Would taxpayers save with this program?

Where would the Money for Voluntary Grazing Permit Buyout Come From?

When the political will exists in Congress to spend money, the money is found and spent. The public lands livestock industry and conservation organizations rarely agree on where and how much to spend on the federal public lands grazing program. However, in the case of voluntary grazing permit buyout, U.S. Senators and Congressional representatives will be surprised to learn that both permittees and conservationists request ample funds for the same purpose. These decisionmakers, who have long desired an end to the public lands range war between conservationists and livestock interests, should be pleased to prioritize funding for permittees who indicate their desire to sell their grazing interests to the government.

The return on investment to taxpayers of buying out federal grazing permits is very good. However, these savings will not be realized in just one year. Any amount of money spent to buyout permits in any given year will only result in savings in the following years. This is important because Congressional budgeting procedures usually require that spending for new programs--even one that would result in significant future savings--must be immediately offset in the federal budget by reducing funding for other programs. So, NPLGC proposes that money to fund voluntary buyout come from:

• Federal Land Management Agency Budgets. As livestock grazing is reduced on public lands, agency support services for grazing--planning, allotment monitoring, resource analyses, fencing, water development, emergency feed, predator control--will decrease. The money saved from these programs could be used for permit buyout.



• Range "Betterment" Fund. A significant portion of federal grazing fee receipts is diverted from the federal treasury to the Range Betterment Fund, which is used to pay for range developments--fencing, roads, water development -- for grazing on public lands. These funds ought to be used for permit buyout.



Reallocating federal grazing fee revenue. Congress could choose to earmark the relatively small portion of the federal grazing fee that is actually received by the federal treasury for permit buyout.


• Land and Water Conservation Fund. A portion of federal offshore oil and gas royalties are earmarked for conservation purposes. While LWCF funds are always scarce, retiring grazing permits is a worthy use of these monies.



• State or federal fish and wildlife agencies. Retiring federal grazing permits is an excellent way for state and federal fish and wildlife agencies to help fulfill their mission to conserve and restore wildlife and their habitat.



• Other state and federal agencies. Other government agencies often have an obligation to mitigate for the impacts of their activities on the environment, including the Bonneville Power Administration, Bureau of Reclamation, and Department of Defense.
  

• Private firms with a legal obligation to mitigate for their activities. Under certain circumstances, private firms are required to mitigate for their activities. For example, a geothermal power company in California bought out federal grazing permits to compensate for the loss endangered desert tortoise habitat due to its activities. When the sage grouse is listed under the Endangered Species Act, it is likely that oil and gas companies will be required and/or willing to buyout grazing permits elsewhere to mitigate for the impacts of their activities on the grouse.



Private firms seeking public relations benefits. Some corporations, seeking good will for doing good deeds, will want to buyout federal grazing allotments.


• Conservation, wildlife, recreation and related organizations. The Grand Canyon Trust, National Wildlife Federation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and other organizations have already bought out grazing permits in furtherance of their organizational missions. They, and others, would buyout more permits in the future if they could be assured by Congress that the associated allotments would be permanently retired.
  

Is there a role for private conservation dollars?