Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Regenerative Grazing Research topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee hears bill to study regenerative grazing and grasslands carbon research center

2175407 · January 30, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 2246 would fund a legislative management study and hire a consultant to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of creating a regenerative grazing or grasslands research center focused on carbon flux and management.

Senate Bill 2246 would fund a legislative management study and hire a consultant to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of creating a regenerative grazing or grasslands research center focused on carbon flux and management.

The bill’s prime sponsor, Senator Tim Mathern, told the Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee that the measure is intended to bring experts and stakeholders together before large appropriations are made. "I think it's time to study an issue before investing in it," Mathern said, adding the bill sets a modest appropriation below the threshold that would trigger an Appropriations Committee referral.

The study described in the bill would examine how grazing management affects carbon capture and other rangeland outcomes and would invite testimony from a range of entities including the Natural Resources Conservation Service, North Dakota State University and regional grasslands researchers. "Let's not put all the money into hiring a lot of organizations. Let's put some money into an expert to come and talk with legislators, and let's have all of those agencies come and testify," Mathern said.

Nut graf: Supporters said the proposed study would translate recent field research into practical guidance for ranchers and lawmakers and provide data for any future policy or market engagement. Proponents argued the research could help ranchers preserve grasslands by quantifying ecosystem benefits such as forage production, biodiversity, water storage and carbon sequestration.

Dr. Becky Phillips, who identified herself as a carbon-cycle scientist and executive director of a nonprofit, summarized results from an on‑ranch flux study she has led. She described equipment that measures carbon dioxide fluxes at frequent intervals and said early results from a working ranch showed a net gain on the order of 900 pounds of carbon per acre in the year measured after accounting for animal removals and deposits. "We can evaluate how management, how our grazers are actually impacting that drawdown of carbon dioxide from the air and putting it in the ecosystem," Phillips said.

Phillips said flux systems provide a comprehensive, near‑real‑time measure of ecosystem carbon exchange that complements but is not identical to standard soil organic matter sampling. "Permanent sampling places" for soil organic matter, she said, are useful but typically require longer timeframes to detect change; the flux approach can reveal year‑to‑year dynamics that inform management decisions.

Dr. Shelly Lens, a veterinarian and rancher from western North Dakota, told the committee she supports the bill because the study could educate lawmakers, conservation groups and ranchers about the climate, water and production benefits of well‑managed rangelands. Lens referenced the 2023 PRUVE IT Act as an example of federal interest in reliable data to quantify climate benefits of agricultural products and energy, and said state data would be useful to determine whether rangelands can be included in those markets.

Committee members asked about cost and scope. Mathern said prior legislative studies have varied widely in consultant expense—"We've had studies where there have been consultants for $500,000"—and that he intentionally set a modest amount in the bill to keep it from requiring an Appropriations Committee referral. He told the committee the bill’s goal is to get people to the table—ranchers, scientists and agencies—so legislators will have reliable information before deciding on any large investments.

No formal committee vote on the bill was taken at the hearing; senators closed the hearing after testimony and questions. The committee indicated it may consider the bill again at a later date.

Ending: Supporters framed the measure as an evidence‑gathering step rather than a policy or market mandate. If the committee advances the bill, the study’s findings would be intended to inform future legislative or programmatic decisions about grasslands conservation, carbon management and support for ranching operations.