Bill Overview
Title: Voluntary Grazing Permit Retirement Act
Description: This bill authorizes the voluntary waiver of permits or leases for grazing on federal lands managed by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior in the 16 western states (e.g., Utah, Washington, and Wyoming). If a permit or lease is waived by a permittee or lessee with the intention of permanently ending livestock grazing, the appropriate department must accept and terminate, on a first-come, first-served basis, the permit or lease; refrain from issuing any new grazing permit or lease within the grazing allotment covered by the permit or lease; and ensure a permanent end to livestock grazing on the allotment covered by the permit or lease. If an allotment covered by a waiver is also covered by another permit or lease that is not waived, the department must reduce the level of commercial livestock grazing on the allotment to reflect the waiver. The departments must not accept more than (1) 100 grazing permits per year, in the aggregate for all of the 16 western states; and (2) 25 grazing permits for land located in whole or in part in any individual state.
Sponsors: Rep. Smith, Adam [D-WA-9]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in grazing activities on federal lands in the 16 western states
Estimated Size: 1500000
- Livestock producers in the 16 western states who rely on federal grazing permits will directly be impacted as they have the option to retire permits, possibly changing their livestock operations or exiting the industry.
- The pastoral economies of small rural communities in these states may also be affected due to changes in grazing practices, potentially impacting employment and allied services.
- Conservation and environmental groups could see changes in land use practices that align with their goals for reducing livestock grazing on public lands.
- The legislation would influence federal land management strategies and allocation decisions within the Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior.
Reasoning
- The policy is limited by a budget which caps the number of permits that can be retired each year. This means that while the potential impact on the broader population of livestock producers in the western states is significant, the immediate effect is more limited, affecting only a small number of permit holders directly per year.
- The diversity of perspectives and backgrounds among livestock producers and other stakeholders implies that the impact will not be uniform across individuals or communities.
- Environmental groups and individuals supporting conservation efforts may benefit indirectly from the reduction in grazing, potentially improving their expected wellbeing since less land is used for commercial livestock purposes.
Simulated Interviews
Rancher (Wyoming)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as an opportunity to retire from grazing progressively. The ability to retire my permit could help transition my business, though I worry about long-term viability without grazing rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Conservationist (Utah)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns well with our organization's mission to reduce environmental damage from overgrazing. I'm optimistic about seeing real ecological benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Livestock feed supplier (Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If ranchers start to retire permits, it could mean less business for us. I'm worried about how this might impact our sales and bottom line.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Federal Land Manager (Washington)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will help in managing land more sustainably by reducing overgrazing, but I anticipate challenges in managing competing interests among stakeholders.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Rancher (New Mexico)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important to maintain our ranching traditions, but I see how some ranchers might benefit financially from retiring permits voluntarily.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Local Business Owner (Idaho)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that if ranchers start leaving the grazing business, it could mean less traffic for my store. However, if the land transitions positively, it might open new business opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Academic Researcher (Colorado)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might offer a good case study on federal land use change and its economic impacts on micro-level scales. It's an intriguing opportunity for research.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Sheep Rancher (Nevada)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If grazing becomes limited, I will need to find alternate land, which could increase my operational costs significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental Policy Advocate (California)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm pleased to see policies that aim to reduce livestock pressures on public lands and hope to see more communities support sustainable practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cattle Rancher (Montana)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical about the long-term benefits for ranchers like me. Retirement from grazing isn't an easy choice when traditions run deep.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2300000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2800000)
Year 2: $2300000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2800000)
Year 3: $2300000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2800000)
Year 5: $2300000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2800000)
Year 10: $2300000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2800000)
Year 100: $2300000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2800000)
Key Considerations
- The adaptation strategies employed by ranchers will significantly affect both the cost and economic impacts of the policy.
- Potential lawsuits or legal agreements from ranchers who resist permit retirement might increase the legal and administrative costs.
- Future land use changes due to restrictions on former grazing lands could have unforeseen economic and environmental effects.