Bunkerville, the New Bunker Hill: The Back Story


clvnbndy2The Rules:

1. Follow the Money

2. Follow the Water

3. Follow the Political Incest







The first thing I want to bring to the table is how the Federal Government owns 26% of all the land in the U.S. Most of it is in 12 western states. Here is how it came to be in Nevada, through the original Constitution. Could it be that Nevada became a state in the middle of the Civil War, or maybe because it was rich in silver and gold? After all, it is the “Battle Born State” and all unincorporated land defaulted back to the Feds.


Nevada Constitution March 21, 1864

ORDINANCE- Third, That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.

      [Amended in 1956. Proposed and passed by the 1953 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1955 legislature; approved and ratified by the people at the 1956 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1953, p. 718; Statutes of Nevada 1955, p. 926.]

The Taylor Grazing Act 1934


The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 USC 315), signed by President Roosevelt, was intended to stop injury to the public grazing lands (excluding Alaska) by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration; to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development; and to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range.” This Act was pre- empted by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

Nearly 80 million acres of land valuable for grazing and forage crops were available to be placed into grazing districts authorized by the Taylor Grazing Act. To administer these grazing districts, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes created a Division of Grazing. A series of meetings with ranchers and state officials determined grazing district boundaries. The first grazing district (Rawlins), was established in Wyoming on March 20, 1935; others soon followed. By June 1935, over 65 million acres had been placed in grazing districts. All the established grazing districts are still in effect today. In 1939, the Division of Grazing was renamed the U.S. Grazing Service

Nevada Grazing Districts 1935

Nevada has six grazing districts. The BLM Field Office boundaries generally follow the grazing district boundaries. The Taylor Grazing Act was passed in 1934. Five of Nevada’s grazing districts were established by 1936. The sixth, Battle Mountain, was established in 1951.


No. 1 — Elko, established April 8, 1935


No. 2 — Winnemucca, established October 18, 1935


No. 3 — Carson City, established November 3, 1936


No. 4 — Ely, established November 3, 1936


No. 5 — Las Vegas, established November 3, 1936


No. 6 — Battle Mountain, established February 9.1951


History of Federal Lands, 1796-present

Establishing the BLM 1946

The Bureau of Land Management was formed during a government reorganization in 1946, combining two former federal agencies — the General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service. Most of the land managed by the BLM is located in 12 western states, including Alaska, although small parcels are scattered throughout the East. Besides protecting and managing the public lands for a variety of uses, the BLM also maintains custody of nearly nine million pages of historic land documents. These documents include copies of homestead and sales patents, survey plats and survey field notes.

49.9.19 Records of Nevada Land Offices

Textual Records (in San Francisco): Records of the Carson City land office (1864-1949), and the absorbed land offices at Belmont (1862-73)/Pioche (1874-76), Elko (1872-77), Austin (1867- 73)/Eureka (1873-93), Aurora (1868-73), and Elko (1917-27), including tract books, 1864-1934; letters sent by the register, 1868-1926, and receiver, 1864-1909; registers of letters received from the Commissioner, 1890-94, 1905-18; accounts and other financial records of the receiver, 1880-1914; contest dockets, 1879-1926; railroad selection lists, 1875-1934; records relating to desert land entries, 1877-1908; registers of homestead entries, final certificates, receipts, and final receipts, 1869-1908; and registers of mining lands entries, 1862-1908, applications for mining patents, 1866-1908, and receipts for sold mineral lands, 1875-1906. Records of the Elko land office (1872-77, 1917-27), including Mount Diablo Meridian township tract books, 1872-1913; lieu land selection case files, 1913-55; and land entry case files, 1915-28. Records of the Eureka land office (1873-94) and its predecessor at Austin (1867-73), including letters sent by the register, 1879-91, and receiver, 1889-94; letters received from the Commissioner, 1879-93; registers of homestead certificates and receipts, 1868-93; and case files of adverse mining claims, 1878-91.


