever had is a “proprietary interest”— a caretaker’s interest.
That is what is so absurd and wrong-headed about the STATE OF OREGON or STATE OF NEVADA bringing suit against the Hammonds or the Bundys or any other American.
The Bundys own Nevada. They are the landlords.
So, their state, Nevada, contracts for caretaking services from the State of Nevada and the State of Nevada contracts for caretaking services from the STATE OF NEVADA, and somehow in the mix, the STATE OF NEVADA thinks it has a mandate allowing it to protect the State of Nevada against its employers—- say what?
Read that—- both the State of Nevada and the STATE OF NEVADA are acting against the Nevada State and people, under the pretense of working for them. They are attacking their employers because they don’t know who they work for.
It’s like the landlord getting shot by a lackey he hired to guard his property.
Go figure. We’ve got crooks working for us. Or fools. Or both.
This is only made possible via the mammoth administrative fraud we have detailed —- all based on identity theft and merely “presumed” political statuses and deliberately falsified public records.
We bet that the moment that the Bundys accept the Oath of Office of Ms. Navarro and give her Notice of Liability and Harm and demand civilian due process—-not “martial” law due process— she will go flying off that bench like a squirrel caught in church during the Hallelujah Chorus.
Turns out, not only can you not own or control our water by buying a “management service area” defined by a defunct federal caretaking agency franchise, you can’t own or control us by buying a state of state, either.
Buyers beware.
These guys rooked us out of quadrillions of dollars and set us up to take the blame for all their bad behavior. They won’t blink as they try to sell you made up names and hokum as assets.
Thought for the day—- don’t take any wooden nickels, and pass on the “water districts”, too.

See this article and over 700 others on Anna’s website
 To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.

Montana committing suicide if legislature passes water compact!

