My editorial for the Statesman and other local newspapers…..
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) manage and issue grazing permits on 260 million acres of land in 16 western states. Livestock grazing is the most widespread use of public lands. Over-grazing, an ever-present problem especially in the arid desert regions of the West, destroys the topsoil, compacts the soil which reduce infiltration and percolation rates of water, produces bacterial overload of streams, causes soil erosion, reduces wildlife, destroys wildlife habitat, and ruins the recreational value of the land.
Only 3% of ranchers in the United States use public land for grazing. The arid west is generally considered unsuitable for livestock grazing. It takes 100 acres to feed a public range cow. About ten thousand individuals and corporations hold permits to graze on BLM land and about the same number hold permits to graze on USFS land. Over one half of the BLM permittees are hobby ranchers. This means they do not ranch for a living. Moreover, these hobby ranchers form less than one tenth of one percent of the tens of millions of people who use the land for recreation. In the far western states, less than one quarter of livestock producers use public lands for grazing. Wildlife, recreation, and other uses are far more lucrative both from an economic standpoint and from an environmental standpoint.
Given these facts, the Bush administration recently attempted to enact grazing regulations that would more or less hand over management of public land to this 3% of users by excluding other public interest groups from commenting and overseeing the management of public land. The changes in regulations would have resulted in the BLM and permittees deciding in private the ways in which public land would be managed.
On August 11, 2006, Judge Lynn B. Winmill determined that the proposed changes to the 1995 grazing regulations violated the National Environmental Protection Act and the Federal Land Management and Policy Act. The BLM contends that the new regulations would improve administrative efficiency and ease the working relationship between federal agencies and the permittees. The Judge found neither of these claims to be substantiated. Additionally, the Judge found that an increased workload for BLM employees does not warrant violating NEPA. The BLM was unable to substantiate its claim that maintaining a list of the interested public would cause undue expense. In sum, the Judge found that Western Watersheds would suffer possible and probable irreparable harm were the grazing regulations to go into effect due to the BLM’s decision making without full public comment as is mandated by NEPA.
The recent win in Federal District Court is one step toward weakening the unfair hold that this minority of public lands users have on the federal government. The American people and public policymakers must realize that the federal government is not legally or morally responsible for supporting an economically marginal group at the expense of everyone else. If it matters, from an economic standpoint, just about any other use of the land would produce a better economic return for local communities at a far less cost.
