Kansas committee hears plan to curb woody encroachment on grasslands

Secretary Mike Beam, secretary of the Kansas Department of Agriculture, told the Agriculture and Natural Resources Budget Committee that Kansas grasslands are economically vital and face accelerating “woody encroachment,” particularly from eastern red cedar.

Beam said the beef sector “contributes directly $22,900,000,000 to the Kansas economy” and that the state has about 6,000,000 head of cattle, which underpins demand for grazing land. He described grasslands’ wider public benefits — improving water quality and stream flow, reducing erosion and wildfire risk, and providing wildlife and pollinator habitat — and warned scientists estimate annual grassland loss in Kansas is large enough “that would support 157,000 cows.”

The department released an issue brief last week based on listening sessions and a public survey. Beam said staff held listening sessions in the state’s four core grassland regions and collected 214 survey responses from 65 counties. He described recurring recommendations from ranchers and conservation partners: broaden public education about grasslands, collaborate with the Kansas Department of Transportation on rights‑of‑way management, support volunteer prescribed‑burn councils, expand research on best management practices, and model grassland stewardship on public lands.

“Restoring poorly managed land comes at a much higher cost than conserving it,” Beam said, and he highlighted prescribed fire and coordinated mechanical efforts as common tools ranchers use. He urged more outreach so local fire officials, neighbors and landowners understand prescribed burning and its risks and benefits.

Sarah Green, the report coordinator, told the committee she and partners worked closely with four ranchers and roughly 50 ranchers in listening sessions representing about 300,000 acres. The issue brief lays out five non‑policy action topics and suggested steps stakeholders can take to plug into the work.

Members asked about removal costs, fire risk and policy options. Representative Roth asked whether eastern red cedar has market value; Beam said some uses exist, such as biochar or furniture, but the costs of cutting, hauling and processing generally exceed current returns. Beam also cited local risk‑management reporting and anecdotal accounts that dense cedar stands can sharply increase wildfire risk in communities.

Several members raised private land and hunting‑preserve dynamics, noting some parcels bought and managed for hunting have been allowed to grow into dense tree cover, reducing available grazing land and affecting rural economies. Beam said legislative remedies are difficult without better data and recommended first quantifying how many acres have transitioned out of working agriculture before proposing tax or appraisal changes.

Committee members pressed on next steps. Beam said the department has proposed budget support for a grassland partnership manager — a staff position to coordinate outreach and agency collaboration — and that the team expects to reconvene stakeholders later this summer to prioritize action items. Dan Meyerhoff of the Association of Conservation Districts told the committee that working‑lands provisions in HB 2063 are intended to create funding opportunities for farmers and ranchers to address critical resource issues on working lands.

The chair thanked department staff, Sarah Green and Dan Meyerhoff and adjourned the committee. The committee will hear a Wheat Innovation Center presentation tomorrow.