Vilsack: Biden’s 30x30 Goal is ‘Not a Land Grab’
Get more daily market reports from Pro Farmer, start a free trial here.
On a day when U.S. corn futures went limit-up on supply and demand concerns, Washington talked about idling millions of additional lands via various programs.
USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack disputed some comments that President Joe Biden’s goal of conserving 30% of the nation’s land by 2030 is a “land grab.” Instead, Vilsack labeled the executive order as protecting “private, working lands" through voluntary programs.
USDA is requesting comments on how to best meet the 30x30 goal. Responses, Vilsack said, “will give us the ability to understand how best to structure this, but I can assure you this: There’s no intention to have a land grab,” Vilsack told reporters. “There’s no intention to take something away from folks.”
Background: On January 27, 2021 President Biden signed Executive Order #14008 (link) entitled, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.” In Section 216 of that Executive Order, President Biden directed the Secretary of the Interior along with the Secretary of Agriculture, and other senior officials, to develop a plan to conserve at least 30% of the lands (not limited to farmland) and waterways in the U.S. by the year 2030. Supporters say the effort is necessary to protect the planet from the impact of climate change, and is expected to be ratified at the CoP26 climate summit in October. As of January, the U.S. Geological Survey reports only 12% of the U.S. land is protected and 23% of U.S. oceans are protected. The ocean protection is disproportionately favoring the western Pacific, according to reports. Section 216(a) of the Executive Order directs certain federal agencies to “submit a report to the Task Force within 90 days (April 27th),” recommending steps the federal government should take to work with State, local, and tribal authorities and others “to achieve the goal of conserving at least 30% of our lands and waterways by 2030.”
Opponents of the 30x30 plan say there is no constitutional or statutory authority for the President of the United States, the Department of the Interior, or the Department of Agriculture to set aside and preserve 30% of lands and waterways for the purpose of conservation. Moreover, no such authority is ever mentioned in the Executive Order.
Many are asking how the gov’t will acquire or control 30% of land. Observers note there are only two viable options: Perpetual conservation easements or outright purchases of large tracts of land from private owners.
Nebraska farmers and some farm groups note that private landowners will be most affected in Nebraska because 97% of all property in Nebraska is privately owned. Opponents say the 30X30 plan would result in a large “land grab” of 680 million acres across the country under the guise of conservation. The 30X30 plan would put at risk 1.16 million more acres of land in Nebraska along with the 580,000 acres the feds already own or control.
Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) recently said she was "concerned that 30x30 will be used to undermine the rights of private landowners, who are the best conservationists in this country." Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), ranking member on the Senate Ag Committee, recently warned attendees of a virtual meeting of the National Farmers Union that achieving 30x30 goals could result in taking too much farmland out of commission.
More than 60 House and Senate Republicans recently sent Biden a letter under the umbrella of the Congressional Western Caucus that asked for a meeting on 30x30, saying they had concerns that the "initiative will be used as a method to undermine private property rights, circumvent the multiple-use mandate, and lock up more land.” The 30x30 effort, they added, "displays a dangerous thoughtlessness and far too many of our questions have been left unanswered."
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a Western Caucus member and the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining, agreed. "[Democrats] have not always been respectful of how decisions that they make will affect people close to the land that they're trying to restrict," he said. "And many of them also seem to proceed under the very flawed, and I would maintain demonstrably false, assumption that land as a whole is necessarily better managed under federal control than it would be under state control, and categorically better in government hands than it would be in private ownership."
Survival International today (Earth Day) launched a major new campaign to stop the plan 30x30 plan. The plan is being discussed today at President Biden’s Leaders’ Summit on Climate (April 22-23). But Survival International has warned that it would constitute “the biggest land grab in history,” noting 300 million people stand to lose their land and livelihood, most of them tribal and indigenous peoples. The organization has labeled the plan the #BigGreenLie.
Proponents of the 30x30 proposal include the American Farmland Trust (AFT), which has called for policies of voluntary, incentive-based and locally led conservation. AFT in a new report (link) offers recommendations to reach the goals of climate mitigation.
Meanwhile, Vilsack said USDA’s unilateral decision to add 4 million acres to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was in line with the 30x30 goal. USDA is increasing payment rates and other financial incentives to do so (link for details). The 30x30 goal is “really designed to figure out creative and innovative ways to encourage folks to participate in (CRP conservation efforts), as many farmers and ranchers are already doing, and may very well be inclined to do more if the right set of incentives are in place,” Vilsack said.
The 30x30 controversy also came up in a Senate Agriculture Committee today for Jewel Bronaugh, Biden's nominee as deputy agriculture secretary. While Bronaugh stressed the importance of doing conservation work on land in agricultural production, she said, “We will continue to determine how we can utilize working lands as an integral part of addressing 30x30 goals and challenges.” However, she would not deny the federal gov’t might seek to acquire additional land. When Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) asked about that possibility, Bronaugh responded “there will be a lot more opportunities to make decisions about how we move forward.” Thune then said something many farmers would agree with — the federal government can’t maintain the land it has and shouldn’t be purchasing more.