Sent at the request of author, Elaine Willman for immediate distribution.  Essential to read prior to SB262 going to the House for voting.  This provides “teeth and backbone” in our presentations.   cr
MONTANA in the 70’s: When the State Stood Tall for Its People and Its Lands vs. the  Self-Inflicted Injury of the Proposed CSKT Compact.
By Elaine Willman,
Author of Going to Pieces
There was a time when the Montana legislature was at the forefront of environmental policy, state sovereign authority and diligent protection of the rights of Montana citizens.  Look at this interesting time line of events from 1970 through 1981 when Montana legislators were taking excellent care of their State and citizens:
1970  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This federal mandate requires assessment and analysis for all significant projects affecting the environment, across the country.
1971  Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). Farsighted legislators passed, 99-0, a state mandate, MEPA,  requiring assessment and analysis for all significant projects affecting the environment. MEPA stepped up the “spirit” and strength of the federal act, NEPA, and significantly expanded the public right to participate in government decisions. Perhaps now we better understand why both of these environmental mandates have been avoided at all costs. The proposed CSKT Compact is in direct violation of NEPA, MEPA, and the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, requiring due process and a remedy for grievances against government decisions. MEPA was preparatory to the development of a new Constitution for the State of Montana, adopted in 1973.
1973 Montana State Constitution. Legislators adopted a Constitution that incorporated the intent of MEPA into Article IX of the new Constitution, and additionally provided Montanans with 35 enumerated rights in Article II, including popular sovereignty, the right of participation,  and the right of self-government.
1975  Indian Education and Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-638) provided tribes with the right to self-government and management of their own federal funds through contracted services.  Unfortunately, many tribes ignored the critical word prefix self in self-determination and took actions toward  asserting tribal government authorities to tax and govern non-tribal persons and properties.
1981  Montana v. U.S. 450 U.S. 544.  In 1973 the Crow Tribe attempted to assert its jurisdictional authority over non-tribal lands and persons. The State of Montana argued valiantly for many years to protect Montana citizens, and obtained the ruling in Montana v. U.S. that continues to be a landmark Supreme Court case protecting citizens in Montana and across the country from tribal governance over non tribal persons and lands.
Throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s the Montana governors and state legislators were diligently protecting state sovereign authority, state natural resources and the individual rights of Montanans. So what happened between 1981 and 2015? 
The emerging coalition of a powerful triumvirate: 1) federal Executive branch over-reaching; 2) tribal government political influence and tribal government over-reaching; 3) coalitions of environmental extremists; the trendy aboriginal and United Nations movement, and the globalists promoting Agenda 21. All of these folks are on the same page, singing from the same hymnal and absolutely dedicated to the demise of State sovereignty, citizen and property rights. This cumulative political and financial power has had oppressive and intimidating success among elected officials at every level of state government and academia in Montana. The 2015 Montana State Legislature does not remotely resemble the Montana Legislature of the 1970s, when the State was acting like a State and damn proud of it.
What will be the end result of the CSKT Compact if Montana’s legislators breathe life into this legislative Beast?  Look again at the policies and laws noted in the time line above.  The CSKT Compact will render irrelevant the U.S. Constitution, the Montana Constitution, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Montana Environmental Policy Act, and this is just openers. Current state legislators passing the Compact will ensure their ongoing and future irrelevancy as elected officials of a state intentionally enfeebled by the CSKT Compact. Oaths of office and the Pledge of Allegiance are now just meaningless, irrelevant rituals. One of the finest State Constitutions in the country, Montana’s 1973 Constitution becomes toilet paper.
Another irony:  Passage of the Compact will also overturn hard-fought protections from tribal governance over non-members in 1981 Supreme Court case of Montana v. U.S. for Montana citizens; however,  the rest of the country will remain protected by this Landmark ruling of the High Court because the ruling protects citizens from tribal governance absent their individual consent.  The Compact legislatively removes individual citizen consent for some 350,000 Montana citizens in 11 counties that will be subject to tribal government control of their water, their water rates, and water-dependent land use.
The Compact is not just about water. It is now about the Rule of Law as well. Our federal and state Constitutions matter, or they don’t. Our federal and state environmental mandates matter, or they don’t. Supreme Court rulings matter or they don’t. Exactly what does matter to current legislators and an entire cadre of well-paid Montana state attorneys? It certainly does not seem to be to uphold the Rule of Law in the State of Montana. The once youthful and muscle-bound State of Montana is voluntarily surrendering its Statehood to Assisted Living in perpetuity, to be governed by tribes, the federal government and International organizations intent on destroying State authorities, property rights and the rights of the Popular Sovereignty of each and every citizen. Montana is already buckling at the knees; the proposed CSKT Compact begins the process of turning off the State’s life support as a State. The battle then goes to all of the other Western States.
One more sad irony: There is within the rule of law the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. This is a legal doctrine wherein a State within its sovereign capacity may provide protection, and may even sue on behalf of, citizens unable to care for themselves. The proposed Compact will render tribal and non-tribal landowners, 11 counties and their municipalities, and some 350,000 Montanans needing water for the homes and businesses, hard pressed to pay high water rates, or take care of themselves in the future. Do you suppose your current or future Governors and State Legislator will step in to help them?
A victorious CSKT Compact opens the door for the federal government, tribal governments and globalists to fundamentally transform Montana to something unlike the proud State that existed in the 1970s. Montana legislators passing this Compact may just as well turn off the lights in the Helena Capitol because the CSKT Compact is a fatal, self-inflicted injury to State sovereignty and all of Montana’s waters. Legislators voting for the Proposed CSKT Compact are assuring their future as useful idiots to federal, tribal and international influence.
Elaine D. Willman, MPA
Author, Going to Pieces . . .the dismantling of the United States of America
Work:  920-615-2882

Cell:  509-949-8055

Water right fight goes national in the news

It’s not just a fight about water rights in Montana!

Montana is in a fight for it’s life and the freedom of private property rights including water rights that will set the precedent for the whole nation in coming months and years.

Montanans fight to the last drop over precious water rights!
This water rights fight has been picked up by national news now. They realize that this will set a precedent for the whole country.
The feds are using the tribes as a vehicle to take over the water and land in all the western states.
Read this article:

CSKT Water Compact Throws Thousands of Montanans “under the bus”

This letter by the President of the Montana Senate, Senator Debby Barrett, needs to be sent out to everyone in Montana, who need to send it to each and every legislator From their area.  SEND THIS OUT UNTIL YOUR FINGERS BLEED.
Paul Stramer

