This is the third of a three-part exploration of retiring permits for grazing on federal public lands. Part 1 examined the state of the public lands grazing industry and made the case for the equitable end to abusive livestock grazing on public lands. Part 2 reviewed the history of congressional and other actions to facilitate retirement of federal grazing permits. Part 3 speculates on the future of this conservation tool.
Figure 1. Something’s not right when piles of bovine dung cover more ground than vegetation. Source: George Wuerthner.
So far, successful legislation to facilitate voluntary retirement of federal grazing permits has generally been place-based. The political stars have aligned in places where conservation interests and the affected grazing permittees or lessees both wanted the grazing operators to be compensated for waiving back their permits and leases to the federal government, with the forage reallocated to wildlife and watershed.
National legislation to facilitate the voluntary retirement option is currently pending, but only in the House of Representatives. Recent promising bills in the Senate and House have been tabled for now due to the flip-flopping of a certain senator from New Mexico. It’s possible that additional place-based grazing permit retirement provisions may be introduced in Congress, but it all depends on the politics. Meanwhile, conservation organizations should stand by and prepare to play a special role in retiring federal grazing permits.
Legislation Introduced into Congress but Tabled for Now
The Tribal Cultural Areas Protection Act
The proposed Tribal Cultural Areas Protection Act (H.R.8109 and S.4423, 117th Congress) was introduced into both houses of Congress in June 2022. The chief sponsors were Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ-7th) and Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM). A key feature of the legislation was a “voluntary grazing permit or lease donation program,” a great provision. Alas, the legislation has not been reintroduced in either house of this current 118th Congress. This may be because of a change of course of the Senate sponsor (see below).
Figure 2. US Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ-7th). Source: United States House of Representatives.
The Wildlife-Livestock Conflict Resolution Act
In the fall of 2021, Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) introduced the proposed Wildlife-Livestock Conflict Resolution Act (S.2980, 117th Congress). At the time, Heinrich said:
The Wildlife-Livestock Conflict Resolution Act creates a framework to solve some of our thorniest conflicts between livestock producers and our native wildlife. It will ensure that families who have held permits for decades can hang onto the base properties where their family memories are made and it ensures they can be fairly compensated for their grazing leases. Additionally, it creates a path forward where wildlife like bighorn sheep or even predators can have the room to roam that they need to survive.
Figure 3. US Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM). Source: United States Senate.
In the summer of 2023, Heinrich reversed course. A “senior aide” informed the Taos News that Heinrich was dropping his bill.
Senator Heinrich has engaged directly with New Mexicans to support investments in agriculture and ensure the continued resilience of the lands and water we rely on. The Senator and his staff have had dozens of meetings with New Mexicans that included extensive conversations about the Wildlife-Livestock Conflict Resolution Act legislation. The Senator and his staff are also continuing to meet with all interested stakeholders to find paths to reduce conflicts between livestock and wildlife.
The bill was a solution, and WildEarth Guardians had pledged compensation to several grazing permittees upon enactment of the legislation into law. Heinrich screwed not only those ranchers but also the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, New Mexico Wild, Audubon Southwest, Conservation Voters of New Mexico, Western Resource Advocates, the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, the Western Watersheds Project, the National Wildlife Federation, the Upper Gila Watershed Alliance, the Gila Conservation Coalition, the Endangered Species Coalition, the Wilderness Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Animal Protection Voters, the Grand Canyon Trust, Amigos Bravos, the Western Environmental Law Center, and WildEarth Guardians.
What changed? Yes, there was political pushback (any worthy legislation gets such), but methinks the flip (or was it the flop?) is due to Heinrich likely seeking to become governor of New Mexico in 2026. We can hope he will face opposition in the Democratic primary so the conservation organizations he screwed are not reduced to backing him against a worse Republican option.
