BLM starting up with Texas/Oklahoma

[Sisco]

I'm looking forward to seeing more articles come out about this. Most are spewing the same info and I question the origin of the 90000 acres. They mention the 116 mile river and land along it. If they are looking at the erosion/avulsion of the river like they are said to have used in the 1986 case...and if it's only along that 116 mile stretch, the strip of land would be 6400 feet wide for the full 116 miles in order to make 90000 acres. That's over a mile wide. Something doesn't add up.

Now before you take that to mean I don't believe the story, stop. All I'm looking for is better documentation of where the numbers are coming from. Those numbers are so crazy, there's no way in hell they could ever win that battle. 900, maybe 9000 along the river...I could see possible.

The hard part about natural boundaries is their ability to change. There is no perfect system to fixing a boundary when it is bound by a moving line. Like I mentioned before, if the movement is caused by a human act, the line will stay "fixed" at that point from then on. The idea of slow is supposed to be "slow and imperceptible". I find it hard to believe that the whole river has only moved one direction.

This all smells like some sort of distraction again. Get us all fired up watching the BLM stories. Wonder what the left hand is up to?

You are talking sense. The problem is, unless a person is involved in the case, the media cherry picks to make headlines. You just can't believe anything any more without corroboration. This is a complex issue and it is gonna take a lot of work to figure it out.

[greenmist]

Texas Attorney General sees it as 90,000 acres, along the 116 miles of the Red River. He's going the long route.

 

 

[blue109]

I'm ok with anything that keeps them in the news in a negative light.

[DNP]

Do you even look at the links you post? Nowhere in that video did he mention 90000 acres. All he did say is that they fired off a letter to inquire about what is going on. The reporter stated BLM denies it's even happening. The first major tip off I heard is there is a campaign going on, so he should definitely be out front on it. The numbers don't add up. That's a stop of land over a mile wide for 116 miles in length. I call BS on the numbers. There's one article floating around, and some campaigning Texas officials firing off letters. Where did it start? Was notice given to someone to move off land, a fence constructed? There seems to be no paper trail at all to this thing.

[DNP]

I will take my own advice and dig a little more.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/04/22/abbott-seeks-info-potential-seizure-texas-land/

It's still unclear what the hell they are after. It sounds like the greater chunk of the land must be parts not related to the river, but where? I still think there is nothing going to be done and the states will prevail on any action taken.

[shibiwan]

Lots of possible reasons. Fracking rights, water rights etc. There's been a big push for privatization of water rights.....

[greenmist]

I'm ok with anything that keeps them in the news in a negative light.

<laughs>

 

water, mineral, mining rights....and written into most mining rights are the provisos for fracking. 

 

IIRC the Red River is right over the southern region of the Ogalala aquifer?