HB839 would bar the Secretary of the Interior from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing the Land Protection Plan described in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s February 2023 document for Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge. The bill frames the action as a short-title measure—the “No Federal Expansion Designation in West Texas Act” (or “No FED in West Texas Act”)—and targets a single refuge rather than broader federal land protections.
If enacted, the mechanism would effectively lock in the current management regime and preempt the 2023 plan’s proposed changes at Muleshoe NWR.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Secretary of the Interior may not finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the Land Protection Plan described in the February 2023 Final Land Protection Plan & Environmental Assessment for Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge.
Who It Affects
The prohibition directly affects the Interior Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with operations at Muleshoe NWR and other parties involved in refuge management and financing.
Why It Matters
It signals a unilateral constraint on federal land-protection planning in West Texas and sets a precedent for local or state preference over federal conservation designations in a specific locality.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill zeroes in on a single federal land-management document for Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge. It would prevent the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from finalizing or enforcing the Final Land Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment prepared for Muleshoe in February 2023.
In practical terms, the refuge would continue to operate under existing policies, and the 2023 plan’s proposed protections or changes would not be adopted. The measure is narrowly drafted to West Texas and to this particular refuge, rather than creating a broader reform of federal land-protection processes.
If enough support existed to pass it, the bill would constrain federal action in this specific locality while leaving other refuges unaffected.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill bars the Secretary of the Interior from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing the Muleshoe NWR Land Protection Plan.
It targets the February 2023 Final Land Protection Plan & Environmental Assessment for Muleshoe NWR.
The act is named the No Federal Expansion Designation in West Texas Act (No FED in West Texas Act).
The prohibition is narrowly focused on Muleshoe NWR and the associated plan, not a broad ban on all federal protections.
The text does not specify new funding or enforcement provisions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This Act may be cited as the No Federal Expansion Designation in West Texas Act, also known as the No FED in West Texas Act. The title establishes the legislative name and catchphrase by which the measure will be referenced in proceeding discussions and potential amendments.
Prohibition on Land Protection Plan Implementation for Muleshoe NWR
Section 2 prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing the Land Protection Plan described in the February 2023 Final Land Protection Plan & Environmental Assessment for Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge. In practical terms, the federal government cannot adopt or enforce changes proposed in that document, maintaining the refuge under existing management and policies. This targeted prohibition is meant to block a single set of federal land-management proposals rather than alter federal conservation policy broadly.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Adjacent landowners and ranchers in the Muleshoe area who prefer current land-use practices free from new federal protections.
- Local chambers of commerce and economic development groups in Muleshoe and nearby towns who anticipate stability in land-use conditions for businesses.
- Texas state policymakers and regional groups advocating for local control of land management decisions near West Texas refuges.
- Constituents who oppose federal designation expansions in West Texas and favor local decision-making authority.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior may lose the ability to implement the 2023 plan and any associated conservation actions at Muleshoe NWR.
- Environmental groups and conservation advocates who supported the LPP’s protections may see reduced momentum for wildlife protections in this locale.
- Local residents who value wildlife protection or ecosystem services that the LPP might have provided could bear opportunity costs from preserved status quo.
- Federal taxpayers supporting conservation programs could incur indirect costs if the plan’s protections would have delivered ecological or social benefits that are foregone.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Whether to foreclose a specific federal conservation plan in West Texas in favor of local control creates a trade-off between potential wildlife protections and local land-use preferences, with no clean resolution given the bill’s targeted scope.
The central tension in HB839 comes from balancing local preferences and potential economic interests in West Texas with federal commitments to wildlife protection and ecosystem management. Blocking the Muleshoe LPP eliminates a formal federal mechanism that could have clarified protections, safeguards, and management steps for the refuge.
At the same time, the bill’s narrowly tailored scope minimizes disruption to other refuges, but raises questions about how future federal conservation planning will be treated in other locales. Implementation challenges include clarifying whether ongoing investigations or related environmental reviews tied to the 2023 plan are effectively moot, and whether other regulatory processes (such as NEPA or state-level conservation efforts) could step in to fill any gaps created by this prohibition.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.