History: Established in the Department of the Interior as the Division of Grazing Control pursuant to the Taylor Grazing Act (48 Stat. 1269), June 28, 1934. Name shortened to Division of Grazing, early 1935. Redesignated the Grazing Service by Departmental Order 1416, effective August 26, 1939. Administered, through a regional office system, 60 grazing districts aggregating 142,000,000 acres. Consolidated with the GLO, 1946, to form the BLM. Grazing Service functions subsequently combined with those of the Range Development Service, GLO, to form the Branch of Range Management, BLM. SEE 49.1 and 49.11.

Bully”Land Management

Are Cliven Bundy’s Cattle DE-Ranged?

Overreach of BLM

1976 FLPMA effective 1-16-2001


In this final rule, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) revises and updates the regulations for management of designated wilderness areas. In February of 1985, BLM issued the existing regulations. Since the original issuance of the regulations, BLM has developed new policies, Congress has required new procedures, and technologies have changed. The final rule meets the need for updated regulations by adding new requirements based on changes in legislation or agency objectives, clarifying what uses BLM allows and authorizes in wilderness areas, what acts BLM prohibits, and explaining special uses the Wilderness Act explicitly allows, and how BLM allows access to non-Federal lands located within BLM wilderness areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 2001.

The rule explained:

What wilderness areas are, How BLM manages them, and How you can use them.

The proposed rule also explained:

What activities BLM would not allow in wilderness areas, the penalties for doing prohibited acts, and the special provisions for some uses and access.

When BLM has management responsibility for wilderness areas in Alaska, we will develop regulations for their management, if necessary.

The proposed rule, while it revised and redesignated the entire part in the CFR, focused on the following five areas:

(1) definitions,

(2) use of wilderness areas,

(3) prohibited acts,

(4) special use provisions, and

(5) access.

The period for public comment on the proposed rule originally expired on February 18, 1997. In response to public requests, BLM extended the comment period until April 21, 1997. BLM received nearly 1,600 public comment letters or other communications during this four-month comment period.



The following are public comments and the responses by the BLM .

The Over-reach is obvious by their own explanations. These are random comments. The complete dialogue is available through the FLPMA link above:


The BLM has Jurisdiction Over Adjacent Private Property

BLM has authority to protect Federal lands and resources under its jurisdiction by virtue of section 302(b) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C.1732(b)). This includes the authority to regulate activities on adjacent private or State lands to protect public lands, including BLM wilderness areas……….Other comments stated, by contrast, that the regulations are too restrictive, oppressive, or heavy-handed, that they have an adverse effect on the rights of the general public, or that they are unconstitutional. The comments stated that they would reduce the level of enjoyment of wilderness, eliminate or restrict traditionally acceptable uses, generate too much paperwork, and be overly complex or unresponsive to public needs. One comment asserted that the proposed rule gives BLM too much flexibility and reduces individual rights.


BLM Law Trumps State Law

One comment stated that BLM has no authority to enact these regulations and that Federal laws must conform to State and local laws. BLM has ample authority to issue these regulations (see sections 310 and 302(b) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1740 and 1732(b), for examples). Federal law prevails over inconsistent State laws.



One comment asked whether the use of helicopters for wildlife management activities is a commercial activity. Whether such use of helicopters is commercial or not is irrelevant, because BLM claims no authority in this final rule to regulate activities in airspace. Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, however, specifically prohibits the landing of aircraft. This does not apply to emergency landing of aircraft.



A few of the comments questioned BLM’s authority to restrict existing uses or to limit maintenance and reconstruction of grazing support facilities. Under the Wilderness Act, the Federal land managing agency with jurisdiction over a wilderness area will permit you to continue grazing livestock, subject to reasonable regulations, where your grazing authorization was already established when Congress designated the wilderness and has continued since.



Where valid existing rights to access do not exist, BLM may give access to inholdings by permit under existing part 2920, using its administrative discretion under this final rule to determine what access is adequate and causes the briefest and most limited impacts on wilderness character. BLM is preparing a revised version of part 2920 that would provide specific mechanisms for authorizing access to inholdings.

Note: There is a case in Colorado currently where the BLM wants to remove the right-of –way to a cabin because they don’t like that the people have a “pristine” piece of property surrounded on four sides by BLM Wilderness UPDATE: 4-16-2014 The cabin owners “GIVE UP” when told by the judge – ‘You’re fighting Summit County, in the Summit County Courthouse with a Summit County jury and a Summit County judge that has to be re-elected by Summit County voters in November, you’re not going to win’,” 



(a) If you hold a BLM grazing permit or grazing lease for land within a wilderness

area, you may continue to graze your livestock provided that you or your

predecessors began such use under a permit or lease before Congress established

the wilderness area.

(b) Your grazing activities within wilderness areas, including the construction, use,

and maintenance of livestock management improvements, must comply with the

livestock grazing regulations in part 4100 of this chapter.

(c) If the management plan for the area allows, you may maintain or reconstruct

grazing support facilities that existed before designation of the wilderness area.

BLM will not authorize new support facilities for the purpose of increasing your

number of livestock. The construction of new livestock management facilities must

be for the purposes of protection and improved management of wilderness


(d) BLM may authorize an increase in livestock numbers only if you demonstrate that

the additional use will not have an adverse impact on wilderness values.




Qualifications for BLM to control land:


Congress finds that—

(1) public land in the County contains unique and spectacular natural resources, including—

(A) pricelesshabitat for numerous species of plants and wildlife; and

(B) thousands of acres of land that remain in a natural state; and

(2) continued preservation of those areas would benefit the County and all of the United States by—

(A) ensuring the conservation of ecologically diverse habitat;

(B) protecting prehistoric cultural resources;

(C) conserving primitive recreational resources; and

(D) protecting air and water quality.

Using it’s “administration discretion” the BLM can change the status of any governed land if it falls into any of the above categories. Is it just me or are these yellow highlighted words, adjectives, used to describe a noun? That means that their whole “discretion” verbiage is words that are based on opinion. Your idea of “unique and spectacular” might be different than mine, so who decides the qualification to be valid. During 2009, Obama designated 2,000,000 acres to be “protected wilderness” . Most of this was in Montana, the Dakotas, & Colorado to stop any chance of energy exploration on Federal land. The law expands wilderness designationwhich blocks nearly all development into areas that previously were not protected, all disguised with one of the yellow highlighted words above.



Distribution of Grazing Receipts

Inside Grazing Districts–Taylor Grazing Act, Section 3                              
50% to BLM Range Improvement Fund              
37.5 % to Treasury General Fund                         
12.5% to State    

Outside Grazing Districts–Taylor Grazing Act, Section 15

50% to BLM Range Improvement Fund

50% to State                       

Grazing Receipts Paid to Nevada by Fiscal Year (October 1-September 30)

2011    $ 225,002 
2010    $ 192,066

2009    $ 212,980 
2008    $ 213,930
2007    $ 282,488
2006    $ 291,100
2005    $ 268,336

2004    $ 234,162 
2003    $ 220,297
2002    $ 260,141
2001    $ 255,392
2000    $ 271,100

1999    $ 289,400 
1998    $ 272,000
1997    $ 275,700
1996    $ 280,300
1995    $ 297,300 

Please Note the continuous decline of grazing revenue. More and more ranchers are giving up ranching.


The Question has to be asked, “Why take a stand on Cliven Bundy? “ 0.14% of all Nevada grazing activity takes place in the Clark County area. He may have a leg to stand on when all of the BLM references to “predecessor “ and “before Congress designated a Wilderness” are active. Bundy’s ranch predates all of these agencies. The “gray” area, The Nevada Constitution.



How does the BLM afford to buy all of that new equipment? New Suburbans, outfitted as Homeland Security Artiliary. New 4 x 4 trucks as well as new dump trucks and backhoes.

  • They had no right or authority to block a State Highway
  • They insulted the American Public with “First Amendment Corals”?
  • They used a helicopter that is against their own rules. It also traumatizes the animals being rounded up.
  • By their own definition, they are Land Managers, why were their rangers armed, and with attack dogs?
  • Who authorized the subcontracting of cowboys and equipment? $966,000. ???


1983 NV State Land Use

Senate Bill 40 is designed, in part, to take advantage of the consistency language in Section

202(c)(9) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). Section 202(c)(9) governs

BLM planning and requires that BLM land use plans be consistent with state and local land use

plans to the extent that the Secretary of the Interior finds consistent with federal law and the

purposes of FLPMA. Senate Bill 40 is intended to give Nevada localities an opportunity to

address federal land use management issues directly and thereby offer an alternative to relying

solely on after-the-fact reactions to federal proposals. Appendix II is a copy of Senate Bill 40 of

the 1983 Legislature.


The New BLM Director-

How does a 35 year old man , with 2 years in the Agency, get to be the Director? It’s easy when you worked 8 years as an advisor for Harry Reid. Previous directors usually had 30 years of experience at land management .



The showdown Video April 12, 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a_XqdQjTflc


The UNdangered Tortise

Since 1989, it has been illegal to take, harm or kill a desert tortoise without a federal permit. In the Las Vegas valley, construction was forced to a standstill on properties where the tortoises resided. Officials said the Las Vegas tortoises–as many as 3,000 are expected to be uncovered by developers in the next three years–will not be relocated in the Searchlight habitat. Doing so could result in overpopulation. Also, they said, many of the Vegas tortoises suffer from a respiratory disease that might be passed on to their rural cousins.

For its part, Clark County has agreed to purchase the rights to use more than 400,000 acres of BLM land as a desert tortoise preserve. For the next three years, the land, much of it near Searchlight, would be off limits to off-road vehicles. Authorities would also ward off birds that eat thin-shelled baby tortoises.

More than $6 million would be provided to purchase the land rights and establish a trust fund from fees assessed to Las Vegas developers, who will also be charged $40 per tortoise for the housing at the animal care center. L.A Times 8/30/1991

How the Tortoise Made the List-

THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Since August 4, 1989, wild tortoises of the Mojave Desert have been protected under the Endangered Species Act.  No taking is allowed without a special permit.  Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, capture, or collect an animal. HOW IT BEGAN – In 1989 the Clark County community was taken aback by the immediate listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973.    The United States Fish and Wildlife Service listed the species following a lawsuit filed by local environmental groups stating that the desert tortoise was not being adequately protected.  Some of the factors responsible for tortoise population declines were:  illegal collection, vandalism, disease, release of captive tortoises and spread of disease, agricultural development, urban growth, landfills, livestock grazing, road construction, and irresponsible off-road travel.  In response to the listing, Clark County founded the Clark County Desert Conservation Program to provide mitigation for the species to allow for continued development in the County.  Efforts were made to protect habitat for tortoises and other desert plants and animals.

This was only the beginning. Escalation seemed to be the method of choice. During this time, I was in the Window business. Permits stopped being issued, houses weren’t being built, and the Southern Nevada HomeBuilders Association was in a panic on how to save the building industry. As a joke I made a bumper sticker for my car that read, “NUKE the Turtles”. I made hundreds for people asking where they could get one. I also included two companion stickers, “Need a Home? Move in with a Turtle” and “Turtle Soup……mmmm Good”. The Nuke sticker found its way to the CBS Evening News.

Like any other contrived “crisis” , the way you cure the problem is to throw money at it. Convincing the public that all builders were “evil, destructive, uncaring turtle murderers” was erased by creating an acreage fee. The fee provided for an intern , working for a geological firm, walking around your building site, inspecting it for tortoises and their burrows.

The tortoise soon became the “Golden Goose” for Building Departments.

Prior to development on private or other non-federal property in Clark County, Nevada, the developer must obtain a grading or building permit from the appropriate City or County agency.  The permitting office for the City or the County will collect a mitigation fee of $550 per acre, if one has not previously been paid.  This is a one-time fee that funds the Desert Conservation Program.  This program provides endangered species act compliance through mitigation and conservation for 78 plant and animal species, including the desert tortoise. If a builder wanted to develop a 200 acre tract of land, Yep, $110,000 in turtle fees alone.

What to do if You See a Tortoise-

Desert tortoises are a threatened species, protected under the federal Endangered Species Act and Nevada Administrative Code.  Tortoises seen in the wild or found on construction sites must not be intentionally or knowingly harmed, harassed or killed.   

What do I do if I find a desert tortoise the wild?

If you see tortoises in the wild or in undeveloped area do not touch them or disturb them.  If the tortoise is in immediate danger from road traffic, you may pick it up, hold it level, and move it several yards beyond the road edge in the direction in which the tortoise was heading.  Otherwise, wild tortoises are not to be touched.  If you mistakenly removed a tortoise from the wild please return it to where you found it and place it out of harms way, preferably in the shade.

What do I do if I find a desert tortoise on a construction site?

If a tortoise is spotted on your construction site, you must collect the tortoise in a gentle and humane manner.  The tortoise should be placed in a clean, well ventilated container, such as a cardboard box, and kept in a dry area with moderate temperature.  Call the Wild Desert Tortoise Assistance Line at 702-593-9027 to schedule a collection time for the tortoise.  Staff will collect the tortoise free of charge.  The tortoise will be okay without food, but you can offer it a drink of water in a shallow dish.  Tortoises cannot be kept for personal use.  

What do I do if I see someone take a desert tortoise from the wild?

If you have witnessed the improper treatment of a tortoise, such as its removal from the desert, call the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Law Enforcement Office .

TORToise Reform

Over the last 15 years, $million$ of dollars have been thrown at saving the tortoise population. So now in 2013/14, we have a surplus or Tort-i. And we’re back to euthanizing the ones with runny noses, 1000 as of this writing. Couple that with the collapse of the building industry in Nevada, the Golden Goose to protect the tortoise is about broke and will close in December 2014.


Desert Tortoise ‘Preservation’ a Waste of Money (Sept 28, 2012)

More than two decades after that designation, researchers admit they still haveno baseline for how many tortoises should exist. So how will they be able to tell when they’ve sufficiently restored the population, allowing them to de-list the species and let people get back to developing and using local lands as they see fit? Or is the tortoise merely a cat’s paw, its endless, ongoing preservation intended precisely to make sure neither large-scale development nor ranching can ever resume?Government biologists assume tortoise numbers are on the decline – in the wild – based on their theory that the primary threats to the reptiles are habitat destruction and disease. But the little reptiles seem to enjoy a suburban “habitat” just fine. As of a few years ago, officials had rounded up more than 10,000 of them, right here in the Las Vegas Valley.

“So what happened? They got so overrun with tortoises being turned in that they told us they were going to have to start euthanizing them. I said ‘Hold on a minute, here. Euthanize them? Why don’t you just drop them out in the desert?’ They said, ‘Oh no, they’ll fight with the native tortoises that already live out there and they’ll kill each other, because all these lands are already at saturation levels.’ I said, ‘Which is it? How can they be ‘threatened’ or ‘endangered’ but now you tell us all these lands are at ‘saturation levels’ for tortoises?

Desert Tortoise Conservation Center 
The Desert Tortoise Conservation Center was established in 1990 to receive wild tortoises in harm’s way from development.  The Center has taken in unwanted pets tortoises since 1996 in the Las Vegas area. The Center is scheduled to close in December 2014 due to funding issues.  All healthy tortoises at the Center will be relocated to sites that will support the recovery of the species. Healthy tortoises will not be euthanized.

So as of January 2015, the Tortoise will be redistributed to it’s natural habitat and the ones who have them as pets , will still have them. If you read this propaganda, you see that it was recommended to adopt, then illegal to have them, and now there is a rumor of a new law that states you can’t breed them in captivity. Meanwhile, if the BLM attaches an adjective to the land you are grazing, they can shut you down, “at their discretion”.

The REAL Harry Reid Connection

This is where we connect all of the dots. Some fringe media want to make this about Harry Reid and his son Rory making a deal with ENN, a Chinese Solar Company on the land where Bundy grazes cattle. That is partially true, but it was in 2011, 200 miles away in Laughlin, NV. That deal didn’t happen even though Reid gave them a “Red China” Carpet , give-away-the-farm deal on land, taxes, and perks for a 4-5000 acre solar farm and MFG plant.

I wrote about this on my Blog Mark My Words, when Reid sponsored an Energy Summit in Las Vegas in December 2011. The land alone was going to be sold for 1/10th of it’s Value. That deal went bad 18 months after it was announced .

A China-based company’s plan to build a solar energy plant south of Laughlin and create hundreds of jobs has died. ENN Mojave Energy failed to obtain the necessary power purchase deal with any utility companies, Clark County officials said Friday. ………..Commissioners had high hopes it would bring hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs and a billion-dollar solar farm and research park to Southern Nevada. Under the agreement, 9,000 acres in the Fort Mohave Valley were sold to the company for $4.5 million……… Reid, D-Nev., has strongly supported the project, lobbied hard to make ENN’s plans a reality. He met with the head of ENN Group, the parent company, in 2011…………Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was an attorney on the ENN project his father supported. The senator’s office has previously said he didn’t get his son’s firm the work and that the two hadn’t spoken about the deal. (Las Vegas Review Journal 6-14-2013)

Moapa Southern Piute Solar Project Breaks Ground-

March 21, 2014 Harry Reid attends Ground breaking ceremony for new Solar plant .


and has nothing to do with Gold Butte or the BLM or the Turtle Habitat. The power generated through this project is slated for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.


Gold Butte (Bundy Property) IS in a Solar Zone-

Just because there is no ENN Chinese deal at the Bundy grazing area, doesn’t mean that it’s not out of the realm of a possibility. The links below will show the designated areas near Bunkerville:


Regional Mitigation Strategy for Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone-

The Gold Butte Reference starts at Page 29. The Question is, If the area is so sensitive, how can it support the construction and maintenance of thousands of solar panels.


ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental Concerns:

Coyote Springs/Gold Butte:

Area of Critical of Environmental Concern (ACEC) are special management areas designated by BLM to protect significant historic, cultural, or scenic values; fish and wildlife resources; natural process or systems; and/or natural hazards that:


The Battle for Gold Butte is Longstanding-

This has been a TUG OF WAR over Access and Protection (Las Vegas Sun 11-8-2008

Coyote Springs, NV.

I have more knowledge than most about Coyote Springs than the average Nevadan . When I found out that there was new “City” being built 60 miles Northwest of Las Vegas, I wanted to be part of it. I attended town hall meetings in Pioche, Caliente and Alamo to find out how to get involved. The original design was 10 Golf Courses surrounded by villages, and wrapped with a Beltway. I wanted to be part of this and actually changed the name of my company to Coyote Springs Window & Door llc” and was destined to be the first business to be located there. The “Rest of the Story” is the recent history of the Players in Coyote Springs. Please clink the Links for all back-up details.

How Coyote Springs came to be-


Back in the 1980’s the 44,000 acre (67 Square miles) 60 miles Northwest of Las Vegas was designated to be part of the MX-Missal System. It was part of a “peace through strength” military attitude we once had. In 1988 the property was transferred to the Aerojet Corp to be used for rocket testing which never materialized, The next sale went to a private individual named Harvey Whitamore


Harvey Whitamore-

Attorney, Developer, also known as Nevada’s most powerful lobbyist and friend of Harry Reid and his sons.

1998 Purchases Coyote Springs land for a price between $15-23,000,000.

1999 Within the 44,000 acres is a 10,000 acre tortoise habitat.

1999 Whitamore sells the water rights for Coyote Springs to the Southern Nevada Water Authority for $25,000,000. The deal, brokered through former Clark County manager and Whitamore Business partner, Richard Bunker with Pat Mulroy , his former assistant now head of the SNWA. Whitamore now has clear title plus $2,000,000 profit.

 After federal agencies said water pumping the Coyote Springs would likely dry up nearby warms springs and kill endangered fish, SNWA bought the springs for $69 million and agreed to watch over the fish, just so Whitamore could get water for CS.