Note:  our sincerest thanks to Senator Debby Barrett President of the Montana Senate, for this OpEd piece concerning the water compact.  It has gone out to newspapers state wide.  It is wonderful to know that our voices have not gone unheard.  Share this with everyone you know!!!!!!!!!!
CSKT Water Compact throws thousands of Montanans “under the bus”
By: Senator Debby Barrett
As a rancher with deep roots on a family place in southwest Montana, I know something about the importance of history—and water rights.  I also understand negotiation and compromise.  That’s why I have served on the state’s Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission since 2011 and voted for some compacts. However, during my time on the reserved water rights commission, I’ve voted “no” to provisions within this compact on seven occasions.  Here is why I will not support the proposed CSKT Compact.
The Legislature’s role is to examine a proposed compact and decide whether or not to enact it into Montana law.  The Legislature’s responsibility and authority includes amending proposals if necessary, and approving all state costs associated with a compact such as this one. (The price tag of the state’s share on the CSKT compact is $55 million total).  But at an informational meeting held by proponents, the Legislature was warned that it cannot amend the proposal.  It’s a “take it or leave it” deal.
That insult to the constitutional role of the Legislature is enough for me to want to leave it. Other proposed compacts have not been thrust on us, the Legislature, with such arrogance and disrespect for Legislators.  But there are other good reasons, too.
The 2013 Legislature refused to ratify the last CSKT Water Right Compact, for many good reasons concerning its legality and equal treatment of this state’s citizens, both on and off the reservation.  In fact, the primary proponents of the Compact this time concede that the previous version was very flawed and needed to be rejected.
Now, it has been re-introduced, but not much changed or improved.  While one portion of it was somewhat re-negotiated during the interim between the 2013 and the 2015 Legislative Sessions, the result did not improve that portion enough to protect local individual water users, both tribal members and nonmembers, and failed completely to address legal and policy shortcomings, on and off reservation, in the original proposal.
Off the Flathead reservation, these failures include more than a dozen permanent surrenders of the Legislature’s authority over water in Montana, allowing the CSKT to choose whether to obey legislative enactments or not and giving them complete immunity from compliance with important aspects of Montana water and environmental law, including the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).  It also requires the State to give partial ownership of some of its water rights and its contracts for water to the CSKT and to manage those assets for the Tribes’ benefit, rather than all citizens of the State.  In essence, this proposed Compact requires the State to limit its legal authority off the reservation by sharing it with the CSKT–permanently.
On reservation, it gives the CSKT the water right to 110,000 acres of irrigated land owned by individuals, whose irrigation districts have filed on that same water right.  It also reduces irrigation water to many if not all these irrigators, who are tribal members and nonmembers, and it establishes a unique water administration code and governing body, with the State of Montana again compromising its constitutional authority over water rights.
I recognize there are powerful supporters of SB 262, including some elected officials who managed to negotiate changes to the proposals, protecting their constituents at home.  Having heard the evidence as a member of the Compact Commission, I believe the off-reservation in stream flow water rights the Compact gives are not scientifically based or well-grounded in law or history.  But I also recognize that the CSKT and their public relations people have artfully threatened much of the state with water right filings for in stream flows if the Legislature doesn’t simply accept this “take it or leave it” deal.
As a rancher and a Senator who values little ahead of private property rights, I think I know when to call a bluff, and when to stand my ground no matter what.  This is such a time.  Not all values and principles should be compromised away.  I do not believe my fellow ranchers and farmers really want to turn their backs on the thousands of Montanans whose property, including water rights, will be devastated by this proposal.
The proposed CSKT compact is the perfect example of overreaching in negotiations, causing their failure.  The CSKT and federal government on their behalf demanded too much, and the Compact Commission negotiators surrendered too much.  As a state we tried for years to negotiate a deal good for all.  In this compact alone, that has proven to be impossible.  So, it’s time to recognize that this compact is not going to work, and we must prepare to protect the State’s rights, interests,  and sovereignty.  This compact is not just poor policy, sacrificing the rights of thousands of Montanans to protect the rest of the state is the worst policy possible.
Senator Debby Barrett, R-Dillon, is an eight-term lawmaker representing Senate District 36 in the Montana Legislature.  She serves as Senate President for the 64th legislative session.

And here is a message for Governor Bullock and the Montana Legislators who will be voting on this compact.

