Federal Newswire:
Margaret Byfield:
Well, we purchased a ranch in central Nevada between Tonopah and Austin. Very remote. Half of that was dirt road to get into town. The previous owners were selling it because the regulatory pressures were so great. We thought because we had a good track record, that we could get along with federal agencies. Nevada's 87% federally owned, which means you can't have any kind of an operation there without the federal government being in your business.
Federal Newswire:
Nye County where you lived is the size of Vermont and New Hampshire combined, and 93% of the land is owned by the federal government, correct?
Margaret Byfield:
You defined the problem. In that area, we ran on 1,100 square miles. 7,000 of that was private-deeded land. But, typical of the rancher in the West, we owned the water.
Now, the conflict between the federal agencies and us was, they wanted the water. The only way they could get it was to clear us off the land, so they did it through their regulatory powers.
That's what people don't really understand about the federal government, is how much power the administrative state has over the people.
Thomas Paine, [who] wrote Common Sense, said that one of the arguments for America's independence was because the English constitution was so convoluted that no ordinary citizen could ever get justice.
We are there. We are there in spades.
Federal Newswire:
This was not strictly what they call a regulatory taking, or was it?
Margaret Byfield:
It was regulatory and physical, because they actually ended up confiscating some of our cattle.
Let me give you an example of some of the pressures that we were under.
Our first year there, the US Forest Service–during a 105-day grazing season–served us with 70 visits, and 40 certified violations claiming things we were doing to violate the terms of our grazing permit.
In 105 days, we didn't have time to make that many mistakes. But the problem with an administrative agency is when they make that claim... it is subjective.
In other words, it's a BLM or Forest Service employee who decides, "I'm going to make these people's lives miserable." They have the regulatory power to do it.
Let me give you an example of one of these claims: They said we weren't maintaining our drift fences on Table Mountain.
Table Mountain is 12,000 feet elevation. There are only three trails up. It's wilderness. It takes a day to ride up, a day to ride the fence, and a day to come back down. Of course, we had to send a man up there to ride the fence and find the problem. He comes down three days later, hands Dad a blue flag where they had marked on the fence where the problem was.
Dad said, "What was the problem?" And they said, "Well, it was missing one staple." In 25 miles of fence, and that was our violation.
Federal Newswire:
If they want to get you for something, they're going to get you for something. Is that what happened to your parents?
Margaret Byfield:
Yes. We went through three administrative appeals. We won them all. Finally, in 1991, Mom and Dad said, "Look, we're not going to fight it this way. We're never going to win," so we ended up filing the first federal land grazing takings case in America.
What they were trying to accomplish was to find out ‘what do we own?’ What do we own on these federal lands? Do we own the water right? Do we own the right to graze? Do we own the ditch right aways? Do we own the range improvements? That's what they were seeking.
We actually won it at the US Claims Court. We were rewarded $14.4 million. It was physical and regulatory taking. Four months after we filed our case, the Forest Service brought criminal charges against my Dad.
Federal Newswire:
What were the charges?
Margaret Byfield:
They claimed he had removed valuable timber from the national forest.
But what he had done two years prior was clean our ditch right-aways, which we had the right to do, because we owned them.
Two felony charges that they laid on him. He was under house arrest for six months. This will tell you how nonsensical it was. But the Ninth Circuit unanimously overturned that conviction, three to zero. That's how bad it was.
Federal Newswire:
When was this?
Margaret Byfield:
We bought the ranch when I was 10, so that was 1978.
Federal Newswire:
So you understand this issue at a personal level?
Margaret Byfield:
Yes. I saw the injustice. I saw how ridiculous it was, the things that they were trying to make us do. You could also see what the purpose was. It was to run the landowner off that land, because they wanted the property without having to pay for it.
Federal Newswire:
Does it become an exercise in just wearing someone down?
Margaret Byfield:
Yeah, it does. And just God bless our attorneys, because they hung with us through it all, and really never were paid what they should have [been paid].