2002 In 2002, Sen. Reid went to work on removing the power line corridor.  First, he and others in Nevada’s congressional delegation tucked an obscurely worded provision into a huge land bill to benefit a wide range of interests in Clark County. The provision shifted the power corridor off Whittemore’s land and onto federal land along the west side of U.S. 93.  The land west of the highway had been earmarked for “wilderness study,” but a separate section of the bill reclassified the land to allow power lines.

Another provision — one that reclassified the status of the land on the west side so that it eventually could accommodate a power line corridor — survived, and President Bush signed the bill in November 2002.  A year and a half later, Reid and the Nevada delegation tried again, inserting language moving the power corridor to the west side of the highway into a public land bill for Lincoln County.  This time, Whittemore had to compensate the government on the basis of “fair market value”.

2003 The Water Wars are in full engagement between the Lincoln/White Pine Counties vs the Goliath, Clark County. The fight to keep the water in the northern counties and out of the pipe of Las Vegas are later thwarted by Whitamore himself.

2004 After a five year battle, Whitamore “somehow” convinces Congress to trade the 10,000 acre tortoise habitat location to the eastern edge of the project on Federal Land. The BLM called this a “minor Boundary adjustment”. This was a more than questionable adjustment and Whitamore claimed Reid and sons were not involved.

2004 Whitamore partners with Pardee Homes to be the major home builder

2005 Coyote Springs receives Patent (Waiver) for Tortoise Habitant Relocation


2005 Only one step remained: securing a permit to deal with the stream beds and washes as

it happened, by the time Sens. Reid and Ensign had their conversation with the head the EPA, Whittemore’s permit problem was all but over.  On Sept. 16, Whittemore, Leif Reid and others met with EPA and other federal officials at the site and the atmosphere became conciliatory.  Coyote Springs agreed to leave several washes untouched, reduced the number of acres of waterways to be filled in and pledged to make environmental improvements on 19 acres of other wash land.

2005 Whitamore purchases the water rich Geyser Ranch straddling a 40 by 15 mile path through Lincoln/White Pine County borders. It was established in the 1940’s and once handled 1800 head of cattle.

2005 Since the transfer of water cannot be handled by private companies, the Nevada Legislature approved Whitamore’s application to create the Coyote Springs General Improvement District ,a “quasi-government” entity that can negotiate with the SNWA to transport water through the proposed pipelines.

2006 Feb 15- Whitamore introduces Doug Carriger as VP of Entitlement and Infrastructure at The LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION’S COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE USE, MANAGEMENT, AND ALLOCATION OF WATER RESOURCES . This is important because the former Lincoln County Commissioner , Carriger , was used to acquire ranches for the sole purpose of water rights for Coyote Springs. Public opinion was not at all favorable for the water allocation for Coyote Springs.

2006 August. A private Citizen posts a letter to the State Engineer complaining of the massive water sell-out from Lincoln/White Pine counties to the SNWA. She further mentions Whitamore’s march through the counties buying up ranches just for the water rights:


Construction was continuous in developing infrastructure and Golf Courses while the hurdles for water, power, and tortoise habitat was being remedied. Wouldn’t this be a gamble to proceed or was it a “sure thing” ?

Another Coincidence , the new Water Pipeline from Central Nevada to Las Vegas just happens to

travel adjacent to Coyote Springs. If only Whitamore hadn’t sold off all his water rights, dang it.


2006 Whitamore acquires the Atlanta Farms in Lincoln County, 30 miles north of Pioche, NV. This Farm has Connections to Polygamist Warren Jeffs, and the Polygamist Communities of Hilldale, UT and Colorado City , AZ . Suspicions have run high that the 3700 acre alfalfa farm was funding the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Days Saints (FLDS) in Texas, worked by cheap labor from the local polygamist communities. It takes a lot of water to maintain this size farm in the desert, but Whitamore sees this water being delivered to Coyote Springs and the farm turns back to desert.

