Now
Fair
14°
High
27°
Low
10°

U.S. judge to limit grazing on conservation land

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By GENE JOHNSON / The Associated Press

Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 - 04:58:32 pm CDT

SEATTLE — A federal judge said Thursday he intends to limit how much private conservation land the Bush administration opens to hay production and cattle grazing, after environmentalists cried foul.

In May, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that in response to rising grain and food prices, it would allow farmers and ranchers nationwide to make hay or graze their cattle on 24 million acres enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, a $2 billion-a-year federal program which pays farmers not to plant crops in order to return fields to native vegetation.

The National Wildlife Foundation and its Washington, Indiana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Louisiana and Kansas chapters sued, saying the agency didn’t properly consider the environmental impact of allowing grazing and haying on the conservation land, especially the effect on grassland birds. Although the grazing and haying would only be allowed from this month through early November, the damage to wintering areas and habitat for the birds, as well as water quality, could last for years, they argued.

U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour temporarily blocked the agency’s decision last week. During a hearing Thursday, he extended his temporary restraining order until next Tuesday, calling the USDA’s cursory environmental review in support of its decision a “joke.’’

But the judge also said he appreciates the plight of farmers and ranchers. He said next week he plans to issue an injunction limiting how much of the conservation land can be opened to haying and grazing, and he asked lawyers for both sides to help craft an urgent compromise.

The Nebraska Cattlemen organization is among those fighting the injunction so its members can access the haying and grazing program.

Established in the 1985 federal farm bill, the Conservation Reserve Program is the nation’s largest conservation program covering private lands. About 760,000 farmers have enrolled 34 million acres in the program; the government pays them rent for the land and provides financial assistance for conservation efforts.

Although 24 million acres were opened, the USDA expects that ranchers would seek to hay or graze only about 2.5 million acres. Coughenour suggested he might allow that much.

While the National Wildlife Foundation had demonstrated a strong likelihood that it would win its claim that the USDA violated the National Environmental Policy Act, Coughenour wrote in an order Thursday, the court must still consider the economic hardship of the farmers and the public, such as from rising food prices.

“There are substantial competing hardships, whose impact could be devastating to citizens who trusted that their government was acting legally ... as well as to the nation and the world economy at large, if the court issues the injunction that plaintiffs urge, which would suspend all haying and grazing ... until defendants have completed an environmental assessment,’’ Coughenour wrote.

The case drew friend-of-the-court briefs and affidavits from ranchers and agriculture officials around the country. Some ranchers wrote that they had already moved their cattle onto the conservation land — Bill O’Brien, an Amarillo, Texas, cattle producer, said he spent $50,000 on fencing and drilling wells for the cattle — when the judge halted the program.

Tom and Kim Hendrickson, who have a 450 cow-calf pair operation in Asotin County, Wash., said that they spent $40,000 on haying equipment because they thought they would be able to hay some conservation land this summer. What’s more, they said, they didn’t order hay from their usual producer, and it’s prohibitively expensive to get it elsewhere now.

Hay prices have increased from $75 to $100 three years ago to as much as $200 a ton.

A USDA official wrote in a court affidavit that rising feed prices are prompting some ranchers to kill their breeding herds, which will in turn limit supply and drive up food prices for consumers.

Ron Nordby, a cattle producer from Mansfield, in central Washington, said he and his son, Larry, had planned to use 1,000 of the 4,000 acres they have in the conservation program to begin weaning their 500 calves next week.

“We’ll have to do something — either buy some feed or figure out something,’’ he said after Thursday’s court hearing. “The freight rate’s pretty high. We used to just load cattle and move ‘em, but now we have to think about it.’’

Thomas France, a National Wildlife Federation attorney based in Missoula, Mont., said in court that the organization recognizes the difficulties posed by rising food and commodity prices, but that the USDA could have considered alternatives to opening 24 million acres to haying and grazing, such as placing regional or state caps on how much land could be opened, or concentrating the activity away from wetlands, where there would be less impact on birds and water quality.

“We’re very pleased the court has recognized that the USDA acted illegally,’’ France said after the hearing. “It’s telling the USDA to do what it should have done in the first instance, which is to sit down and talk to people.’’


