Free a Rancher

A lot could be done economically and environmentally on the Colorado Plateau with a couple changes in the law.  It's a main theme of Torrey House Press, something we hope our writers pick up and characterize.  Both water and grazing practices could be greatly improved, without forcing anybody to do anything, with the good old market and pricing mechanism.  Currently ranchers are not allowed to sell their grazing rights to a conservation agency to retire them.  Primarily the Cattleman's Association, a classic special interest group, blocks the possibility via political means.  What I enjoy is the Cattleman's brash Tea Party Sagebrush Rebellion style noises about being for rancher's individual rights and so against the federal "guvment."  Hypocrisy is always a bit painful to witness.  But I wonder what might result if we can manage to publicly get this special interest group to acknowledge they aren't in fact for rancher's individual right to make his own choices but rather think they know best.  Such a sweet, socialistic notion. Conservation agencies like the Grand Canyon Trust are standing by with fists full of cash, and at least some ranchers would rather have that money than continue grazing cows on public land.  The rural communities would stand to gain a capital infusion, from private willing sources no less, not from a guvment handout, and the land would benefit immensely from the relief of being hammered by grazing while the public would save on future subsidies to ranchers.

Water is the other law that needs a change.  Right now if a hay grower leaves water in the stream he is legally wasting it and stands to lose his water rights.  Most hay is watered at a cost to the grower of five or six dollars an acre-foot in the rural West.  In Salt Lake we pay around $300 an acre foot for water on average.  In LA they sometimes pay $5,000 and more.  How would a grower on the Colorado Plateau turn his $6 water into $5,000 water?  Turn off his sprinklers.  Downstream flow does the rest.  It's a compelling idea, it's just not legal.  The grower would benefit, the land would benefit, the streams and riparian areas would benefit, the state would benefit.  Seems just dumb and stubborn to insist on keeping it the way it is.  We are going to see what we can do for our part to change it.  -Mark Bailey