A plan to expand a national wildlife refuge near the Texas and New Mexico state line has drawn backlash from some Republicans who say that it would take land out of agricultural production and decrease property tax revenue. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the proposal in 2022 and finalized the plan in April […]
A plan to expand a national wildlife refuge near the Texas and New Mexico state line has drawn backlash from some Republicans who say that it would take land out of agricultural production and decrease property tax revenue.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the proposal in 2022 and finalized the plan in April of this year to expand the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is located in Texas, but there is also a nearby refuge in New Mexico discussed in the plan. That refuge is known as Grulla National Wildlife Refuge.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, in coordination with state agencies, conservation partners and some landowners, created a plan that calls for acquiring either through conservation easem*nt or fee-title acquisition 700,000 acres of land within a 7 million acre footprint. That land acquisition could occur within five eastern New Mexico counties.
The area where the land acquisition could occur includes 32 saline lakes that provide winter foraging habitat for the sandhill crane. These saline lakes also play a key role in protecting water resources that communities in eastern New Mexico and western Texas rely upon, including the dwindling Ogallala Aquifer. But, while these playa lakes provide critical ecological and hydrological functions, human activity in the area including agriculture has led to accelerated sedimentation, impairing the playa lakes.
David Hernandez, a stewardship ecologist with The Nature Conservancy in New Mexico, said one goal of the expansion is to protect the endangered lesser prairie chicken. The Nature Conservancy is one of the conservation partners that the Fish and Wildlife Service lists in its plan. Hernandez said that when the Fish and Wildlife Service asked for comments on the plan, The Nature Conservancy provided some in support of the proposal.
“The prairie needs all the protection it can get,” he said. “I understand there’s some locals that are upset, and a lot of it is just fear of the government. They’re calling it a land grab, which it is not a land grab.”
He emphasized that the acquisition of property will come from willing sellers and that conservation easem*nts will be agreements made with willing landowners.
“It’s an opportunity for landowners to both conserve what’s left of the prairie and kind of benefit themselves too,” Hernandez said.
The expansion of the national wildlife refuge will not necessarily mean a huge reduction in agriculture, particularly if the conservation easem*nts are the main tool used to expand the protected area.
And expanding it could have major ecological benefits. The grassland ecosystem is considered one of the most threatened habitats in the world, Hernandez said. He added that it is also one of the least protected, with less than two percent of grasslands worldwide and only about four percent in the United States having any formal protection.
“The efforts at the Muleshoe are trying to keep remaining healthy grasslands intact to build resilience against climate change, support land-dependent business and enhance wildlife habitat,” he said.
Opposition
Despite those facts, groups like American Stewards of Liberty have been working to spur opposition to the expansion as part of a broader effort to oppose a plan by the federal government to conserve 30 percent of the nation’s lands and waters by 2030. And lawmakers at both the federal and state level have responded to the call.
At the federal level, U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, a Texas Republican, introduced an amendment to an appropriations bill that would prevent spending federal funds on expanding Muleshoe. This amendment passed the U.S. House of Representatives in July.
“We’re out in the breadbasket of America, in the panhandle of Texas, muleshoe America, and they take a 6,400 acre wildlife refuge and they want to expand it to 700,000 acres,” he said during remarks on the House floor when introducing the amendment.
At the state level, New Mexico Sen. Pat Woods, D-Broadview, issued a statement opposing the expansion even though he told NM Political Report that he was still trying to gather a greater understanding of what the Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing.
“This egregious infringement on private land ownership cannot go unchallenged,” he said in the statement.
Woods spoke with NM Political Report prior to attending a meeting in Texas about the plan. He said he hoped to learn more while at the meeting.
Agriculture
Woods acknowledged that his position is a strange one to take given his opinions on personal liberty. The Fish and Wildlife Service isn’t planning on using eminent domain to seize property. Instead, they hope to purchase from willing landowners or enter into conservation agreements with willing landowners. Woods said private property owners should absolutely have the right to sell their land to whoever they please or enter into conservation agreements.
However, he said he opposes using taxpayer dollars to take land out of agricultural production.
Woods expressed concern about the general trend of agricultural lands being taken out of production.
The 2022 Census of Agriculture, which is conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture every five years, found that 140,000 farms across the country were lost between 2017 and 2022. During that time frame, New Mexico saw the largest decline in farm operations—about 16 percent. The Census results were released in February of this year.
This trend has been going on for decades. Since 1950, the United States has seen 323 million acres of agricultural land leave production.
Some of this trend has been caused by a decrease in interest in farming, however the southwest is also experiencing drought conditions related to climate change that is making it harder for agricultural producers. The USDA’s Census of Agriculture says climate change and drought may be one reason for the loss of farms in states like New Mexico.
Woods said he believes more young adults would be interested in agriculture if the land wasn’t hard to acquire. He argued that the acquisition of land by the federal government makes it harder for people to access that agricultural land.
At the same time, the trends in eastern New Mexico will make agriculture more challenging in the future.
As the Fish and Wildlife Service points out, the declining level of the Ogallala Aquifer over the next three decades is expected to significantly change the farming landscape in the area where the expansion could occur.
“By 2050, many areas of the aquifer that support irrigated agriculture today may be unable to,” the land protection plan states, adding that in the northern part of the footprint where agriculture is primarily corn, winter wheat and alfalfa, there could be a 20 percent decrease in land suitable for growing those crops.
When it comes to grazing, the land protection plan does not rule out the possibility of grazing cattle on acquired lands or conservation easem*nts. In fact, the Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that grazing could actually help the land, which historically boasted large herds of bison.
“Livestock grazing, applied appropriately, is a habitat management tool that may enhance, support, and achieve established wildlife management objectives,” the Fish and Wildlife Service plan states. “Controlled cattle grazing can mimic the effects of bison and elk on grasslands by removing dead vegetation and providing hoof cultivation. This aerates the soils and reseeds native plants which prevents plant stagnation and promotes plant succession. Improved range conditions from effective grazing practices can provide habitat conditions that are desirable for a wide diversity of animal populations. Grazing is essential to help restore, preserve, and maintain grasslands on the Southern High Plains and will be analyzed as potential management tool(s) within the [land protection plan] area.”
Hernandez said conservation easem*nts tend to allow continued agriculture, but prevent subdividing the property to be sold for housing. He said the easem*nts could also prevent wind turbines, which are one of the threats facing the lesser prairie chicken.
“There’s going to be restrictions that you’re putting on your property,” he said. “That’s the reason that you’re getting compensated for the easem*nt is because you are selling off certain rights to your property.”
He said that it is difficult to turn plowed fields back into prairie.
“That’s not the goal right now. The goal is to protect the remaining prairie,” he said.
The publicly published plan lists various tiers of land in the area that will be used in considering acquisition. The Fish and Wildlife Service is particularly interested in lands in places deemed priority areas that are not too close to energy developments and are largely pristine, but may have some small pits or modifications that could be restored. It states that those will most likely be rangeland playas.
Population trends and land ownership
The five counties in New Mexico with portions included in the plan are Lea, Roosevelt, Chaves, De Baca and Curry. Growth in many of the areas has been relatively stagnant despite high percentages of private property. The two main population centers in the area where the wildlife refuge expansion could occur are Portales and Clovis.
Roosevelt County experienced a 15 percent increase in population between 1970 and 2018, but that growth has been tapered off in recent years, according to Headwater Economics, which analyzes trends. From 2010 to 2023, the county experienced a six percent decrease in population. The vast majority—83 percent—of Roosevelt County consists of privately owned lands and, of those lands, about 31,000 acres contain conservation easem*nts. The federal government owns around 63,000 acres of land in the county and the state owns another 197,000 acres.
Lea County has recently seen an increase in population of about 17 percent between 2010 and 2022, according to Headwater Economics. This growth has largely been due to the oil and gas production in the Permian Basin.
The federal government owns more acreage in Lea County than Roosevelt, but more than half of the land is still privately owned. Conservation easem*nts are less common in Lea County with only about 1,000 acres with such agreements in place.
De Baca County has less than 2,000 residents and experienced an approximately 4 percent decrease in population from 2010 to 2022, according to Headwater Economics. More than 80 percent of the land there is owned by private landowners and Headwater Economics did report any conservation easem*nts.
Chaves County saw a small increase of less than 500 people from 2010 to 2022, according to Headwater Economics. Just under 50 percent of the land in Chaves County is privately owned and none of that land is under a conservation easem*nt. The federal government owns nearly 1.2 million acres while the state owns about 700,000 acres in Chaves County.
Finally, Curry County experienced 3 percent increase in population from 2010 to 2022, according to Headwater Economics. More than 92 percent of the lands in Curry County are privately owned and none of them are under conservation easem*nt. The only land that the federal government owns in Curry County is a military base.
Property tax
Woods expressed concerns that the expansion could lead to decreased property tax. This is because when land enters federal government ownership, it does not have to pay property tax. Instead, the government provides what is known as payment in lieu of taxes, or PILT.
The Fish and Wildlife Service states that any land acquired through conservation easem*nt would remain on the property tax rolls with private owners continuing to pay. This land would be conserved, but would not be open to the public for recreation.
However, lands that are purchased under the plan would be removed from the property tax rolls and, instead, the county would receive PILT.
Woods argued that the PILT funding cannot replace the property tax. He said PILT money is generally about half what property tax would bring in.
“It’s a lose-lose for the county governments in those areas where the federal government comes in and acquires that land,” he said.
He said in New Mexico the property tax charged on agricultural lands takes into account the value of the products the land produces.
Woods expressed concerns that the federal government will acquire the land and remove the cattle.
“My criticism of the federal management is pretty simple: They do none,” he said.
Recreation opportunities
Expanding Muleshoe could potentially open up new opportunities for recreation should the Fish and Wildlife Service acquire additional lands. In 2019, more than 30,000 people visited the small wildlife refuge. These visitors often engage in wildlife viewing and camping, however there is some hunting of pronghorn.
Woods acknowledged that the recreational opportunities do benefit the economy, but he argued that those benefits do not replace the loss of agriculture to the economy.
“People can go out there and take their glasses and scope [to watch] animals and birds and that’s fine, but that’s not an economy like the economy that would be there if it was in agriculture production,” he said.
In the plan, the Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledges that the communities in the area rely heavily on the working lands.
“Meeting the conservation goals in this plan requires working with willing landowners and analyzing the long-term economic and social effects of expanding conservation in the Southern High Plains,” the document states. “Additionally, functional ecosystems benefit the human environment and any actions covered under this plan should not place an undue burden on any minority or low-income communities but instead stand to benefit local communities in their access to nature, clean water, and clean air.”
