New Grazing Rules Aid Public Lands Ranchers

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, December 8, 2003 (ENS) - Proposed changes to federal rules that govern grazing on public lands will improve grazing management and aid public lands ranchers, according to Bush administration officials. Conservationists say the proposal undermines environmental protections for federal grazing land and does little reform a system they believe short changes the environment and the American taxpayer.

The proposal, published today in the Federal Register, gives land managers with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) more time to address harmful grazing practices and rewards livestock owners by allowing them to claim water rights on public lands and split ownership with the federal government for permanent range improvements, such as a fence, well or pipeline.

"This proposed rule will help public lands ranchers stay on the land," said Interior Department Secretary Gale Norton. "It will do that by creating a regulatory framework that lets ranchers succeed based on sound business judgment and sustainable ranching practices."

Interior Department Secretary Gale Norton says the new grazing rules foster a needed sense of cooperation and balance economic and environmental interests. (Photo courtesy U.S. Department of Interior)

Land managers would not be required to involve the public on routine matters affecting grazing decisions, according to the proposal, which also eliminates existing regulatory provisions that allow the BLM to issue long term "conservation use" grazing permits.

The revisions to the federal grazing program will improve relationships between BLM land managers and ranchers, said BLM Director Kathleen Clarke, "resulting in better stewardship of lands that are crucial for open space and wildlife habitat in the rapidly growing West."

The BLM oversees 261 million acres of public land - some 160 million are authorized for grazing.

In a speech Friday to a convention of livestock owners in New Mexico, Norton stressed the importance of public lands ranching to the rural West. The industry is on the front lines of conservation efforts, Norton said, and is helping preserve open space in the rapidly growing West.

"This proposal recognizes that ranching is crucial not only to the economies of Western rural communities, but also to the history, social fabric, and cultural identity of these communities," Norton said.

But critics say the new proposal will make it more difficult for the BLM to remove permit holders who overgraze and damage the environment.

Grazing has left environmental damage on some Western public lands, including this streambank in Arizona's Black Canyon Creek. (Photo courtesy Public Lands Grazing Activists)

They contend that allowing permit holders to retain water rights and half ownership of public infrastructure, for example, will increase the costs of buying out permit holders found to be engaged in harmful practices.

"The administration continues to use misleading language to try to make the public believe that weakening environmental protections is somehow beneficial," said Randy Moorman of Earthjustice. "As usual, the details of the proposed rule tell a different story."

Moorman says the proposal reverses a 1995 rule created by the Clinton administration in an attempt to end decades of overgrazing and environmental degradation caused by poor grazing practices.

The 1995 rule in particular called on the BLM to take quick action whenever it determined legal grazing under a federal permit was undermining the health of the land. It ordered the BLM to correct the action within a year - before the next grazing permit year begins.

The new proposal extends that time frame for action to two years and leaves no mechanism to force the BLM to take prompt action against damaging grazing practices.

"These rules allow the BLM to shirk their responsibilities to the public to promptly take corrective action to address harmful grazing practices," said John Horning, executive director of Forest Guardians.

Conservationists argue that ranchers do not have an inherent right to use public lands, and say the current system often encourages overgrazing and provides a large subsidy to a relatively small group.

Ranchers pay far less to graze cattle on public lands than they do to graze on private lands, but supporters say there are ample conservation benefits. (Photo courtesy Conservation Beef)

But this number could be as high as $1 billion, the Center determined, because of indirect costs from resource damage and subsidies.

"There is absolutely nothing in these rules that benefits public lands or the millions of Americans who use those lands for purposes other than raising cattle," said Joseph Feller, a law professor at Arizona State University.

The BLM plans to issue a draft environmental impact statement on is proposal later this month - the public will then have 60 days to comment on the new rule.