2006 Halloween- The Heat is turned up on the 300 Mile Pipeline between White Pine and Clark County. More water rights acquired and ranches disappearing

2008 Whitamore granted approval to move 9000 acre feet of water to Coyote Springs.

2009 The devastated economy and Slumping Building Market plays havoc on Coyote Springs

2009 At the August 10, Lincoln County Power District Meeting, former Lincoln County Commissioner , Doug Carriger, is present representing Wingfield Nevada, which is the Reno area Gof Course Community that Whitamore completed.

2012 Coyote Springs saddled with financial problems, lawsuits and ousting Whitamore for embezzlement. Brothers Thomas and Albert Seeno, home builders from Northern California, bought into Whittemore’s dream with a series of investments between 2004 and 2007, eventually taking control of two-thirds of his company, Wingfield Nevada Group Holding Co., which owns Coyote Springs. Now the Seenos are suing Whittemore, whom they accuse of embezzling and misappropriating more than $40 million from the company, including money for private jet flights, personal home improvement projects and parties. Whittemore responded with a lawsuit of his own in federal court in Reno, no longer a part of the Development he created.

2013 With at least one Golf Course in operation, the future of the project is hopefully optimistic, by “everyone who doesn’t have a horse in the race”. The Seeno Brothers found themselves having to deal with a 2010 FBI investigation among other

Infrastructure problems at the Construction site

2013 Sept 30- Harvey Whitamore sentenced to 2 years in prison and a $100,000 fine for Illegal Campaign Contributions for Senate majority leader Harry Reid. A federal jury found Whittemore guilty in May of two counts of making illegal campaign contributions to Reid in 2007 and one count of causing the Reid campaign to file a false report with the Federal Elections Commission.

Since 2000, Whittemore, his wife and the Coyote Springs company have given Reid’s senatorial campaign and political action committees at least $45,000. That included $35,000 for Reid’s leadership PAC, the Searchlight Leadership Fund, which helped him advance as a Senate leader. Most of that money was contributed in 2002 shortly after Reid introduced the Clark County land bill. In 2000, Whittemore gave an additional $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which Reid promoted as a party leader. Prior to 2000, the Whittemores had given Reid and his Senate campaign committee a total of $6,500, plus $5,000 for his leadership PAC. Whittemore also helped Reid’s sons, all of whom at various times have worked for the law firm in which he is a senior partner, Lionel, Sawyer and Collins. Rory Reid is a partner in the firm. When he ran successfully for the Clark County Board of Commissioners, Whittemore contributed $5,000. He also gave Josh Reid $5,000 for an unsuccessful bid for a seat on the city council in Cottonwood Heights, Utah. Rory and Josh Reid have been active in Democratic politics.

Harry Reid’s Nevada


Here’s a look at the land holdings of Senator Harry Reid. Harry went to Washington a middle

Class man. He will leave Washington, a multi-millionaire. If you study these properties there is

a lot of quit-claiming between family members. Also the previous owner on Several parcels is

USA”. Take a look;





Harry Reid Assessor Clark County:


Reid’s Patented mining claims:



In Summary

I assembled this information because I, like many others, have had it with an over-reaching, lying government. If nothing else, I wanted to show how the BLM has too much power and when you see them go against a fellow citizen poised to shoot other Americans with guns and body armor, it’s time to take steps to back them out of the picture.


I don’t completely agree with Cliven Bundy not paying his fees. 559 other Nevada ranchers paid their fees, but I do understand where he is coming from, he predates all land management agencies. How is that one man who is developing 44,000 acres can use the system, and Harry Reid to get a 10,000 acre tortoise habitat disband from his property and another is locked out of grazing because of the tortoise.


The Tortoise is just a vehicle that the BLM can use at their “discretion” and interpretation of the BLM Regs. Americans are done with this. I would recommend to all state legislatures to closely review their States’ Constitution and find out if it was written that the unincorporated areas are defaulted back the Federal Government. If that be the case, it’s time for some serious Constitutional Amendments, especially for the Western States.


If You Like Your Cows…..You CAN’T Keep Your Cows”

© Copyright 2014 R.MARK REASBECK Fall Branch, TN [email protected]


Comments are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner