Red Lodge Clearinghouse

A U.S. District Court judge last week ordered the two parties to find a compromise in their dispute over whether to open the CRP for livestock feed. They were ordered to report back to the court with their agreement yesterday. But after filing their positions, there remains a wide gulf between the two proposals.

USDA scaled back its original proposal, but the agency still wants to open millions more acres than the wildlife group.

Judge John Coughenour of the Western District of Washington ordered the two parties to appear in court again tomorrow for a new hearing. He extended a restraining order that keeps landowners from moving forward on proposals to mow or graze livestock on their land.

USDA announced in May that it would allow landowners to open CRP land to hay production and cattle grazing without penalty, in response to rising feed prices. Western lawmakers and livestock groups applauded the decision.

The National Wildlife Federation and six state affiliates sued, arguing that the new activities on up to 24 million acres of CRP land should be subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Landowners enrolled in CRP -- the country's largest conservation program on private lands -- sign long-term contracts to receive federal payments in return for idling sensitive land.

Coughenour previously said there was a "strong likelihood" the plaintiffs would succeed on the claim that USDA violated the environmental law. But citing a recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, the judge said that environmental claims must be balanced with potential impact on the economy and the public trust. For that reason, he asked the two sides to work out a compromise or let him issue his own.

At the time of the restraining order, USDA had received applications to hay or graze almost 1.8 million acres of land. In some cases, landowners already started cutting hay on the land and had to stop in their tracks because of the order.

In court documents filed yesterday, the National Wildlife Federation conceded that those applications were submitted in "good faith" and landowners should be allowed to go forward with the program. But the group said USDA should not accept any new applications that were filed after the restraining order. For other pending applications, it said USDA should approve them only if the landowners have already invested in at least $5,000 worth of equipment to mow their land.

USDA argued that the proposal from the environmental group was too narrow. The agency said a much smaller amount of land would actually see hay cut or livestock graze, since landowners would apply for contracts on larger swaths of land than they actually use for livestock.

The Agriculture Department's attorneys requested a much larger cap of 3 million acres that "will be touched by livestock or a hay baler." Under the proposal, USDA could accept haying and grazing applications on even more acres of land, as long as no more than 3 million acres are used. The proposal is more than twice as large as the plan from the environmental group.

The 20-year-old Conservation Reserve Program is a favorite of wildlife groups for the more than 30 million acres of habitat it provides, but it faces continued threats in a time of increasing demand for row crops and low carry-over stocks. USDA also is considering a proposal to release landowners from conservation contracts early, allowing them to plow up land for row crops.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment