The Real Conservationists
I’ve received multiple calls from concerned readers about Biden’s 30 x 30 plan. If you read my front-page story already, you’ll know this is the administration’s goal to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030. I would certainly agree with our concerned readers that this sounds like a hefty goal which could perhaps encroach on private lands and lands in agricultural production — especially considering 60 percent of the U.S. is privately owned AND only 60 percent of the U.S. is considered to be still in its “natural state” or able to be restored to it (stats I will also share with further explanation in part 2 next week).
Before panic ensues, however, it’s important to learn more. That’s what I aimed to do this week — simply learn about the 30 x 30 plan’s origination and potential actions that could result from it. While little is set in stone until the Interior Department’s report is released in mid-April, judging by the content in the Center for American Progress (CAP) report, its similarity to the House and Senate 30 x 30 resolutions, and the roles of the authors of those resolutions, we can make a lot of safe bets. Deb Haaland was a key representative in the 30 x 30 House Resolution, and she now leads the department charged with creating a plan to achieve that goal. Take it another step and Vice President Kamala Harris was a cosponsor on the Senate Resolution. We can safely presume their new plan will closely reflect their past resolutions.
It’s important to note that their resolutions, the CAP report, Biden’s Executive Order, and the Interior’s Fact Sheet on 30 x 30 all repeatedly mention cooperation with private landowners. We can see that as a promising inclusion. It certainly doesn’t mean, however, that we can turn a blind eye to this plan.
The CAP report noted that less than 1 percent of privately owned land is “permanently managed for conservation.” Their definition of private lands “permanently managed for conservation” means there is a conservation easement in perpetuity on that land. So, even if your land has been in your family for more than 100 years, is home to a vast array of wildlife, has seen multiple riparian area improvements, and stayed as a large, intact swath of grasslands only because it was in agriculture production and under your ownership, it may not be considered “conserved.”
That to me, is where this plan becomes concerning. Why don’t they take into consideration the millions of acres of forest, grasslands, badlands, and sagebrush flats that we have been conserving for years toward their goal? Why must those lands be placed in a conservation easement to count?
Conservation easements, in their mind, ensure the land won’t be developed. However, conservation easements can take away many important management decisions and hand them over to the wrong people. Now, I’m not saying every conservation easement is bad, but there are important considerations to make before placing one on your ranch.
A better way to ensure conservation of the lands that have been in ranching families’ hands for centuries is to make sure ranching remains a sustainable business that encourages future generations to return. Poor markets, burdensome regulations, and ever-increasing input costs are more of a threat to our country’s “nature” than development. It’s those hardships that are making ranching more and more difficult and are leading to the sale and development of the land that’s been entrusted to our care.
Think about it. Aside from federal- or state-owned lands, farmers and ranchers are the biggest reason the remaining private land is not developed. Farmers and ranchers have been stewarding a large portion of our nation for generations, and even many state and federal lands are in their care through grazing leases. It is agriculture production that has kept cities from sprawling across thousands of acres of U.S. land. So, in order to reach a conservation goal, does it not make sense to prioritize policies and an economy that supports our industry?
To us, it’s clear. Now, to make those back in D.C. see it through our eyes.