The longstanding legal fight against the eight-foot-tall fence in Costilla County could come to an end without a trial. A mediated settlement brought forth by the Costilla County Commissioners and the Cielo Vista Ranch would seek the guidance from two separate wildlife experts to come to an agreement on what a “wildlife friendly” fence looks like.
A public input session was set before the commissioners on Tuesday to gather public feedback before anything is signed. The county commissioners said they don’t want to enter into any kind of agreement with the ranch unless the public has a say-so. If the agreement is approved by all parties, then many of the legal issues that pitted one of the poorest counties in the country against a billionaire may be dismissed.
“This is an agreement to agree to find a way forward,” said Costilla County attorney Nicolas Sarmiento.
The commissioners heard from just a few members of the public and didn’t make a decision. They wanted time to digest the public input and will announce a decision to the public in the coming weeks.
In the event the settlement agreement is signed, two wildlife experts will be brought in – one to consult for the county and one to consult for the ranch. The Cielo Vista Ranch is paying for the county’s expert. These experts will “evaluate the existing and planned high fence on CVR’s real property for wildlife friendliness and develop a wildlife impact assessment and mitigation plan,” the agreement states.
“This whole negotiation is, can we come to an agreement on what a fence looks like going forward?” said Commissioner Steven Romero.
The goal of the experts is to arrive at a joint proposal that will be presented to the county commissioners, the county’s board of adjustment, and to the ranch “for the existing and planned high fence at La Sierra that is included in its wildlife impact assessment and mitigation plan.”
The experts will have 90 days after the settlement agreement is signed to make their findings. After that, the findings will be made public.
Local resident and member of the La Sierra Environmental Guardians Committee Bernadette Lucero said she would like to see a retroactive enforcement on the stretches of fences already constructed, such as retrofitting the fence to make it easier for animals to cross.
The largest concern, next to land use, is the impact the fence has on the local wildlife and local environment. Locals have already seen herds of elk hindered by the fence and small animals unable to pass through the tightly-knit grid along the bottom of the fence.
Land Rights Council member, activist and San Luis resident Shirley Romero-Otero asked the commissioners to hold off on the agreement until proposed fence legislation introduced in the Colorado House of Representatives either passes or fails at the Senate level.
The legislation, which was introduced by State Rep. Matt Martinez and State Sens. Julie Gonzales, Mike Weismann and Cleave Simpson, would require large fencing projects to be approved by local governments. It gives local governments more say in large-scale fencing projects. It also marks the first time that the state legislature has stepped in on the fence fight. Former U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar even took a stand in support of the bill.
As part of the agreement, the ranch is opening its gates to the county to have “reasonable access” to view and inspect the current fence and proposed fencing lines with their wildlife expert.
Some of the public input revolved around the county’s lack of legal authority to enforce retroactive removal of the stretches of fence that was constructed prior to the moratorium that was signed in 2023. The fencing that was built after that moratorium and before an injunction was ordered is the hinge point for the legal case and what is being addressed in court. Though there were large sections constructed during that time, the settlement agreement and expert findings will determine what the fence looks like in the future.
“We’re not losing ground at all,” Romero said.
Romero-Otero also raised concerns about the future of cultural and legally granted access to the ranch after the settlement agreement and how it may impact elk migration. Many residents of Costilla County rely on hunting for subsistence and she argued that holding off to wait for the legislation could allow for these issues to be addressed.
If a mutual agreement cannot be achieved, then everything goes back to court and to an eventual trial, which is something the county has to pay for out of its budget. They were concerned about the longevity of funding such a legal fight against the ranch’s retainer of attorneys.
“The heart of this really is, is can we come to an agreement on what is wildlife friendly,” said Romero. “Is there really any reason to go to court?”