LAS CRUCES, N.M. (AP) — The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument is celebrating its third birthday. But the flickering of candles on the cake may dim under the glare of federal scrutiny.

The 496,330-acre monument, created by President Barack Obama on May 21, 2014, has become a point of pride for some and a bone of contention for others. On April 26, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for a review of the OMDP, along with 26 others including the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in northern New Mexico.

Earlier in April, the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association urged President Donald Trump to eliminate certain large-scale national monuments, including the OMDP. NMCGA officials said they are first seeking the elimination of the OMDP monument, but, if that doesn’t happen, they’d back a reduction in its size.

NMCGA President Pat Boone, from Elida, points to testimony to the state Legislature given by an NMCGA member who owns and operates a cattle ranch within the boundaries of OMDP, 77 percent of which is covered by the monument designation but all of which is impacted due to the layout of private and state trust lands within their grazing allotment.

That rancher, like others, is concerned that language in the monument designation remains vague as to what is to be protected, Boone said. Protecting wildlife and plant populations, which vary over time, creates uncertainty and will lead to burdensome government regulations, forcing ranchers out of business, he said.

“Perhaps the largest concern or fear from the ranching community is that, even after three years, there remains so much uncertainty,” Boone wrote in an email to the Sun-News. “No one knows what the impacts, financial or otherwise, are going to be. The designation puts an additional layer of unknown bureaucracy on ranchers.

“We question what this will do financially. Will lenders who hold mortgages on ranches, livestock and/or equipment continue to lend? Will cattle numbers be cut? Will visitors and environmentalists try to drive livestock use from the lands,” Boone continued. “If these questions had answers, attitudes might be different.”

RETURN TO ORIGINAL PLAN

U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce said he has heard those concerns and believes the monument area around the Organ Mountains should be maintained at the roughly 60,000-acre footprint originally proposed.

“The law is very specific,” Pearce said. “The footprint is supposed to be as small as possible to protect individual items . you can’t just say we want to protect open space.”

Ranchers are also concerned about border safety and the possible inability of law enforcement to easily enter the monument, Pearce said. They point to concerns by landowners near the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in southern Arizona where entire blocks of acreage are inaccessible and closed to the public for safety reasons. Those landowners also have to deal with the refuse left by immigrants making the dangerous border crossing, he said.

When visiting landowners near the OMDP recently, Pearce said they rarely see anyone using the monument for recreation and question the need for the designation.

Three sites in the Organ Mountains — Dripping Springs Natural Area, Aguirre Spring Campground and the Soledad Canyon Day Use Area — have seen a marked increase in the number of visitors. Tracking visitor growth in other areas of the monument is difficult. Using the numbers at those three sites, economic experts calculate an $8.2 million to $33.8 million benefit to the area.

Pearce notes the monument’s designation comes with a cost as well. The first casualty of the designation was the moving of the Chile Challenge, an off-road and 4X4 event in the Robledo Mountains that drew $4 million a year to the region, Pearce said. That event now takes place in Sierra County.

“In the West, the custom and culture is ranching,” Pearce said. “It’s something that the law was not supposed to change, our custom and culture, and it is.”

It’s legally unclear whether Trump or any future president could single-handedly eliminate or shrink a national monument. A more-certain path to eliminate or reduce the size of a monument would be an act of Congress signed into law by the president.

Through July 10, the Department of the Interior is asking the public to comment on 22 monuments — including OMDP — designated or expanded under the Antiquities Act since 1996.

Greg Carrasco has ranched on roughly 14 sections of land on the western edge of the monument, the northern half of which lies within the monument, for 14 years. He believes that additional federal oversight and regulations are burdensome and the current lack of a management plan, which BLM is developing, will favor preservation of wildlife and plants at the expense of proper land management techniques which ranchers have long practiced.

He also fears access to improvements such as fences, wells and water tanks will be limited. Each instance of a downed fence or out-of-service water tank could require individual permits, he said. And, he notes, those water systems installed and maintained by ranchers are often the only source of water for wildlife in the area.

Regulation “has tended to result in the loss of grazing capacity for ranchers,” he said. “We’ve already had a couple of preliminary meetings with the Bureau of Land Management about additional restrictions to access improvements, maintain improvements. I’m somewhat concerned about what long-term brush control and other options may be limited by these regulations.”

Bill Childress, manager of the BLM Las Cruces District, said the process of developing a management plan for the monument is under way. Meetings were held with stakeholders and user groups in early 2017. Now, the BLM is working on a management situation analysis. Once that is complete, likely in October or November, the formal planning process will begin. A finalized management plan should be complete in 2020, Childress said.

Like many, Carrasco sees the benefit of having a national monument for the Organ Mountains, but said it should be limited to that area. That would also allow the BLM to make more improvements for public access along the Organs and create a better destination for outdoor recreation, he said.