Published on Feb 7, 2015
Elaine Willman, author of ‘Going to Pieces: The Dismantling of the United States of America’ says the CSKT Water Compact is like ObamaCare over water in Montana. We must protect Montana’s water for ALL Montanans.

STOP the CSKT Water Compact – Full Micro-Documentary

Published on Feb 1, 2015

Here is the full Mini-Documentary on the CSKT Water Compact Thanks to Purple Planet.Com for the background audio.

You are NOT being told the truth about this compact by the media. There is a multi-million dollar propaganda campaign being waged by the people who want to steal your water!


This is nothing less than an outright theft under the color of law.

Cliven Bundy Case Facts – Cliven Bundy is right exactly right

In short, Cliven, by refusing to sign any grazing agreement, RETAINED his families rights accumulated over decades, while all the other ranchers gave away those accumulated rights in trade for a grazing permit.

For those still confused by the media —–    

Cliven Bundy is right exactly right:

Mr. Cliven Bundy’s  ranch contains split-estate property rights.  Which include 1.) water rights  2.) rights of way, 3) range improvements, 4) grazing value/forage crops 5.)  patented homestead or mining claims used as headquarters or shipping points.  Each one of these rights is a real property right; that cannot be taken without due process and just compensation.  These rights were developed from prior Spanish/Mexican agricultural water law. (Hutichins 1971, Hage 1989)
To properly phrase
Mr. Bundy’s  Range Rights and vested water rights are protected by local law, custom, and decisions of the court as recognized, sanctioned and confirmed by Congress in Revised Statute 2339, commonly known as the Act of 1866.  These range rights/ vested water rights are protected by 18 federal statutes starting with the Act of 1866 and ending with the National Forest Management Act NFMA of October 22, 1976.
As time went by the State began to appropriate the vested water rights and protect these range rights. “At the time that the Forest Service began to adjudicate allotments, issue grazing permits, and charge grazing fees in National Forests it was held by the U.S. Supreme Court that state laws for the general appropriation of water could not be over ridden by Congress in exercising its power to make rules and regulations respecting disposal of the public lands (Kansas v. Colorado 1907, California v. United States 1978 and cases cited therein).  (McIntosh and Fowler, pg 21)
It is common knowledge throughout the West that ranches on federal rangelands have been treated as private property interests in the open real estate market for more than a hundred years (Griffith v. Godey 1885, Wilson v. Everett 1891, Grayson v. Lynch 1896,  Ward v. Sherman 1904).  (McIntosh and Fowler, pg8)
Even the Internal Revenue Service recognizes that federal land grazing allotments used as part of a split-estate ranch are inheritable, taxable property estates ( Shufflebarger v. Commissioner 1955, Vaugham v. Commissioner 1961, Rudolph Inv. v. Commissioner 1972, Estate of O’ Connell v. Commissioner 1978, Ueker v. Commissioner 1983.)  (McIntosh and Fowler pg 8)
According to the Forest Service Organic Act 1897 and the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 “the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit… shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.”  (McIntosh and Fowler, pg 29)
In reference to Section 4 Taylor Grazing Act
“Likewise, the federal statutes pertaining to grazing permits or cooperative agreements, state that those instruments are optional, and discretionary programs.  Numerous court decisions have held that permits are revocable and can be canceled at any time (apparently by either party, prior to development of the authorized improvement).  Practically, all statutes specifically referring to grazing permits state that the issuance of such agreements grants no right, title, or interest in or to the underlying lands.”   ( McIntosh and Fowler pg 31)
Recent decisions by the United States Court of Federal claims ( Hage v. United States, 1996 and 2002), determined that if the requirement to obtain a grazing permit is so burdensome as to deprive a rancher of his property, then he could not be required to obtain the permit.  This reasoning is in complete harmony with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Curtin v. Benson, (1911) ( McIntosh and Fowler pg 29)
I would like to credit DRAFT RITF REPORT no. 56  Property Rights on Western Ranches: Federal Range land Policy and a Model for Valuation by Dr. McIntosh and Dr. Fowler.  
The Nevada engineer issued this report regarding the estate of Wayne E. Hage vs the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management  pg 24 and pg 25 “However, he further recognized that existing water rights that pre-date any water rights that may be claimed pursuant to the implied reservation of rights doctrine are superior to any reserved rights of the federal government.”
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998