Local Rancher Says Navy Land Expansion is Devastating His Family Ranch

Fallon rancher Justin Snow spoke at length during public comments at the March 10, 2026, Fallon Range Training Complex Intergovernmental Executive Committee meeting, telling officials that the Navy’s compensation offer for lost grazing lands is leaving him facing potentially devastating financial loss.

“You’re breaking me as a rancher right now,” Snow said during the committee meeting, “You’re going to take my ranch and pay me $14,000 a year … Unacceptable.”

Snow’s remarks came as concerns grew over the loss of grazing lands linked to the B-16, B-17, and B-20 range expansions, which withdrew thousands of acres that are gradually becoming inaccessible.

Approved under the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, the expansion transferred about 489,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management land to expand and modernize the Fallon Range Training Complex (FRTC) at Naval Air Station Fallon. The legislation requires compensation for lost grazing access.

For ranchers like Snow, the expansion means losing access to thousands of acres. As a result, Animal Unit Months (AUMs) have been reduced or lost. AUMs, calculated by the BLM, reflect how many animals can graze in a designated area. Simply put, lost grazing land and reductions in AUMs translate into significant operational losses.

The FRTC Final Environmental Impact Statement analyzed those losses over time, projecting economic impacts across a 100-year period. Ranchers question if 100-year losses can even be quantified, considering real-world conditions, particularly when they are dealing with immediate deficits and limited options to replace grazing land.

Which is exactly what Snow says is happening now.

During a Feb. 11 meeting between the Navy, the BLM, and impacted ranchers, the Navy explained that determining loss valuations requires ranchers to submit extensive business documentation. This includes multiple years of tax returns, W-2s, payroll, employee and wage details, asset listings, financial statements, inventory, loans, and grazing billing sheets. These records are used to calculate an accurate compensation offer based on operational loss.

Snow, a fifth-generation rancher, is one of two ranchers who have gone through the land withdrawal and re-permitting process for the B-16 range. He said in a later interview that he declined to provide all of the requested information for fear that his private financial records would be in government hands and could later be used against him, a concern he said is shared by other ranchers.

At the March 10 IEC meeting, Snow called the Navy’s offer “ridiculous” and said the process leaves him with no room to negotiate.

Snow, who doesn’t believe the valuation reflects the actual losses tied to cattle production over time, framed the compensation offer as a threat to the survival of his ranch. According to Snow, the valuator told him to invest for 100 years to get his money. “There is no ranch in 100 years,” he said, adding that the offer would ultimately put him out of business. 

In addition to the compensation concerns, Snow said he can no longer use his permit or graze his cattle, yet he must make payments on land he cannot fully use. “I don't just put these cows in the back shelf or the backyard until you figure out what you're going to do,” Snow said.

He said what he needs is the ability to replace what has been lost. “I want my money now, so I can buy another ranch and continue where I’m going,” Snow said.

Adrianne Snow, Justin’s wife and a grazing allotment holder, told the committee they submitted a counteroffer to the Navy in a very timely manner. Nine months later, on a state holiday and less than 24 hours before turnout, they received a response that said, “We received your counter or rebuttal letter,” but it was rejected. “Just because you didn't like our counter doesn't mean we don't deserve a counter.”

She questioned why extensive personal financial records were requested if the valuation was not open to adjustment. “We gave numbers, we gave reasoning, we gave backup,” Adrianne said.

“I am not a fifth-generation rancher,” she continued. “I am a daughter of a retired colonel. I grew up military, so I understand a lot more of both sides. But I don't think you guys do. I am respectfully asking you for a counteroffer.”

In response, the Navy said the compensation offers were based on a formal valuation process.

Lindsey Green, director of real estate for the Navy’s Southwest region, said that since they didn’t receive the necessary business-specific information, the analysis relies on industry averages. The valuation included both business value and grazing permit value calculated on a per-AUM basis. “The money is available in the escrow account to render payment, and we do feel that we have met the terms of the legislation,” Green said. 

Justin Snow pushed back on that approach, stating, “We shouldn't be paid on all of that business. We need to be paid on how many cows we can't sell — for years.”  

Some committee members shared concern that issues raised during the B-16 process remain unresolved.

Committee Vice Chair and Churchill County Commissioner Myles Getto said, “I keep hearing from the BLM and the Navy… ‘We've learned a lot from B-16, and we've done great things on B-16.’ It really doesn't feel like it.” Getto noted that outreach related to B-17 is already underway, while concerns from B-16 ranchers persist.   

Nevada Department of Agriculture Director J.J. Goicoechea, who also serves as IEC chair, like Justine and Adrianne, said that he would be concerned that accessing the escrow funds would constitute acceptance of the offer. 

He urged the parties to return to the table, saying, “We need to try to figure out a way to get back to the table and get it sorted... Somehow, we need to take action.”