Committee sides with local landowners in move to block implementation of Mule Shoe Refuge expansion plan
Loading...
Summary
The committee adopted a substitute and ordered H.R. 839, a bill that prohibits implementation of the Mule Shoe National Wildlife Refuge land protection plan. Debate split between members who called the measure protection of private property and those who said it would block voluntary conservation and local planning.
The House Committee on Natural Resources on July 22 adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute and ordered H.R. 839, a bill that would prohibit the implementation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s land protection plan for the Mule Shoe National Wildlife Refuge in West Texas and eastern New Mexico.
Representative Jodey Arrington had introduced the bill; proponents argued the plan would expand the refuge up to 100 times its current size and impose substantial new management costs on the federal refuge system. Supporters said the Fish and Wildlife Service already faces a multibillion‑dollar maintenance backlog and should not be expected to absorb large voluntary land acquisitions.
Ranking Member Jared Huffman, Representative Teresa Leger Fernández and others opposed the bill, saying it would remove voluntary options for private landowners who wish to sell or donate land for conservation. Huffman cited testimony from John Rowley, a Texas rancher who described the land protection plan as a voluntary market‑driven mechanism that respects property rights and creates conservation options. Leger Fernández said the plan was developed with local input and state participation and would connect habitat corridors for birds and other wildlife.
Committee proceedings included a recorded vote on a Huffman amendment (Huffman #1) and extensive debate. The ranking member's amendment that would have restored certain private landowner options and required a verification step was defeated in committee (recorded proceeding: amendment not adopted). The committee then adopted the chair’s substitute (Westerman 32A ANS) and ordered the bill reported. A recorded committee vote on the substitute and reporting showed the bill as amended was ordered reported to the House (recorded vote: yeas 23, nays 16).
Members debated the tradeoffs between protecting federal fiscal responsibilities and preserving voluntary market‑based conservation. Legislators from New Mexico and Texas emphasized the plan’s local development and the voluntary nature of easements; proponents emphasized fiscal stewardship of the federal estate.
The committee’s decision puts H.R. 839 on a path to the House floor, where additional debate and amendments may follow.
