The Grand Canyon Trust turned to he marketplace in its efforts to improve the condition of federal grazing lands. Rather than seek additional regulatory controls on the use of federal land, they began buying grazing permits from ranchers who were willing to sell. Over the past several years, the Trust has spent over $1 million buying grazing permits on some 400,000 acres. It seemed like a win-win solution -- the Trust reduced grazing, ranchers got paid -- but some ranchers were not so happy about it. As the New York Times reports:

The deals seemed to suit all concerned, until a group of local officials decided that they were bad for the local economy and a threat to the ancestral tradition of living off the land. The group set out to end this latest, uncharacteristically civil chapter in the fraught history of cattlemen, environmentalists and dueling visions of the West's future.

Michael E. Noel, a former Bureau of Land Management employee who now is a Republican state representative from southern Utah, led the charge to roll back agreements the trust had forged. Mr. Noel said the loss of the grazing allotments would hurt ranching, which would in turn deprive the area's young people of the character-building chance to work on the land.

"Yes, it's a free market to buy and sell," Mr. Noel said recently. "But if you buy it, you use it."

By retiring the lands, he said, the trust is reneging on an implicit agreement, and "if we allow that to occur, we go down the path of eliminating all grazing on public lands."

Perhaps so, but this is a change being brought about by the marketplace, rather than government fiat. That's how markets work. If a given land-use is less desirable, the land will be purchased and devoted to higher valued uses. In the past, this meant that much land was devoted to grazing and resource extraction. Yet as the nation gets wealthier, people are willing to spend more money to purchase enviornmental amenities on tha same lands -- if the government lets it happen. Mr. Noel is seeking to put a legal halt to the Trust's efforts.

Unfortunately, the opposition from some (including some opposition within the Bush Administration to such approaches) may kill these efforts

Bill Hedden, the executive director of the Grand Canyon Trust . . . had hoped to create a situation with no losers. Ranchers could consolidate their herds in more congenial settings. Federal officials could bar grazing during a drought without bankrupting ranchers. The trust, dedicated to preserving the Colorado plateau, could show its financial supporters results.

Besides, he said, the land in question is marginal economically and at risk environmentally. . . . But given the resistance of local officials, Mr. Hedden is shelving the strategies he used here.

Without serious political support behind the Trust's efforts -- and legal reforms that make such market approaches more viable, they will disappear. That would be a shame, as the Trust's efforts are a good example of how the voluntary purchase of property rights (in this case, the grazing permits) can advance environmental values. It also illustrates how policies that are pro-resource use can be anti-market -- in this case by "protecting" ranching communities from the marketplace by preventing voluntary exchange.