OCR Text |
Show By Cecil D. Andrui, Secretary of the Interior There's more at stake in the Carter Administration's grazing fee proposal than a simple dollars -and-cents formula; there's the question ques-tion of what's right for everyone eve-ryone concerned. That includes in-cludes the rancher who grazes graz-es livestock on public lands, as well as those folks who look to the same lands for other needs. Equally important, it includes in-cludes the public the more than 200 million Americans to whom the public lands belong. be-long. The grazing fee issue is not new. For many years, fees charged for forage on National Forest lands and the public lands administered administer-ed by the Bureau of Land Management have lagged far behind what was being charged for grazing rights on private lands. What is new is that today we have a mandate the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to protect the public by insisting in-sisting on a fair return on resources taken from its property. That law required a joint effort by the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to study grazing fees and propose pro-pose a reasonable fee structure; struc-ture; one that is "equitable to the United States and to holders of grazing permits on public lands." The key word here is "equitable," although I recognize rec-ognize the difficulty of achieving this lofty ideal, to everyone's satisfaction, in every case.' In this instance, for example, ex-ample, the law Itself contains some apparent ambiguity. It says, on the one hand, that we should consider the cost of livestock operations In establishing es-tablishing fees. This,, could have the effect of holding fees artificially low, thereby subsidizing sub-sidizing the rancher. On the other hand, the law quite properly requires us to obtain "fair market va- lue" for grazing rights, n,, 1 question is, which of n,es4 a requirements is paramount, r I believe that basing y fee structure on fair market 1 value was the overriding in, ' tent of Congress in enact. 1 ing this legislation. Itlsai 1 the best way to resolve this C issue at long last - iBl ( way that is fair to everyoa, C It's fair to the rancher! ' He would pay only what for! 1 age is worth. Not more. Am ( it's fair to the public, j 1 would receive as" much u the forage is worth. Not less, ' Of course, there's always ! the chance that this is rot . what Congress intend Perhaps they would subst. dize the livestock industrj bysellingpublicresourcesij t bargain prices. Frankly, 1 doubt it, but if that was their goal, then I think it's up to ( Congress to clarify the law, Instead, there Is some , Congressional activity aimed ( at once again postponing an; grazing fee adjustments. 1 hope this doesn't happen, be. j cause delay is not a sohi. tion it's just delay. . j Being a Westerner, I can , appreciate the sensitivity ol Western legislators to the concerns of the livestock In. ( dustry. I, too, am concerned, This has been a really tough year, what with serious drought, rising costs andun- j certain market conditions, But that's all the mors reason for stabilizing the grazing fee situation now, because every year of furth. . er delay means the gap be. . tween public and private . grazing charges grows larg- er. i Interior .and Agriculture have been reaching toward : fair market value in grazing fees since 1969, when the present regulations went into 1 effect. Those , rules, Jjy.,tt way, would set the 1978 fee at $2.08 to $2.15 per animal unit month (AUM). Ournes formula would work more gently than that, setting netf year's fee at $1.89 , with modest raises each year until fair market value Is c reached in 1980 or 1981, So our proposal would soften the burden by maldnj 1 the increases gradual. In fact, for most operators graze their animals on public pub-lic lands, the impact would be minimal, because Federal fees are only a small part of their overall operating . costs (the average annual increase would be only $60), 1 The livestock industrj i would, in fact, benefit from ; our proposal, because It . would help solve the critical problem of deteriorating rangelands. ' Under our proposal, as 1 . directed by Congress, one- , half of -all fees collected 1 would be earmarked for In- ' 1 vestment in range better- 1 m ent projects. That's urgent- ly needed now not another j 1 20 years down the road. And j I making the range more pro- 1 ductive will bring greater j I stability to the livestock In- 1 dustry in the long run. 1 i |