Statement of Administration Policy: S. 1459 - Public Rangelands Management Act of 1995

(Senate)
(Domenici (R) NM)

The Administration strongly opposes S. 1459 and, if presented to the President in its current form, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior would recommend that the bill be vetoed. S. 1459 would: (1) compromise environmental protection; (2) severely limit public involvement in the management of public lands and resources; (3) emphasize a single use of public lands at the expense of other multiple uses; and (4) impose a morass of red tape and administrative burdens on land managers. These concerns are discussed further below.

The Administration is committed to maintaining healthy and productive public rangelands that support the full spectrum of multiple uses such as livestock grazing, hunting and fishing, fish and wildlife habitat, oil and gas development, hard rock mining, and camping. As part of this commitment, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) developed, with significant public participation, management changes that balance the needs of ranchers with the interests of other public land users. These reforms went into effect on August 21, 1995 and should be given an opportunity to continue.

By contrast, because S. 1459 emphasizes a single use of the public lands -- livestock grazing — at the expense of other uses and values, it would negate the Administration's ongoing efforts to appropriately and fairly reform grazing practices on public lands. It would also introduce new uncertainties for livestock permittees and other public land users, and likely lead to controversy and litigation over the management of public lands.

Compromising Environmental Protection

S. 1459 would severely limit the ability of public land managers to modify terms and conditions of a grazing permit to protect multiple uses of public lands and resources. For example, the bill would create new monitoring requirements which would result in costly and time consuming delays before even the most basic of management actions could be taken to protect the environment. The bill would also increase red tape in the administration of the grazing program and would create duplicative processes for the review of resource conditions upon issuance, renewal, or transfer of grazing permits.

The bill would exempt most grazing management activities and decisions at project and allotment management plan levels from the disclosure and public involvement requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Large land areas would be subject to increased vulnerability to legal challenge on the question of NEPA compliance.

The sweeping water rights language appears to bar managers from opposing transfer of water uses from federal land to private land. It would limit the ability of land managers to ensure access to water sources on Federal land for subsequent permittees and other multiple uses. For example, it could easily result in exclusion of wildlife from scarce water supplies on public lands. The bill would also prevent ranchers from employing proven restoration techniques such as "conservation use".

The bill would also result in a radical overhaul of departmental regulatory regimes. Finally, by separating the National Grasslands from the National Forest System, the bill imposes an unnecessary, time consuming, and costly process for the modification of land management plans and regulations. This process would not improve the ability of the Forest Service to address the unique resource needs of the grasslands.

Limiting Public Involvement in Management of Public Lands

Under S. 1459, participation in the development of grazing allotment management plans would be restricted to grazing permittees/lessees, adjacent landowners, grazing advisory council members, and affected State agencies. The tens of millions of other Americans who use and enjoy public lands would be prevented from meaningful participation in decisions on the use of public lands.

Only permittees/lessees could protest proposed land management decisions. Such a provision leaves disenfranchised public land users with no recourse except time-consuming administrative appeals or costly litigation. Litigation and administrative appeals are a poor substitute for diverse groups of people working together to find common solutions to common problems.

Emphasizing a Single-Use of Public Lands Above Other Multiple Uses

S. 1459 creates single-use grazing advisory councils and mandates that 50 percent of the councils' members be grazing permittees/lessees — thereby limiting participation by other stakeholders. The bill would broadly exempt grazing management from the oversight, protest, analysis, disclosure, and public involvement requirements that apply to other users of public land.

S. 1459 establishes a new fee formula for grazing on public lands. Tins formula would also be extended to National Grasslands and eastern National Forests. The formula would generate very little additional Federal revenue and, in fact, provides sheep ranchers with a 30 percent fee reduction. Moreover, the bill allows ranchers who hold a public land grazing permit to sublease those public lands to private interests at a significant profit without any return to the taxpayer.

Livestock grazing has been, and continues to be, an important use of public lands. This bill, however, insulates from needed management changes the relatively small number of permittees who follow poor land management practices. S. 1459 would surely provoke confrontation and litigation among the 26, 000 public land livestock operators and the millions of other citizens who use and enjoy public lands.

Increased Administrative Burdens

S. 1459 would create a number of costly administrative burdens for land managers. The creation and management of hundreds of grazing advisory councils would cost an estimated $5 million annually.

S. 1459 imposes other administrative burdens and bureaucratic costs as well. For example, public land managers could only develop terms and conditions of a grazing permit through Allotment Management Plans. Presently such plans exist for 20 percent of BLM managed allotments. Prior to placing terms and conditions on a grazing permit or lease, Allotment Management Plans would need to be created for the remaining 80 percent of allotments.

Pay-as-You-Go Scoring

S. 1459 would affect offsetting receipts and direct spending; therefore, it is subject to the pay-as- you-go (PAYGO) requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990. The preliminary OMB PAYGO estimate is presented in the table below. Final scoring of this legislation may deviate from this estimate.

PAY-AS-YOU-GO ESTIMATES
(dollars in millions)