No FED in West Texas Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 839
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Public Lands and Natural Resources
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-01-08: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 374.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-11T05:06:23Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The legislation, H.R. 839 (titled the "No Federal Expansion Designation in West Texas Act" or "No FED in West Texas Act"), aims to prevent the federal government from advancing a specific plan that would expand land protections at the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge in Texas. This refuge is a protected area managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to conserve wildlife, particularly sandhill cranes and grassland habitats.
Key Provisions
- Prohibition on Implementation: The Secretary of the Interior (who oversees the USFWS and Department of the Interior) is barred from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing the "Final Land Protection Plan & Environmental Assessment Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge" (published by USFWS in February 2023).
- This plan likely outlined strategies for acquiring additional land or enhancing protections around the refuge to support wildlife conservation.
- The bill was introduced on January 31, 2025, by Rep. Arrington (with co-sponsor Rep. Hunt), referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, and reported with amendments on January 8, 2026.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- The bill introduces a direct congressional restriction on an already-completed federal environmental assessment and land protection plan, effectively nullifying it without altering broader wildlife refuge laws (such as the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, which guides refuge management).
- It shifts authority from the executive branch (Department of the Interior) back to Congress for this specific refuge, preventing routine agency actions like land acquisition or boundary expansions that were proposed in the 2023 plan.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The USFWS and Department of the Interior would be unable to proceed with the plan, potentially halting conservation efforts, land purchases, or habitat enhancements at the refuge. This could redirect agency resources to other priorities or require new planning processes.
- On Citizens: Local residents, farmers, and ranchers in West Texas (near Muleshoe) may benefit from reduced federal oversight on land use, preserving private property rights and agricultural activities. However, it could limit wildlife conservation benefits, such as protecting migratory bird habitats that support ecotourism or hunting.
- On International Relations: No direct impacts, as the bill focuses on domestic land management without involving foreign entities or treaties.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of the Interior (directly restricted in their operations).
- Local Communities: West Texas landowners, farmers, and ranchers who may oppose federal land expansions due to potential restrictions on grazing, farming, or development.
- Environmental and Conservation Groups: Organizations like the Audubon Society or wildlife advocates who supported the 2023 plan and could see reduced protections for species and ecosystems.
- State and Local Governments: Texas state officials and Muleshoe-area municipalities, which might influence land use policies in response to the federal block.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: The bill exercises Congress's constitutional authority under Article IV, Section 3 to regulate federal lands, overriding an agency decision without needing judicial review. It could set a precedent for Congress intervening in specific environmental assessments (a process typically handled by agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires impact studies like the one targeted here).
- Constitutional: Reinforces the balance of powers by allowing legislative checks on executive agency actions, but it might raise questions about micromanaging federal wildlife management if similar bills proliferate.
- Political: Reflects tensions between federal conservation goals and local economic interests in rural areas, particularly in Republican-led states like Texas. It could influence future debates on public land use, potentially polarizing environmental policy along partisan lines.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Arrington, Jodey C. [R-TX-19]
Cosponsors (1)
Recent Actions
- 2026-01-08: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 374.
- 2026-01-08: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-435.
- 2026-01-08: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-435.
- 2025-07-23: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 16.
- 2025-07-23: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- 2025-07-23: Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Discharged
- 2025-04-08: Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 2025-04-01: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.
- 2025-01-31: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 2025-01-31: Introduced in House
- 2025-01-31: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- To prohibit the implementation of a Land Protection Plan for Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge. — issued 2025-01-31 — PDF (2 pages)
- No Federal Expansion Designation in West Texas Act — issued 2026-01-08 — PDF (4 pages)