Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Federal Lands Muleshoe Nwr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House subcommittee hears competing views on bill to block Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge land protection plan
Summary
At a House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries hearing, members considered H.R. 839, which would bar the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing a land protection plan for the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge.
Get email alerts on the Federal Lands Muleshoe Nwr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At a House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries hearing, members considered H.R. 839, a bill that would prohibit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing a land protection plan for the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge in West Texas and eastern New Mexico. Representative Arrington of Texas introduced the measure and framed it as a check on federal land expansion.
The bill matters because the proposal would allow the Service to acquire interest in as much as 700,000 acres around the current refuge footprint, which the subcommittee heard would be an enormous increase from the refuge's existing 6,440 acres. Supporters including Rep. Arrington argued that expanding federal ownership would harm local economies, while opponents, including Rep. Huffman and landowners who testified, said the plan relies on voluntary transactions and protects landowner choice.
Rep. Arrington (Representative, Texas) said the plan was part of a broader federal land acquisition effort and argued Congress should block the expansion while the Refuge System faces a deferred maintenance backlog. "We are $36,000,000,000,000 in debt ... and somehow, we think we need to spend more money on behalf of the taxpayers to buy more land that we don't manage," Arrington said during remarks opposing the plan.
Rep. Huffman (Representative) and Rep. Hoyle (Ranking Member, Subcommittee) disputed the "land grab" characterization and pointed out that the Fish and Wildlife Service may only acquire land from willing sellers. Huffman said, "Fish and Wildlife Service cannot seize land. It may only acquire land, water, or other interests from willing sellers. Full stop."
Two West Texas landowners testified against H.R. 839. John Rowley, a rancher who said he has restored about 1,400 acres to native habitat, told the subcommittee that he opposes congressional restrictions on whom he may sell or donate his land to, saying the program is voluntary and "you can make your own decision." Brian Baker, president of the board of Texas Producers Cooperative, testified that an expansion of lands taken out of production could shrink local tax rolls and school enrollment; he told the panel Sudan Independent School District has annual revenue of about $7,362,000 and spends roughly $17,000 per student.
Committee members also discussed the National Wildlife Refuge System's maintenance backlog. The chair noted testimony that the refuge system has more than $2.65 billion in deferred maintenance, a point used by some members to argue the Service should address upkeep before expanding its footprint.
The subcommittee held the matter for further consideration; no final vote on H.R. 839 was recorded at the hearing. The measure was the subject of extended questioning and testimony but not of a markup or recorded floor action.
Looking ahead, committee members said they may seek additional information from the Fish and Wildlife Service and local stakeholders before moving the bill further through the committee process.

