Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 1792

Should States Have Control Over Grazing on Federal Lands Within Their Borders?

Argument in favor

States can provide more prudent oversight over grazing allotments in their states than the BLM can, and 20-year cooperative agreements ensure that BLM stays involved in the process.

operaman's Opinion
···
01/06/2016
Yes, States should manage open lands. The Federal Government tries to manage lands as a revenue maker and or expansion of more federal employees. Both bleeds revenue from states and many time these lands are abused by the EPA or BLM to faculae ECO-Terrorism on locals.
Like (19)
Follow
Share
···
01/07/2016
It doesn't matter what ones opinion is on this matter. The 10th Amendment of The United States Constitution gives such governing power to the States....The BLM is another example of the Federal Government over stepping it's Constitutional confines.
Like (15)
Follow
Share
J's Opinion
···
01/06/2016
All Agricultural land, versus parks and refuges, should be returned to the States, period.
Like (8)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

States won’t manage grazing allotments as diligently as the BLM does, and federal lands should always be managed by a federal agency without state involvement.

Leo's Opinion
···
01/06/2016
The land is owned by the Federal government therefore it is subject to Federal management. If the States want control they should offer to purchase the land.
Like (34)
Follow
Share
Nikki's Opinion
···
01/06/2016
No, states that are run by people in the cattlemen's association pocket cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the environment and the animals that call that land home.
Like (21)
Follow
Share
Chris's Opinion
···
01/06/2016
The BLM very diligently manages the resources on these Federal lands for the benefit of all citizens. Allowing the States to interfere would only cause an unequal land management plan and confusion in the future.
Like (9)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
      Committee on Natural Resources
    IntroducedApril 14th, 2015

What is House Bill H.R. 1792?

This bill would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to enter into 20-year cooperative agreements allowing states to manage grazing allotments on eligible federal land. 

These agreements would be considered if a state’s governor asks for them. Lands that would be considered eligible under this bill include public lands covered by a grazing permits or leases issued by the BLM. However, areas of environmental concern and portions of the National Wilderness Preservation System would be excluded.

States would be prohibited from managing more than two allotments of public lands unless the BLM waives that limitation during the 20-year term of the program. Cooperative agreements between the BLM and states would assign the BLM’s responsibilities over grazing allotments (managed under the National Environmental Policy Act) to the states. 

Any cooperative agreement would require states to develop a process to resolve disputes relating to a how states choose to manage allotments.

Impact

Ranchers who graze their animals on BLM lands, states interested in cooperative agreements with the BLM, state governors and federal land management agencies, environmentalists, recreational use of federal lands, and the BLM.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 1792

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

Of Note: The BLM and the grazing fees it charges the farmers and ranchers whose livestock graze on those lands have come under scrutiny following two highly publicized confrontations in Nevada and Oregon. These disputes centered around the grazing fees that the BLM was charging ranchers who graze their cattle on public lands. It also happens to include two members of the Bundy family, furthering their legacy of fighting with the federal government.

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) introduced this bill to assist farmers and ranchers who graze livestock on BLM lands:

“Grazing is critical to communities all over rural Utah, and I believe our communities have the expertise and passion to best manage their own grazing lands. I’m doing all I can in Congress to protect Utah’s grazing rights, including pushing for this state grazing pilot program.”

Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: "Cliven Bundy (14720281294)" by Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Cliven Bundy. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons)

AKA

State Grazing Management Authority Act

Official Title

To amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with States to provide for State management of grazing permits and leases.

    Yes, States should manage open lands. The Federal Government tries to manage lands as a revenue maker and or expansion of more federal employees. Both bleeds revenue from states and many time these lands are abused by the EPA or BLM to faculae ECO-Terrorism on locals.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    The land is owned by the Federal government therefore it is subject to Federal management. If the States want control they should offer to purchase the land.
    Like (34)
    Follow
    Share
    No, states that are run by people in the cattlemen's association pocket cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the environment and the animals that call that land home.
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    It doesn't matter what ones opinion is on this matter. The 10th Amendment of The United States Constitution gives such governing power to the States....The BLM is another example of the Federal Government over stepping it's Constitutional confines.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    The BLM very diligently manages the resources on these Federal lands for the benefit of all citizens. Allowing the States to interfere would only cause an unequal land management plan and confusion in the future.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    All Agricultural land, versus parks and refuges, should be returned to the States, period.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    The BLM is just one of the many bureaucratic agencies of our massive government that should be abolished.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    I don't think there should be Federal lands. We have states. What happens in those states is up to the citizens of that state.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    While there are some issues better left for states to decide, these lands belong to the federal government
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    The land belongs to the people of the United States. I see a lot of opinions expressed here that show a total ignorance of the history of lands in the western US. The land was purchased from France by Thomas Jefferson, on behalf of the nation. Lewis and Clark came west to find out exactly what he had bought. Big hint here on the constitutionality of the Federal Government owning the land: The guys who wrote the constitution and Bill of Rights were for the most part still in Congress and authorized the purchase. If they thought it was a violation of the constitution they wouldn't have authorized the purchase. Second point, right now the lands are managed for long term benefit of the public, which includes multiple uses including recreation. If you give it to the states it won't be, and will most likely be sold off into private hands within twenty years, and closed to the public. If you think the State governments are less corrupt than the federal government you are either an idiot, or part of the corruption. The Idaho legislature is currently pushing to sell hunting tags to the highest bidder, and to allow those with money to buy extra draws in the trophy hunt drawings. Serve the rich, not your constituents is a constant theme with our elitist legislature.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    It is my understanding that each state, except Texas, were required to give the Federal Government a percentage of the total landmass to the the US in order to be allowed to become a state. In other cases parks and reserves have been created through Congressional action. The strange form of Mormonism that the Bundys espouse to justify their actions has been denounced by the LDS Church as not having anything to do with official LDS teaching. Returning Federal Land to the States would be a costly nightmare for the states, and would be responding to the needs of a few ranchers who never grew up.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    It is the job of the Bureau of Land Management to allot land appropriately, and no partisan state oversight should supersede that.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    NO! States are very shortsighted and can operate irresponsibly at a whim. The federal government bought the lands for safekeeping and the responsible management there of. The lands are managed for all the people of this and future generations to receive benefit from. Some of which is esoteric, some economic, and some purely as a safe keep for the future.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    I believe that the states should have control over the land, as they will know what to do best with the land compared to the federal government.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    BLM needs to go away completely. States can do a better job and cost much less.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Because it's Federal, not state land.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    BLM should be shut down - short of that, anything out of their direct supervision is a good thing.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    States have shown time and time again that they can manage land better than the Feds. The BLM is an ineffective agency that is used more for bullying land owners than managing lands. The Hammonds in Oregon had to burn federal land for them in order to kill invasive species and fire prevention!
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    This good sense, because the BLM like many other agencies has become too politically motivated. This would make the BLM less responsive to Federal entities and more responsive to local entities and needs.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    The land belongs to the state. Not the federal government. The BLM needs to be a non office.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE