A Battle Brews Over America’s West: Environmentalists vs. ‘Cowboys for Trump’
In state with most government-owned land, Nevada cattlemen and farmers view the president-elect as ally in their fight for more access; conservationists ready for resistance
The U.S. government controls more than 80% of the land in Nevada—the highest percentage in the nation.
By Jim Carlton, WSJ
Nov. 16, 2024 5:30 am ET
GARDNERVILLE, Nev.—Nick Nalder runs his cattle across the rugged high desert south of Reno, embodying an iconic image straight out of a cowboy movie. But like most Nevada ranchers, he confronts an insurmountable challenge: He doesn’t have enough private land to grow his herd.
Farming and ranching aren’t easy vocations, yet perhaps nowhere do things get thornier than in Nevada, where the U.S. government controls more than 80% of the land—the highest percentage in the nation. It is here that some of America’s most contentious battles over public-land use unfold between ranchers, farmers, environmentalists and federal agencies.
This tension appears set to escalate. Many ranchers like Nalder, 32, expect President-elect Donald Trump to give them a friendlier ear and broader land access than President Biden and other Democratic administrations.
“Trump understands the benefits of grazing public lands,” says Nalder, who proudly brandishes a new piece of gear, a “Cowboys for Trump” hat. Trump won Nevada, which hadn’t backed a Republican for president since 2004.
Environmentalists promise fierce resistance, and are vowing to contest any regulatory rollbacks through litigation. “We’re gearing up to meet the threat,” says Erik Molvar, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, an antigrazing group in Hailey, Idaho. “I’m not anticipating taking a lot of time off.”
The conflict over public-land use in Nevada includes water for crop irrigation.
Water woes
The conflict extends beyond grazing rights. Most Western farmers depend on snowmelt from the mountains, which accumulates in reservoirs during spring thaws before federal and state officials distribute it to irrigate crops. This system has become a lightning rod between agricultural needs and environmental concerns.
“You’re going to have water in California at a level that you’ve never seen before,” Trump declared at a September press conference near Los Angeles. “The farmers are going to do great.”
Fourth-generation rancher Ron Cerri and his peers fought proposed constraints by the Bureau of Land Management on how much grass a cow could eat.
Green groups contend the agricultural water use harms threatened species, such as migrating Delta smelt fish, measuring up to 3 inches—though farmers dispute this claim. The environmentalists’ lawsuits have already prompted federal agencies to reduce farmers’ water allocations, particularly in California’s Central Valley, America’s produce epicenter.
The restrictions stir resentment. “If you don’t water, you can’t farm,” says William Bourdeau, executive vice president of Harris Farms. A major California grower of almonds, onions, tomatoes and other commodities, Harris hosted Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance for a roundtable lunch in July. “He was interested in our issues and seemed very supportive.”
Farmer Joe Frey releases water to his fields from the T-line canal in Fallon, Nev.
Frey says he is counting on Trump to turn the tide against federal limits on government-owned land.
Joe Frey runs a 1,000-acre family farm outside Fallon, Nev., in the sage-covered western part of the state. He relies on irrigation from the Carson and Truckee rivers, both managed by the Bureau of Reclamation. Throughout the past two decades, he says, federal limits have cost his farm nearly 10% of its water rights and his family $1 million in legal fees to fight.
He is counting on Trump to turn the tide. “Just with him being president, people within the bureaucracy are kind of on notice,” says Frey, 43.
Nevada’s clashes over public-land use are legendary. The 2014 armed confrontation between rancher Cliven Bundy and federal agents erupted after the Bureau of Land Management seized 400 head of his cattle for delinquent grazing fees on government terrain. Bundy, his two sons and most other co-defendants were ultimately cleared of wrongdoing in the courts.
Ron Cerri’s ranch in Orovada, Nev.
Grazing showdown
Much of the grazing dispute centers on the effect of cattle on the public range. Molvar and other environmentalists say cows trample vegetation around watering holes where they tend to congregate. That imperils deer and elk, destroys fisheries “and turns the land into a desert,” Molvar says.
While ranchers dispute this and argue grazing actually benefits the land, U.S. authorities have responded with restrictions. Today, the BLM permits 50% fewer cows than it allowed on its vast ranges in the 1970s.
In the views of many farmers and ranchers, Trump has signaled his intention to change the trend.
“The federal government does not have unlimited power to lock up millions of acres of land and water,” Trump said in a written answer to a question on the topic by the American Farm Bureau Federation. “I believe states, communities and private land owners know best how to manage their own resources.”
Ron Cerri maintains 1,000 head of cattle on public land in northern Nevada.
The competing visions play out in rancher struggles. In northern Nevada, fourth-generation rancher Ron Cerri and his peers fought proposed constraints by the BLM on how much grass a cow could eat. Though the ranchers won an acceptable compromise, after spending $500,000 in legal and consulting fees, Cerri says new regulations threaten them again.
A BLM rule effective June 2023 elevates conservation to the same importance as grazing across the 400,000 acres of public land where Cerri maintains his 1,000 head of cattle. Another proposed new rule, he says, would limit grazing to protect a threatened bird, the greater sage grouse.
For 46-year-old rancher Justin Snow, the stakes feel immediate. The Navy plans to take over half of the 78,000 acres where Snow owns grazing rights for his 232 cows on BLM property above the Naval Air Station Fallon. He hopes Trump intervenes to work out alternative places for the livestock to roam.
The Bureau of Land Management now permits 50% fewer cows than it allowed on its vast ranges in the 1970s.
“I can’t put them in my backyard,” Snow says of his cattle. “I think Trump is reasonable enough to see the writing on the wall that we need the beef industry.”
Environmental groups caution that such confidence might be premature.
“Whatever short-term benefits ranchers might hope they get from relaxed enforcement of the law will get immediately tied up in court,” predicted Aaron Weiss, deputy director of the Center for Western Priorities, a green group in Denver. “At the end of the day, they still are limited by the law even if Donald Trump doesn’t think so.”
Steve Holmer, vice president of the American Bird Conservancy, which is fighting to save the sage grouse, sees the perennial political oscillation as counterproductive to everyone’s interest.
“It feels like ‘Groundhog Day,’ ” he says. “We see some conservation in one administration only to have it rolled back by the next.”
Comments