“I think the Organs are a majestic backdrop to Dona Ana County and Las Cruces in particular,” Carrasco said. “Concentrate the resources we have and make them a great destination for tourists and all kinds of outdoor activities. I very much would like the monument reduced back in size to the roughly 58,000-acre area on the foothills of the Organs.”

“The ranching community has been buried in regulation and limitations over the past 25 years,” the NMCGA’s Boone said. “More often than not, we can see what the outcomes down the road will be but we have no standing to protest until a rancher is put out of business. I characterize this as the ‘dead body theory.’ No one will do anything until there is a ‘dead body.’ But there is no way to revive a dead body — or a ranch that has been driven to the ground.”

The Westland Irrigation District is abandoning years of work to secure additional water from the Columbia River in order to defend a lawsuit filed by patrons alleging “massive misappropriation” of senior water rights.

Farmers reacted with surprise and disappointment Monday during a special district board meeting, where members voted unanimously to back out of the Central Project — one of three proposals to pump mitigated Columbia River irrigation water in Umatilla and Morrow counties.

Unlike the neighboring Stanfield and Hermiston irrigation districts, Westland does not have the ability to switch over to Columbia River water when flows from the Umatilla River drop below a certain point in the summer. That means the district depends entirely on Mother Nature, as well as stored water in McKay Reservoir.

Riding the momentum of a regional effort led by the Northeast Oregon Water Association, or NOWA, Westland had sought to tap into the Columbia and guarantee a full irrigation season for producers. It even appeared the district was on the verge of a deal, holding weekly meetings with patrons to iron out legal and logistical details moving forward.

Instead, the Central Project fell apart over a lawsuit accusing Westland of systematically cheating small farmers out of their senior water rights for the benefit of a few larger farms with junior rights. The case, which was originally tossed from federal court, will proceed in Umatilla County Circuit Court after Judge Michael Gillespie denied the district’s motion to dismiss last week.

A trial will likely be scheduled in the next six to nine months, according to Westland board chairman Bob Levy. And though Levy said he is confident the district will prevail, he felt it was unfair for patrons to invest in the project up front only to have it potentially stalled by legal challenges.

“The district is looking to defend this litigation for months to come,” Levy explained to a room full of patrons who packed the Umatilla County Fire District 1 station on Westland Road. “If the plaintiffs are successful ... it disturbs the Central Project, and the Central Project will not work.”

The Central Project would have cost roughly $14.4 million, financed by patrons who agreed to buy the water. The state of Oregon also approved a funding package for water delivery projects during the 2015 Legislature, with $11 million earmarked for the basin.

However, according to the resolution passed Monday, the project as it was conceived depended on Westland’s “longstanding water delivery and distribution practices” that are now being challenged in court. Plaintiffs in the case argue the district is in violation of Oregon’s “first in time, first in right” water appropriation system.

Levy also said the lawsuit precluded Westland from applying for its share of state funding within the fixed time frame.

After reading over the resolution in silence, farmer Hoss Hodges, whose parents arrived in the district in 1968, could barely contain his frustration.

“This really interferes with our future,” Hodges said after slamming the table with his hand.

Others were more subdued while lamenting what they described as a lost opportunity.

“We damn sure needed that Columbia River water,” said Butch Shockman, who owns a small amount of land along Bridge Road in Hermiston.

The value of agricultural land in the Columbia Basin increases exponentially with irrigation. Without water, dryland crops such as wheat may yield around $100 per acre. Add one acre-foot of water and that value grows to $500 per acre; add three acre-feet, and the value rockets to $5,000 per acre.

Patty Horn, whose family has owned Butter Creek Ranch in the district since the 1960s, said she is worried that without sufficient water in the future, her son will eventually inherit a sandlot.

“If I lose my water, my land become worthless,” Horn said. “It took 30 years for us to get a shot at Columbia water. It’s a shame to see it go over a few suing the district.”

The lawsuit in question was filed by a group of patrons who, together, farm more than 1,650 acres with senior water rights that date back to 1903. They claim they are being cheated out of water to benefit three large farms with more than 5,000 acres, including Levy’s L&L Farms, Amstad Farms and Eagle Ranch, to the tune of $2.9 million in damages.

Dixie Echeverria, who owns ELH LLC and is one of the plaintiffs on the case, said in a written statement that they have “grave concerns” about the management of the district. In his ruling, Judge Gillespie encouraged both sides to consider mediation.

“This case is not this court’s first experience with a small district’s members suing the special district they are members of,” Gillespie wrote. “In very real terms, the district’s costs are borne directly by all of its members in one way or another.”

J.R. Cook, founder and director of NOWA, said it was painful to see the Central Project slip out of Westland’s grasp. But he added that does not mean the organization is ending its effort to secure bucket-for-bucket mitigated Columbia River water rights and pass them off to entities that can put them to use.

The overall vision includes three project areas, stretching from Boardman to east of Hermiston.

Cook said Westland had been positioned to be first in line to get a pipeline in the ground as one of those three projects. Instead, the NOWA board will explore other options.

“I think Westland is going to look back on this in five years and regret it,” Cook said.