Question: “What changes is Congress planning for the sale of federal lands in Nevada, and how will proposed changes affect Nevada taxpayers?”
The Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) is an innovative law that has raised more than $1 billion for conservation and recreation through the sale of excess land in the Las Vegas Valley.
Southern Nevada’s phenomenal growth has created enormous demand for vacant land, and as a result, sales under SNPLMA have generated enormous proceeds. This pool of funding is now the target of the Bush administration, which is seeking to divert more than $700 million in funding away from Nevada and into the U.S. Treasury to pay for the federal deficit.
Funds generated by land sales authorized under the act are used for parks and trails, to purchase environmentally sensitive lands in Clark County and around Nevada and for restoration work at Lake Tahoe. SNPLMA balances the need to sell excess federal lands in Clark County for private development with the need to offset growth through the development of parks, trails and other recreational opportunities and through the preservation of unique natural treasures around the Silver State.
Under SNPLMA, designated parcels of federal land in Clark County are auctioned to the highest bidder and proceeds from the sales are divided using a formula authored by former Nevada Senator Richard Bryan, then-Congressman John Ensign and Senator Harry Reid, who all worked together to pass the law creating the land sales in 1998.
The act, which received bipartisan support in both the Senate and House, directs that 85 percent of proceeds are used for the purchase of sensitive lands and to enhance recreational opportunities. The remaining 15 percent of proceeds are divided between the Southern Nevada Water Authority, which is given 10 percent of funds generated, and the state’s education coffers, which receive 5 percent of proceeds.
The White House plan to strip Nevada of its land sales earnings has met fierce opposition from the state’s Congressional delegation, which is fighting the proposal. The loss of this funding would be a devastating setback to ongoing conservation and recreational enhancement efforts.
The Bush administration argues that land sales have generated more funding than needed by Nevada, and that these proceeds should be taken away, despite the fact that many worthwhile projects and land purchases have yet to be funded. Clark County and state of Nevada officials have stated that the problem is not a lack of need for the funding, but that proceeds that could go to improving recreational opportunities and land conservation are being withheld for political reasons.
This effort to rob funding from Nevada is an about-face for the Bush administration, which has consistently touted the success of SNPLMA and has pointed to the program as a model that could be replicated nationally. During a visit to Las Vegas in October of last year, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton praised the Lands Act and its effect on the community saying, “Through the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act and the partnerships formed from it, we are providing communities better opportunities to grow and providing residents better opportunities to enjoy the outdoors.”
Two years earlier, in 2002, Norton called SNPLMA a “landmark” law which “provides for the protection of environmentally sensitive lands and multispecies habitat, improves recreation opportunities and allows development to occur where appropriate.”
Those remarks were followed by more than $100 million in funding being released for development of parks and trails in Clark County, for the Las Vegas Preserve and for improvements at Red Rock, Lake Mead, the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area and Desert National Wildlife Refuge.
Given the statements of support for the positive impact of SNPLMA by the Bush Administration, it is inconceivable that the President would continue to press ahead on his plan to take away more than $700 million in funding that rightfully should be spent solely in Nevada and only for the purposes outlined in the law. Sending this funding to the U.S. Treasury will amount to little more than a monetary drop in the ocean given the record deficit the U.S. now faces. And it will be the residents of Las Vegas and all Nevadans who will lose out as a result of this misguided policy.
We must also resist calls to change the original formula enshrined in SNPLMA by decreasing the amount to be spent on habitat preservation, land purchases, parks and trails. This concept is an invitation to those who are already seeking to tap Nevada’s SNPLMA funds for other uses. The law should stay exactly as it is written and all our efforts should be focused squarely on defeating the Bush proposal to loot these funds.