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Nebraska > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
mad as hell wrote on July 17, 2008 2:05 pm:
" What gives one judge the right to set policy for all these farmers and ranchers. Talk about activist judges. "

Ej wrote on July 17, 2008 2:38 pm:
" another activest judge. "

RE Mad as Hell wrote on July 17, 2008 4:01 pm:
" The law gives the judges the power to block a decision by an administrative agency that is arbitrary and capricious. Clearly the farmers who entered into these agreements knew the ramifications of their actions and should not be allowed to back out as soon as grain prices rise- they got the benefit of their bargain. This decision was clearly right. "

SB wrote on July 17, 2008 4:24 pm:
" What gives an ag lobbyist the right to destroy this country’s natural resources by taking advantage of an executive branch who cares nothing about US laws, regulations, programs, and constitutional intents? "

Fed up wrote on July 17, 2008 4:50 pm:
" I bought some land in this welfare program and had to repay all money that had been paid to the previous own. Either farm it or sell it quit wasting tax money on these programs, we need food and fuel more then weeds and rodents "

Activist Judge wrote on July 17, 2008 5:10 pm:
" The term "activist judge" seems to be the legal word du jour from those in disagreement after any new opinion is rendered as of late. I'd be interested if those who so willing use this term would care to define it's meaning and then explain how the ruling in this article can be characterized as such. Just curious, because it seems like a pretty broad generalization to make with out explaining why. "

DC Husker wrote on July 17, 2008 5:59 pm:
" USDA should have sat down and talked to people. Arrogant bureaucrats. "

MaryJo wrote on July 17, 2008 6:06 pm:
" Although we've supported them for many years, we won't be making any more donations to the National Wildlife Federation. It is so sad to see breeding stock sent to slaughter because we can't find hay for them. Unfortunately, that will mean higher meat prices for consumers down the road, and farmers will be blamed. "

Junior wrote on July 17, 2008 6:29 pm:
" For whatever it's worth, one can contact the NWF via email from http://www.nwf.org/contact/. No sure it will do any good though. They are going to lose a few friends over this one! "

Ted Haubrich wrote on July 17, 2008 8:58 pm:
" There is a happy medium here. It is true the farmers and ranchers who entered into these deals knew what they were getting into, and don't have any legal right to back out just becasue the price of feeding cattle went up. However, LIMITED haying and grazing, if done correctly will do no long term harm to the land or animal populations. In fact some grazing may do the land good. Praire plants have evovled along with bison, and cattle have a pretty similar impact on the land. A prairie's strength is in it's roots, plowing a praire is it's death sentence, haying, grazing and fire, is a hiccup. "

David wrote on July 17, 2008 9:24 pm:
" This is farmland people.......pure and simple. I let my crp contract expire last year.....I bought a little land with some if it already in crp. If the buyer keeps in in crp they don't have to repay any money. I don't want the gov telling me what to do with my land. And for the little money they gave me. It barely covered the taxes. LJS already ran an article this year about how many farmers are letting their contracts expire. I just recently heard the gov is letting people out of contracts without penalty.....don't know for sure but that's what I heard. Anyhow...NWF should stop complaining....it's all going to be cropland again someday. "

DR wrote on July 18, 2008 6:20 am:
" The taxpayers have paid to have this land set aside as conservation land. That was the compromise by the rural state legislators and the city legislators representing conservationists. Now, administratively, the USDA steps in and GIVES more money to the Conservation Reserve Land owners by letting them graze or harvest hay. The contract the government has for leasing the land says no grazing and no harvesting. However, the USDA has a long history of breaking conntracts with farmers. President Reagan's administration implemented a Payment-IN-Kind (PIK) program in 1985 that destroyed the cash grain market by releasing the Farmer Owned grain storage program to the marketplace. THe USDA solution is no solution. What about the guys that grow hay for cash sale? With the release of the CRP land for haying or grazing their market price is driven downward. I expect Mother Nature will fix all this USDA stupidity. Oh wait, it is already happening in the marketplace. $7 corn, $15 soybeans, and $10 wheat while farmers have idle land to grass for a lease payment of less than $100 per acre. I expect all farmers are looing for a way out of the Conservation Reserve Program. As consumers, we have a simple question to ask. Is this part of the Conservation program reasonable? As taxpayers do we want to pay for habitat for pheasants, quail, and deer to look at or release all the farmers from their contracts so they can grow corn, soybeans, or wheat? Without increasing the payment for the habitat the farmers are not going to renew these contracts for current lease payments anyway. The taxpayer dollars that support the conservationist idea are in direct competition with the marketplace for grain production. "