Biden wants to increase conservation. Kansas Republicans call it a ‘land grab’
The Kansas Republican Party sent supporters an ominous warning this month about “Biden’s Land Grab.”
The fundraising email featured President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, superimposed on an image of rural America on fire with the nation’s flag as a backdrop. The party warned that Biden was seeking to “put environmentalists in charge of how Kansas farmers and ranchers manage their privately owned land.”
Biden hasn’t ordered any land seizures. But he has set an ambitious conservation goal as part of his broader strategy to combat climate change.
In his first week as president, Biden issued an executive order tasking federal agencies with recommending steps “to achieve the goal of conserving at least 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030.”
Achieving this goal would mean nearly tripling the amount of land the U.S. is conserving, taking the country from 12% to 30% in nine years. The U.S. already conserves 26% of its coastal waters, which will likely make the 30% water goal easier to implement.
Originally known as the 30x30 plan, the Biden administration has now branded the initiative “America the Beautiful.”
The goal is as unspecific as it is lofty.
There are no maps yet and details are limited. The administration hasn’t designated land in individual states for conservation and much of decision-making will be left to local stakeholders.
“It’s really a call to action for all Americans to say we know what would work for us to preserve our natural resources… to help future generations enjoy the same quality of life that we do,” said Zack Pistora, a lobbyist for the Kansas Sierra Club and the interim executive director of the Kansas Rural Center, which advocates for economically viable but ecologically sound farm policies.
Pistora said the strength of the Biden administration’s plan is that it will allow local stakeholders to control the process.
Kansas has the lowest percentage of protected land (1%) relative to its total area among all states, according to a January analysis by the website Stacker, based on data from the U.S. Department of Interior’s National Inventory of Protected Areas. Missouri ranked 38th with roughly 6.5 % of its total area protected, while Nevada topped all states with more than 80%, according to the analysis.
‘It should scare everybody in Kansas’
The initial report on the plan from the U.S. Departments of Interior, Agriculture and Commerce and the Council of Environmental Quality explicitly affirms private property rights, calls for the use of voluntary conservation programs and says the work must be locally led.
“Efforts to conserve and restore America’s lands and waters must respect the rights of private property owners. Such efforts must also build trust among all communities and stakeholders, including by recognizing and rewarding the voluntary conservation efforts of private landowners and the science-based approaches of fishery managers,” said the agencies’ report released last month.
The report calls ranching on both public and private lands essential to maintaining the economy and way of life of western states.
“The Republican Party of Kansas and other community leaders shouldn’t see this as scary, because it’ll be our design. It’s locally led,” Pistora said. “I don’t see anything about a land grab in the plan. I see a goal.”
The goal itself is what scares Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, who has emerged as one of the plan’s fiercest critics.
“If you took a third of the farmland or a third of the pasture land out of production, you might as well start closing some of those rural hospitals and having more consolidation,” said Marshall, contending there would be an adverse economic impact. “That’s their goal. Their goal said they would like to have 30% of lands or waters out of production across the country, so the goal scares me,” Marshall told The Star. “It should scare everybody in Kansas.”
Marshall, who supported efforts to overturn Biden’s electoral victory, introduced legislation in May to terminate the 30x30 directive. He’s also written to the president to express his opposition and this month published a guest column in The High Plains Journal, a western Kansas newspaper, decrying the plan.
“I’ve learned up here that it’s important to get in front of something, to try and get in front of a freight train before it gets going,” Marshall said.
The concept of conserving 30% of land by 2030 to slow climate change has been promoted by environmental groups for years.
Interior Secretary Deb Haaland championed the issue as a member of the U.S. House before her nomination to Biden’s cabinet, sponsoring a resolution last year to establish the 30% target because the U.S. “faces a conservation and climate crisis, with nature in a steep decline.”
Kansas Democratic Rep. Sharice Davids was a close ally of Haaland in the House and advocated for her appointment to the cabinet. Asked about the 30x30 initiative, Davids’ office expressed general support for the administration’s environmental agenda without delving into the specific details of the plan.
“Rep. Davids believes that protecting our natural resources is necessary for both our planet and our economy. She appreciates this Administration’s renewed focus on tackling climate change,” said Davids’ spokeswoman Ellie Turner in an email.
‘What are the details?’
Republicans from Missouri and Kansas are hostile to what they see as a broader effort to restrict land use.
“While conservation of 30% of U.S. land and water by 2030 may sound nice, Southeast Missourians know the truth. Government owned land means depleted resources for local communities and federal restrictions which stifle economic activity,” said Missouri Republican Rep. Jason Smith, who is contemplating a Senate run.
Marshall, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told senators at a recent hearing that the U.S. wouldn’t necessarily need to purchase more land to meet the 30% goal. It could be reached instead by expanding the USDA’s long-standing Conservation Reserve Program in which farmers receive federal money for agreeing to remove environmentally sensitive land from agriculture production.
But Marshall argued that this approach would still hurt the state’s economy by taking land out of production, a concern shared by Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt.
“I think that the impact of that could be bigger than we anticipate. World food demand is going to grow. We’re largely going to be feeding twice as many people in 25 years as we’re feeding the world today and in all likelihood no more than the same amount of land,” Blunt said.
The Kansas Farm Bureau said it’s supportive of incentive-based conservation programs as long as they are voluntary. The report recommends rewarding farmers and ranchers with incentives for voluntary conservation practices.
“Our biggest concern right now is what are the details of this?” said Greg Doering, a spokesman for the Kansas Farm Bureau. Doering called the May report “a philosophical document that still needs a lot of fleshing out to make sure that any action is going to be voluntary.”
Doering said his organization appreciated that the report acknowledged the role farmers already play in conservation.
“This is definitely a hurry up and wait situation as the administration tries to get the details,” Doering said. “I do know specifically on the 30 x 30, they’re acknowledging the concerns that American Farm Bureau, Kansas Farm Bureau and just farmers around the country have raised. Now, we’re waiting to see how they respond to concerns.”
While agriculture groups are wary about the lack of details, environmental organizations see the ground-up approach as an important part of gaining support from local stakeholders.
“There is no one-size-fits-all solution for conserving our lands, and the ways we can achieve the 30x30 vision are as varied as the landscapes we are trying to protect,” The National Resources Defense Council said in a statement last month.
“The America the Beautiful Campaign could provide an opportunity for communities to tell their stories about the special places they want to protect—the places we depend upon for clean air, clean water, food security, and abundant native wildlife.”
Pistora said he often puts Kansas lawmakers through an exercise when pitching them on environmental policies. He asks them to describe the most beautiful place they’ve been. Most of the time that ends up being somewhere outdoors.
“Well, why is that?” he asks them. “There’s something about nature that’s innate in us… We take it for granted.”