We won the takings case, but then when we got to the DC circuit, the DC circuit punted, and they decided against our case based on standing and ripeness. We never got to the property rights issues.
Federal Newswire:
What happened in the end?
Margaret Byfield:
Well, in the end, we lost it all.
We lost the case, and then the ranch was foreclosed on, which it had to be because there were a lot of expenses. We just had to walk away from all of it.
But my parents died before any of this was resolved, so they didn't get to see the finish. Which actually was probably a good thing.
This isn't a case where we went out and we got an attorney who had no experience. We had takings attorneys, and water attorneys on this case. We had a phenomenal case. We had a great set of facts, but it's so hard to beat the government.
Federal Newswire:
Can you explain the Waters of the United States issue?
Margaret Byfield:
Well, in the Obama years, he expanded the definition of Waters of the US, so it was basically regulating a mud hole.
Trump brought that back, made it reasonable. And [now] Biden is back. They've made it very unclear as to what applies now.
At least now–and as happened in the Obama years–the states have been really good at defending their state water rights. They have stepped in, so I think we now have 28 states where the new rule doesn't apply. In their cases, they have an injunction against the rule.
I'm really proud of the states on this, because they have stood up and they've really defended this. I think that will be well litigated.
Federal Newswire:
What do people not understand about the Endangered Species Act?
Margaret Byfield:
One of the things we've seen that they are doing differently in the Biden administration is they are listing more species that are ecosystem-wide. Basically, “cover more land, regulate more property.”
Instead of the little snail that's in one mile area of the river, they're now focusing on the lesser prairie chicken, which covers, I think, five states. They're going big-species.
The other key thing to understand that the Biden administration is doing, although it's been going on for a while, is they're listing these species based on the impact of climate change.
If you take their arguments, every species should be listed on the endangered list. Because if you believe climate change is impacting them, it's going to impact every species. This also means none of the species will ever be de-listed.
They have weaponized the ESA. We've been watching this.
For 30 years, they’ve used it against the landowner. It's a punitive law. The people who take care of their land that have habitat for these species are the ones who are being penalized financially, by not being able to use their land. And if by chance in their activities they actually harm a species, then it's a felony against them.
Particularly in the Biden administration, they understand it is a weapon that they can use to control more property, and they're using it.
Federal Newswire:
Can you talk about the success your organization had with the Trans-Texas Corridor and what it was?
Margaret Byfield:
This is a corridor that was advanced by then-Texas Governor Perry. It was a mile-wide corridor that was going to go through Texas–half a million acres of private land for this corridor. The Trans-Texas Corridor was the first link in the NAFTA superhighway, if you remember that.
There were about five corridors, and this Trans-Texas Corridor was going to be the first leg. What this did was, it connected the Chinese-owned ports in Mexico all the way through America… and all the way up to Canada. It was to increase trade in America.
We were very concerned because obviously the property rights problems with it. But also because we knew the goods from China were going to be offloaded in their own ports in Mexico, and never inspected until they were in the middle of our country. That was very concerning even back then.
Federal Newswire:
Is there a national security angle here that should worry us since you could load up a truck in Mexico, in a Chinese-owned port with Chinese-owned goods, and have it transported all the way to Kansas City before it's checked?
Margaret Byfield:
Yeah, definitely. Unfortunately, or fortunately, this road was going to go a quarter of a mile from our home. Which meant we had to get involved. Sometimes God has a hand in putting people where he wants them.
We use something in the West to help fight the federal agencies from taking property and from regulating the land to where we can't use it. It's a process called “coordination,” where the federal agencies are actually required to coordinate with local governments.
They don't ever do it unless the counties require them to do that. Now, we also have a statute very similar in Texas that requires the state agencies to do that.
What we did on the Trans-Texas corridor was organize the right groups to require coordination with the Texas Department of Transportation.
We also looked at the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and we pointed out all the flaws. So NEPA, which is the environmentalists’ tool to shut us down, we use it against them. We used it against them in the Trans-Texas Corridor, and we pointed out all of the failings of the things that they weren't considering under that NEPA. We fought that for 27 months.
We brought in TXDoT and CEQ. EPA actually ended up being a friend for us in that issue. Fish and Wildlife Service, we brought them all in to coordinate on that. Then we made our case and showed their failings.
The Federal Highway Administration issued a no-build order on that. Because it failed the environmental clearance, which is what we raised.
Federal Newswire:
Can you explain this 30x30 issue?
Margaret Byfield:
That's what the environmentalists labeled it. We started seeing articles come out on it during the election. It's what the environmentalists were talking about. Of course, after studying them for 30 years and watching them, fighting them, we knew that 30x30 was going to be a big issue for this administration.
We dug into it, learned about it, understood it. And so when it was launched through the Climate Crisis Executive Order on January 27, 2021, days into the new administration, there it was. [Inside the] 57-page executive order were two paragraphs talking about the need to conserve at least 30% of America's land by 2030.
Federal Newswire:
They want to “conserve” or “control” more private land?
Margaret Byfield:
Right. First off, they say, "Conserve," but what they mean is permanently protect.
The first thing you have to understand is this is not an American agenda. This is an international agenda, and they are implementing this in other nations. They're much further ahead [abroad] than they are in America.
The reason is because in America the people own the land still, at least 60% of the land. Between federal, state and local, government owns about 40% of America right now. The federal government, we think... because we really don't know and they don't know... we think they own about 27% of America's land.
When they first launched 30x30, they said in a Department of Interior fact sheet that 12% of America's land is permanently protected. That 12% comes from the USGS gap analysis. Those lands are national parks, wilderness, and private lands with conservation easements in perpetuity.
Federal Newswire:
Is this about converting the lands that are being used for resource extraction and production into permanent protection or is it a little bit different than that?
Margaret Byfield:
Yeah. One of the bases for 30x30 is, they make this grand claim that a million species are going to go extinct in the coming decade if we don't do this. It's for habitat, so that's the other thing that they're after.
That's why they're after private lands, because your best lands in America are the ones that are privately owned, and privately cared for. The landowner lives on the land, benefits from the land, [and] has to make sure that land produces well.
Federal Newswire:
Can you explain the concept of the tragedy of the commons and the economic precept in terms of property rights and land preservation?
Margaret Byfield:
The way that I like to explain this is, if you have 100,000 acres owned by 40 people, and one landowner does something that is wrong with the land–doesn't take care of it well–that affects one little part of that land. If you have 100,000 acres owned and controlled by one entity that makes a mistake, or bad policy decisions, it destroys all that land.
Federal Newswire:
Is this how you get massive forest fires that destroy everything?
Margaret Byfield:
That's not really tragedy of the commons, but that is the model for 30x30. That is what they want. They want to extinguish the private landowner. That is putting the hands of our lands into a scenario that is going to destroy everything that they say that they're trying to keep.
Federal Newswire:
It's about land control above all else?
Margaret Byfield:
Yes. This is not about conservation, it's about control. That's what 30x30 is about. Think about what Karl Marx said. How did he define socialism? "Abolition of private property."
They understand that. The people really pushing this agenda don't believe in property rights. They don't believe people should own anything. They also think nature should have equal rights to people. It's a very radical perspective, but it is what's driving the 30x30 agenda.
Federal Newswire:
What happens when you don’t cut timber or allow cattle to graze on these lands?
Margaret Byfield:
Yeah, it's really misinformed. They have no body of reference. You take a private landowner, for instance, how do they manage their land? Let's say an invasive weed starts growing up in one of their creeks. Well, they're going to go out there, and they're going to take a shovel, and they're going to get rid of it.
When the government owns it, then you have to get a permit, and that's going to take 18 months. You might have to do an environmental assessment to make sure that you can actually go out there and take care of that invasive weed.
By the time you are permitted to go out there and solve the problem two years down the road, now you need a backhoe, and you've got to dig up a whole bunch of land in order to take care of it.