Current Legislation in Congress
The Voluntary Grazing Permit Retirement Act
The proposed Voluntary Grazing Permit Retirement Act (H.R.6935, 117th Congress), first introduced in 2022, is expected to be reintroduced into the 118th Congress this fall. The summary reads: “To expand the authorization of voluntary Federal grazing permit retirement, provide increased flexibility for Federal grazing permittees, promote the equitable resolution or avoidance of conflicts on Federal lands managed by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes.”
Figure 4. H.R. 6935, currently pending, the only national legislation on deck to facilitate voluntary retirement of federal grazing permits. Source: Congress.gov.
Chief sponsor Representative Adam Smith (D-WA-9th) said at the time of the introduction of the bill in 2022:
As ranchers across the country face increasing costs and land management challenges, this legislation would provide them with the flexibility to do what is best for their land and families. Federal grazing permit holders often face barriers or have limited flexibility to give up their grazing permits, even when it is the best option for their own situation. A voluntary federal grazing permit retirement program is a commonsense step to support flexibility for ranchers and promote smart land-use practices. The Voluntary Grazing Permit Retirement Act aligns with the Biden-Harris Administration’s ‘America the Beautiful’ initiative to conserve and restore our lands, waters, and wildlife through incentives and rewards for voluntary conservation efforts by ranchers.
Figure 5. US Representative Adam Smith (D-WA-9th). Source: United States House of Representatives.
The lead co-sponsor of the bill is Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA-2nd), who observed:
Voluntarily retiring grazing permits to advance conservation goals on public lands shouldn’t be difficult or costly. I’m glad to join Congressman Smith in this legislation to advance conservation and promote smart land-use by giving ranchers the flexibility they need to overcome barriers to voluntary permit retirement. On top of the benefits to permit holders, this will ease grazing pressure on public lands and help natural ecosystems recover and thrive. It’s a win-win-win for taxpayers, ranchers, and the environment.
Figure 6. US Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA-2nd). Source: United States House of Representatives.
The bill has been endorsed by, among others, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, the Humane Society Legislative Fund, the American Bird Conservancy, Wilderness Watch, the Humane Society of the United States, the Western Watersheds Project, Predator Defense, Horses for Life, and the Oregon Natural Desert Association.
The Future of Federal Legislation on Grazing Permit Buyouts
Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-7th-AZ) has been a leading champion of voluntary grazing permit buyouts and introduced the first bills facilitating such buyouts. Grijalva continued his leadership in this area by including a grazing permit retirement provision in his proposed Tribal Cultural Areas Protection Act. National leadership roles on this issue in the House of Representatives have also been taken by Representatives Adam Smith (D-9th-WA) and, increasingly, Jared Huffman (D-2nd-CA).
Today, Representative Grijalva is the ranking (minority) member of the House Committee on Natural Resources (HNR). If the Democrats regain a majority in the 2024 election, Grijalva would likely become chair again. However, Grijalva is seventy-five years old. Next in line by Democratic seniority is Representative Grace Napolitano (D-31st-CA), who is eighty-six and has announced she is not seeking reelection in 2024.
In line after her is Delegate Gregorio Sablan (D-MP-at large), representing the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI), age sixty-eight. Sablan is the first and only person to represent NMI since it could send a delegate to the House in 2008. In the House, committee chairs are elected by the majority caucus. If Sablan wants to chair HNR, his colleagues could well elect him. However, Sablan’s tenure as a “Democrat” has been a rocky one. According to Wikipedia:
Sablan has been a member of the Democratic Party throughout his life, but ran as an Independent for the delegate position, as the Democrats had nominated another candidate. He immediately changed his party affiliation in the House to Democratic in 2009, caucuses with Democrats and has remained an official party member during his tenure, but ran as an Independent in all of his reelection campaigns between 2010 and 2020. He ran as a Democrat for the first time in 2022.
Sablan has announced that he is seeking reelection to represent NMI in the House, but he is running as a write-in candidate on the ballot rather than as a Democrat. Seniority in the House, party caucus, and committee are important, but election to chair a committee is by the party caucus.
