I think that accusation was debunked.
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.29872.File.dat/TN_444.pdf
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-20/martin-armstrong-asks-do-feds-really-own-land-nevada
http://m.shalereporter.com/industry/article_0de547ba-8ca4-11e2-ab4e-0019bb30f31a.html
Occam's razor suggests that in the case of the Bundy situation things are not all that complicated. He's been a deadbeat for 20 years at least, and things have finally progressed to the point where there is some concrete action to finally put an end to it. If there is a conspiracy to be found in this case, I'd start by trying to find out why Bundy got to mooch for that long.
Ironically, managing BLM land for grazing itself invalidates the 'pays the state nothing' argument. It is done at a loss and to the direct benefit of (sometimes) local ranchers and the theorized benefit of the public at large so they can buy more hamburgers. I personally am OK with that as one of the factors driving land management decisions. It is also the case that tourism and recreation are a large part of many smaller local economies. And we have the BLM and other similar federal agencies to thank for managing the land in a way that makes that more feasible.
Should we keep an eye all deals involving the resources of public lands and those who are instrumental in formulating them? Fuckin'A yes! Certainly that includes Harry Reid. Should we continue to pound on a dead horse when a chain of conspiracy toward a particular action is at best highly tenuous and highly political? Not so much.
It is entirely likely that there are machinations involving solar energy, environmental group appeasement, and future mitigation agreements. I don't see this as a necessarily bad thing. I expect the BLM to make land use decisions which consider their large holdings as a related system. I want them to choose areas which are less sensitive for destruction and use more sensitive and unique areas for ecological preservation.
I don't want the BLM to be funneling money to their political friends even if they are doing a good job otherwise , and again, that should be monitored. What I really don't want is for the Koch brothers to turn vast areas into sludge ponds through oil shale operations and destroy the limited water resources by fracking. Particularly since their modus operandi is the same as those who came before them. Keep all the profits (many of them subsidies from my pocket thanks to lobbying) and abandon the works as a super-fund site when it has been milked dry. That is a much better reason to keep a close eye on the politicians outside the BLM and the managers within the BLM. And groups and efforts sponsored by groups like Citizens United.