Please don't take this the wrong way. I agree it's not the government's responsibility to fund this project. Even though the decree does not specifically state this, could it mean that the gov't is willing to allow producers to use land that belongs to the gov't and have the gov't help fence the land in order to get beef production up? Actually, if one was to read and interpret this as written it is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. (Well, not really, since we have Obama) I don't understand how fencing will increase production. I think there's something else going on here under the table.
The use of the term "marginal" land spooks me a little. If you say the land around a piece of property is the margin of the land then "marginal" would mean one thing. If you use the word as meaning land that has limited production capability then it means something completely different. Allowing producers to use land (and fence it) that here-to-fore was not in production because it has not been improved for grazing or forage then that's a different matter. Showing off one's skill to try to write something completely in legalese is the downfall of all of us. Just say what you mean and mean what you say. I'm so tired of PC statements.