Next in line is Representative Huffman, a spring chicken by House standards at age fifty-nine. Huffman could challenge Sablan for the top spot if the Democrats take back the House (Go Donald!). Interestingly, Huffman is not keen on place-based grazing permit retirement provisions. He refused to include such a provision in his proposed Northwest California Wilderness, Recreation, and Working Forests Act (H.R.3700, 118th Congress).
Another potentially fruitful course of action is getting some kind of “long-term rest” provision for federal grazing permits and leases into the next farm bill. It would have to be done in the context of farm subsidies, so it might take the form of compensating federal permittees to forgo use of their permit or lease for thirty years (such as can be done for wetlands on private farmland).
Figure 20. Along the Paria River in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah. Source: George Wuerthner.
A Special Role for Conservation Organizations
Under the voluntary retirement option, conservation organizations could compensate ranchers at a mutually agreed-upon price (generally fair market value or above) for retiring an allotment. However, funds from conservation organizations for such are quite limited. Available funds will cover only a small fraction of the potential demand.
If a voluntary retirement option is enacted by Congress, conservation organizations should reserve their scarce dollars to pay premiums to cooperating permittees above and beyond the fair market value the federal government will pay. While it is sound public policy to prohibit the federal government from paying more than fair market value, it is also sound policy for conservation organizations to reallocate funds they would spend on regulatory enforcement of the nation’s environmental laws on retiring public grazing allotments.
Rather than paying for lawyers and others to make permittees and the land management agencies obey the law, conservation organizations should pay permittees a premium. A market would develop around said premium. It would be dependent on the number of AUMs available for retirement and the amount of money environmental organizations have to spend.
How much to pay? According to Robert Nelson, who was a professor at the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland (and formerly with the US Department of the Interior Office of Policy Analysis for eighteen years), the capital value of a public land grazing AUM across the West is $50–100. Let us assume an average of $75/AUM or $900/AU. (The real estate and ranching industries deal in “animal units” that equate to 12 AUMs.)
For discussion purposes, a conservation organization might offer a $50/AUM premium for a non-special grazing allotment. For allotments in wilderness study areas, it might pay $75/AUM. For those in designated wilderness areas and/or wild and scenic rivers, $100/AUM. For allotments in national wildlife refuges and national parks, perhaps it would offer $125/AUM.
I was once involved in a grazing permit buyout for a $/AUM figure so obscene that I will go into my compost heap never having revealed how much. Suffice it to say that it was worth it—it facilitated other grazing permit buyouts and the establishment of a wilderness area.
Conclusion: A Radical but Rational Tool
While the voluntary retirement option is a radical departure from the traditional debates on public land livestock grazing, it is equally rational. It addresses directly the market value of federal grazing permits, which is the major subtext in the debate over public land livestock grazing. Its fairness and rationality can make it politically palatable to environmentalists, taxpayers, politicians, permittees, fiscal conservatives, compassionate liberals, and others. It is a solution outside the box we are all in, so it will require leadership in all camps and a willingness to try something different.
Figure 21. Abusive livestock grazing is not limited to Forest Service and BLM holdings. Yes, those are dairy cows and they are on public land in the Point Reyes National Seashore, a unit of the National Park System. Source: George Wuerthner.
Bottom Line: The voluntary retirement option for federal public land grazing permits or leases is ecologically imperative, hydrologically crucial, economically rational, fiscally prudent, socially just, and politically pragmatic.
For More Information
Kerr, Andy. February 2019. Point Reyes National Feedlot. Public Lands Blog.
Office of Senator Martin Heinrich. November 1, 2021. Heinrich, Lujan Introduce Wildlife-Livestock Conflict Resolution Act. Press release.
Plant, Geoffrey. June 28, 2023. “Grazing Bill Shelved for Now,” Taos News.