That's what we're talking about, that's the kind of management that they are seeking.
Federal Newswire:
Will 30x30 impact small towns that are surrounded by federal property?
Margaret Byfield:
That is absolutely the goal. By getting rid of the productive use of these lands, they get rid of the communities, and they force everybody into cities, and they allow these areas to be cared for in their natural condition, which means no management, which is not good conservation. But, it's really not about that. My Dad..one of the things he said early on in our battle was, "It's not about whether or not we're going to use the resources, it's about who is going to use the resources."
If you want to just break it down to the bottom line, it's about clearing the title. Now to get there, they're telling people this is just about conservation and this is voluntary, it's locally driven.
Federal Newswire:
Does clear title mean that the other owners are out, that the controlling entity can then turn around and dispose of the property without any encumbrances?
Margaret Byfield:
Either dispose or determine who gets to use it. Pick the winners or losers. Because when you have a property right, you have a right to be out there. They've got to get rid of that so they can decide, "Is it going to be China that's going to mine it, is it going to be Spain that's going to have the timber contract? Who's going to be able to do that?"
Federal Newswire:
Does this put us in dangerous constitutional territory?
Margaret Byfield:
Yeah. We need to get back to what our founders understood. Because our founders…they did not set up the federal government to own land. They were just to dispose of the land.
When Jefferson made the Louisiana purchase, which was about 540 million acres, what did they do? They opened that up to settlement.
Depending on which Homestead Act was operating in the different states, you could go out, and you could stake 120 acres or 640 acres. That was your homestead. That is what built the middle class in America.
A lot of people think, "Well, we protect our constitutional right because we have the Bill of Rights." Or, "We protect them because we have freedom of speech." No, we protect all those things because the people own the land.
We own the natural resource wealth of this nation. When we own a piece of land, that means we can grow our own food, we can make our own income, we can help make a good local economy strong. Which then makes a national economy strong.
We control the wealth of the nation, because the people have it. Which means we can limit our government and we get to enjoy the individual liberties. That is what protects the constitution and all of those rights.
Federal Newswire:
How do citizens get involved in the 30x30 issue?
Margaret Byfield:
We are going to have another summit this year, September 21st through the 23rd in Dallas, Texas.
Last year, [Nebraska] Governor Ricketts, who's now Senator Ricketts, was our host. We had it in Lincoln, Nebraska. It was a great summit. People from 22 states attended. It includes a lot of policy makers.
We're expanding it to two days. That's going to be a good opportunity to learn what's going on with 30x30, and how to fight it.
The battle is being waged on the ground, out in the grassroots in every county across America. This is not an authorized program. There's no congressional approval. It's being done by the Biden administration without any kind of authorization.
What they've done is, they've taken existing programs like ESA and the Federal Land Policy Management Act, where they control so much of the federal lands, and they're using those authorities to get to their 30x30 target. Where they can, they restrict land here, restrict land there.
[They are] doing different things; giving money and grants for conservation easements to get the easements on private lands, which is really important to get to the 30x30 goal.
We have over 160 counties, and I know it's higher than that, I just haven't counted recently, that have passed resolutions to oppose 30x30.
That was an important statement for counties to make because the Biden administration keeps telling everybody that these are locally-led, voluntary conservation programs. And they are not. This is being thrust on these little communities.
Federal Newswire:
How do folks find out more about your work?
Margaret Byfield:
Our website is AmericanStewards.us. That's a good place to go to start learning about us, sign up for our newsletter.
We do a Liberty Matters new service every two weeks. That's really where we keep people updated on what's going on in the property rights movement, and 30x30 specifically. We are helping where it's cropping up in different states, and we do state alerts.
Make sure you put in your state so we can contact you when those things come up. That's a good way to get involved and get plugged into what we're doing.
Property rights are really the key to our freedom in America.
What I'm hoping is that we're going to start seeing a revival of understanding of how important that is. Today our children are not being taught about property rights. They're not being taught American history, so we have to do it.
