Friends of Idaho Watersheds Project
Here is a copy of a great editorial from The Washington Post of October 28, 1997
Subsidies for Big Ranchers
Tuesday, October 28, 1997; Page A20
The Washington Post
THE GOVERNMENT subsidizes the western livestock industry by leasing large amounts of land to ranchers for grazing purposes at far below market rates. The low rates encourage overgrazing, which results in serious environmental harm. It's a crazy system in which most of the benefit goes to a relative handful of large ranchers, while the public ends up subsidizing the degradation of its own domain.
Early in his administration, President Clinton naively asked
Congress to change the system, raise the fees and otherwise regulate grazing to
restore and protect the federal lands. It was a lesson in the limitations of presidential
power. Western
Democratic senators joined Republicans in defeating the proposal, which had been
part of the president's first budget. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who suffered some
damage of his own in the course of the loss, then tried to achieve some of the same
results by administrative means. He issued standards and guidelines, then set up a series
of state-local
advisory councils to figure out in each locality how to conform to them. The councils are
balanced so that all affected interest groups, not just ranchers, have a
voice, and are instructed to try to operate by consensus. Mr. Babbitt says the
effort has met with a fair amount of success.
This week, however, the House is scheduled to vote on a bill that would reverse that asserted progress. Sponsored by Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Smith, it would restore and formalize much of the industry's prior power over grazing policy. The advisory councils would be retained, but they would be instructed to operate by majority rule, and the industry would be given the majority. The low fee structure and its harmful effects would be preserved by writing a token increase into law. The token, and the formula on which it is based, would preempt real reform.
The bill has other defects, including language that critics say might cause grazing permits to be construed in court as property rights, in which case an effort to limit grazing might be construed as a taking. Mr. Smith and other supporters dismiss this as fanciful, but there it is.
This is mischievous legislation, and Mr. Babbitt says he would recommend the president veto the bill, as well he should. The House should save him the trouble and vote it down.