[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DISPENSATION OF FUNDS FROM THE SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT
ACT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, December 4, 2003, in Las Vegas, Nevada
__________
Serial No. 108-79
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2004
90-750 PS
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Tom Udall, New Mexico
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Mark Udall, Colorado
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Carolina Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Chris Cannon, Utah Dennis A. Cardoza, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Mark E. Souder, Indiana ex officiotripp
Rob Bishop, Utah
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, December 4, 2003....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Porter, Hon. Jon, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Nevada, Prepared statement of........................... 56
Statement of Witnesses:
Abbey, Robert V., Nevada State Director, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior................ 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Carpenter, Hon. John C., Nevada State Assembly, District 33,
Elko, Nevada............................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Decker, Donald J., Managing Member, Century Gold, LLC.,
Spring Creek, Nevada....................................... 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Ellison, Hon. John, Commissioner, Elko County Board of
Commissioners, Elko, Nevada, Prepared statement of......... 26
Goicoechea, Hon. Pete J., Nevada State Assembly, District 35,
Eureka, Nevada............................................. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Johnson, Freeman K., Assistant Director, Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, State of Nevada........ 19
Nannini, Hon. Mike, Commissioner, Elko County Board of
Commissioners, Elko, Nevada................................ 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Roberts, Dr. William E., Superintendent, Nye County School
District, Pahrump, Nevada.................................. 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Rulffes, Dr. Walt, Deputy Superintendent/CFO, Clark County
School District, Clark County, Nevada...................... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Trippet, Larie, President, Dust Devils Motorcycle Club, and
Member, Northwest Sierra Front Great Basin Resource
Advisory Council, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada.. 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Additional materials supplied:
Guinn, Hon. Kenny C., Governor, State of Nevada, Statement
submitted for the record................................... 21
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``THE DISPENSATION OF FUNDS FROM THE SOUTHERN
NEVADA PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT''
----------
Thursday, December 4, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Las Vegas, Nevada
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
the Clark County Commission Chambers, Las Vegas, Nevada, Hon.
Jim Gibbons presiding.
Present: Representative Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. I would like to administer the oath because
this is something that the Committee requires us to do, an oath
before you give your testimony. So if you will all stand and
raise your right hand. We will assume that Mr. Rulffes, when he
gets here, will also take the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. Let the record show that each of the Panel 1
witnesses have affirmed to the oath.
Let me begin just by kind of setting the format and the
rules for testimony here today. First of all, we are going to
have some little timing lights because we have a number of
witnesses and we want the full testimony of all of the
witnesses to get in; however, we try to limit opening remarks
to five minutes. Your full written testimony will be submitted
for the record, so you may feel free to summarize what you want
to say when you get here. That way, we will have some time to
ask questions of the witnesses in each of the panels as well.
But the lights you see here, you will have a green light
which means go. You will have a yellow light which gives you
one minute to sum up and then a red light that says your five
minutes is up. Try, try to be within the five minutes just out
of courtesy to everybody else. Now, I am not going to cut you
off. You may talk until I assume that you are going to go close
to 10 minutes and then I am going to cut you off, OK. I will be
generous because my opening statement is something more than
five minutes. But what we all have to say here today is
critically important. It is important for the State of Nevada,
it is important for the people of this county and the future, I
think, of the children in this great state.
I want to thank all of you, especially all of the witnesses
today, for attending this important hearing. This is the House
Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public
Lands and the hearing we are having today is the Dispensation
of Funds from the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act.
Now, I want to commend Senator Richard Bryan--former
Senator Richard Bryan--and Senator John Ensign for their hard
work in creating the original Southern Nevada Public Lands
Management Act legislation. It was a compromise bill, which I
supported, and one which clearly put in place a mechanism to
help address the demands on the enormous growth here in Clark
County. Given my support of this Act, I am here to say that in
my opinion the time has come to modernize the Southern Nevada
Public Lands Management Act by amending it to reflect the
current demands on the infrastructure of our great state.
I want to consider these facts before we begin. Since 1998,
approximately 5600 acres of public land in Clark County have
been sold under that Act to accommodate the growth needs here
in Clark County. Now these sales have rewarded the Federal
Government with more than $690 million in revenue. Of that 690
million, 85 percent goes back to the Federal Government for
purposes which I will be able to discuss shortly; however, 10
percent goes to Southern Nevada Water Authority for our water
infrastructure needs. And finally, the remaining 5 percent--
yes, only 5 percent--goes to help fund our educational needs in
Nevada.
Now before we begin discussing the educational needs of our
State, such as the needs for new schools, higher salaries for
our teachers so we can recruit and hire the best and brightest,
and new textbooks for our schoolchildren, let us look at what
85 percent of the $690 million is being used for. The revenues
gained by the Federal Government under this Act are used to
purchase more land in Nevada across the State. They are used to
support wildlife and to care for existing public lands, parks
and trails located exclusively here in Clark County.
Now since 1998 the Federal Government has sold off, as I
said earlier, 5600 acres. Unfortunately, in the same time frame
the Federal Government has crisscrossed Nevada acquiring 156
square miles of Nevada. That is about 105,000 acres of land.
That means that they have got a net gain of about 100,000 acres
for the government.
Ladies and gentlemen, that brings me to my first question,
one which I am going to submit to you, and that is, what is the
benefit to Nevada having more and more of its land owned and
regulated by the Federal Government? Representing every county
in Nevada keeps me busy. Traveling throughout the State, I have
the opportunity, and actually the pleasure, to hear from a lot
of Nevadans. Since first being elected to Congress in 1996, no
single issue has generated more interest, more commentary and
more passion from those that I meet than the enormous stake the
Federal Government in our state has. Right now the Federal
Government controls nearly 87 percent of Nevada. I am often
asked by my colleagues in Washington, well what kind of a
neighbor is the Federal Government, and I am forced to tell
them, the Federal Government is not our neighbor, it owns the
neighborhood that we live in. It is the landlord surrounding
all of us.
Now I understand and appreciate the fact that the original
legislation placed emphasis on the Federal Government using the
revenues from these sales to acquire environmentally sensitive
lands in Clark County. And it did emphasize that the
acquisitions did occur predominately in Clark County.
Well this leads me to the next question that we all must be
asking. Why should we assume that the Federal Government can do
a better job than the gentlemen sitting here in front of us or
the people in the State or the State of Nevada in caring for
its own lands? I do not argue that we have some environmentally
sensitive lands throughout the State of Nevada.
Environmental groups visit my office quite regularly. They
are always equipped with proposals and maps depicting areas
they deem to be sensitive areas. I oftentimes have to disagree
with their proposals, because unlike many of these groups, I
spend a lot of time with my family hiking, camping, hunting and
enjoying the natural wonders of the State. And sometimes I want
to protect more of Nevada land than the environmental groups
do. But that certainly does not lead me to think that we ought
to hand control of those lands over to the Federal Government
for what we are told is protection. I guess the difference
between me and some of these environmental groups is, I just
have far greater confidence, far greater respect for local
control and the ability of the people and the State of Nevada
to take care of its own land. As a lifelong resident, I refuse
to subscribe to the premise that Federal ownership constitutes
better care for our state lands.
Now I am sure that the folks who reside in California will
say they believe Lake Arrowhead was worthy of protection, but
under Lake Arrowhead's ``Federal protection,'' locals were not
allowed to thin surrounding forest lands and the underbrush and
the Federal Government refused to do it, could not do, would
not do it. And tragically we saw what happened--91,000 acres of
fire severely environmentally impacted--or destroyed--were
destroyed by fire. Excuse me. And severe environmental impact
on air quality, water quality and wildlife. Homes were
destroyed, property destroyed, lives were destroyed, all at the
cost of more than $42 million. And a few years back, a Federal
managed controlled burn in New Mexico got out of hand ending up
burning some 48,000 acres of the Santa Fe National Forest
causing nearly $1 billion in damage.
Now, I believe that our local BLM under Bob Abbey--and he
is here and he will testify today--do an outstanding job with
the people and the resources they have. But I think the amount
of territory that they have under their portfolio today is so
extensive that they are limited by the number of people and the
amount of resources to properly care for it. And given my
serious concerns over the amount of land the Federal Government
continues to acquire in Nevada, I will be proposing an
amendment to this Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act
that will modify the allocations of dollars received from
future land sales in Clark County.
Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come to begin placing a
higher emphasis on Nevada needs and a bit less on the desires
of the Federal Government. The amendment I will be introducing
next year will do two things. First, it will seek to adjust the
85 percent allocation that the Federal Government currently
receives down to 55 percent. Again, these funds are currently
used to purchase and acquire significantly greater allotments
of land in Nevada than the Federal Government is actually
selling off.
Now if you will look at this bill--just another piece of
trivia. About 4400 acres were acquired in Clark County, 5600
acres were sold off in Clark County, 100,000 acres were
acquired outside of Clark County. So there is a bit of a
difference here in how the money is being allocated. All I want
to ask is that in the future land acquisitions take place in
Clark County as required under this Act. This Act as written
and carried out today, the money is used for upkeep and
maintenance of existing public lands as currently kept in Clark
County to address and meet their needs and the public land
demands here in Clark County.
So I guess the question is, why use the money to purchase
more lands around the State without giving the Federal
Government a revenue stream to maintain the lands newly
acquired from the monies generated by this Act? The 30 percent
that is taken from the Federal Government's coffers will
instead go to Nevada's most pressing need, and that is
educating our children.
Consider these numbers. Under the Southern Nevada Public
Land Act today, the State of Nevada has received about $29
million toward our education needs over the last four years.
That money goes into a restricted trust account that is not
allowed to be touched except for the interest earned on that
money. So it is protected and used only sparingly.
If the original formula that I have proposed would have
been in this Act, the State education would have received well
over $240 million. So each year we would have been getting
instead of $4 million, somewhere in the neighborhood of about
$32 million a year, which would make a significant difference
every year in the education of our kids, especially when you
start looking at the infrastructure needs. I think this is
significant funding for our schools and educators. Think of it
this way, if the government is selling small parcels of land in
Clark County, then going out and acquiring enormous chunks of
land in our rural counties, what does that do to our rural
counties? Some of these rural counties already have 90 to 98
percent federally owned and managed, and when you take the very
little taxable private property they have off the taxpayer
rolls, how will you then pay for their schools? How will you
then pay for their teachers and their textbooks and the
education of their children like you pay for here in southern
Nevada?
Now I doubt anyone can argue that enabling the Federal
Government to purchase more land in Nevada when they already
have 90 percent of our state is more important than the
education of our children. Under my proposal, Federal land
managers will still have hundreds of millions of dollars to do
the important environmental upkeep and oversight in Nevada. It
is my hope that the Federal Government can then prioritize the
use of their stake from the Southern Nevada Public Lands
Management Act and utilize it by maintaining our existing
public lands in Nevada rather than acquiring more. Since 1998
under this Act the Federal Government has experienced a net
gain, as I said earlier, of about 156 square miles of Nevada
lands. To put that into perspective, that is about the same
size as the Las Vegas Valley here. You can understand that
taking that much out of taxpayer rolls in some of these smaller
counties is a tremendous burden on these small counties.
Clearly--and I mean this--clearly we need to revisit this
legislation so we can do better to address Nevada's growing
needs. I will leave to each of the witnesses, who I thank for
taking their time from their busy schedule to be here today,
this simple question for you. How does increasing Federal
ownership of Nevada lands help Nevada's schoolchildren and
their educational needs? And if you believe that the education
of our children is not as important as supplying water to these
communities and if you believe education of our children is not
as important as protecting the environment, I would like you to
tell me why you think so.
We have a growing State, we have growing problems which
include families with children who are seeking the best
education possible. We have added 27,000 additional children
this year who were not here last year. We have built 65 new
schools here in Clark County alone since the enactment of this
legislation, and the Federal Government is taking control of
more land and reducing the taxpayers' capability of paying for
those schools and that education.
So I submit to this Committee and to all Nevadans that
educating our children should be our first priority rather than
allowing the Federal Government to further control this state
we love and we all call home.
I will conclude by saying under my proposal we can still
accomplish our capital improvements. We can still accomplish
funding our parks, our trails and protecting natural areas that
we deem so important. We can still accomplish our conservation
initiatives. We can still accomplish the acquisitions of land
under the Burton-Santini Act and we can still accomplish our
multi-species habitat conservation plans. Each of those efforts
and their funding would not be affected if we simply concluded
that $207 million used for acquisition of more lands can be
significantly reduced and put into education. This is not a
choice, ladies and gentlemen, between educating our children or
protecting the environment and beauty of Nevada. We can, and we
should, do both.
With that, I will end my statement.
Statement of The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nevada
Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for attending this important
congressional hearing today to discuss the Southern Nevada Public Lands
Management Act of 1998--both where we have come since its enactment,
and where we want to go.
First, I would like to commend former Senator Richard Bryan and
Senator John Ensign for their hard work in creating this legislation.
It was a compromise bill--which I supported--and one that clearly put
in place a mechanism to help address the demands of our enormous growth
here in Clark County.
Given my support of this Act, I am here to say that, in my opinion,
the time has come to modernize the Southern Nevada Public Lands
Management Act by amending it to reflect the current demands of our
great State.
Consider these facts:
Since 1998, approximately 5,600 acres of public lands in Clark
County have been sold under the SNPLMA to accommodate our growth needs.
These sales have awarded the federal government with more than $690
million in revenue.
Of that $690 million, 85 percent goes back to the federal
government for purposes I'll discuss shortly.
Another 10 percent goes to the Southern Nevada Water Authority for
our water infrastructure needs. And finally, the remaining 5 percent--
ONLY FIVE PERCENT--goes to help fund our education needs in Nevada.
Now, before discussing the education needs of our State, such as
the need for new schools, higher salaries for our teachers, so we can
recruit and hire the best and brightest, and new textbooks for our
schoolchildren, let's look at what the 85 percent of the $690 million
is being used for.
The revenues gained by the federal government under this Act are
used to purchase more of Nevada's land across the State, support
wildlife, and to care for existing public lands, parks and trails
located exclusively in Clark County.
Again, since 1998, the federal government has sold off
approximately 5,600 acres of land.
Unfortunately, however, in that same time frame, the federal
government has crisscrossed Nevada and acquired 105,000 ACRES of land--
a net gain of more than 100,000 acres for the federal government.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this brings me to the first question for this
Committee and the residents of Nevada to consider: What is the benefit
to Nevadans in having more and more and more of our land owned and
managed by the federal government?
Now, representing every county in Nevada keeps me busy traveling
throughout this great State so that I can hear from my fellow Nevadans.
Since first being elected to Congress in 1996, no single issue has
generated more interest, commentary and passion from those I meet with
than the enormous stake the federal government has on our State.
Right now, the federal government manages nearly 87 percent of
Nevada.
I'm often questioned by my colleagues in Congress as to what kind
of neighbor the federal government is with Nevadans.
I tell them that the federal government is not our neighbor--the
federal government owns THE NEIGHBORHOOD!!!
Now I understand and appreciate the fact that the original
legislation placed emphasis on the federal government using the revenue
from these sales to acquire ``environmentally sensitive'' lands.
The legislation also emphasized that these acquisitions should
occur predominately in Clark County.
Well, that leads me to the next question: Why should we assume that
the federal government does a better job caring for Nevada's lands than
Nevadans?
I don't argue that we have some environmentally sensitive lands
throughout this State. Environmental groups visit my office quite
regularly, equipped with maps depicting areas they deem to be sensitive
lands.
I often disagree with their maps because unlike many of these
groups, I spend time on the ground in Nevada. I drive throughout our
State--I hike, camp, hunt and take my kids out to enjoy the natural
wonders of this State.
Sometimes, I want to protect more of our Nevada land than the
environmental groups do! But that certainly doesn't lead me to think
that we ought to hand control of those lands over to the federal
government for what we are told is ``protection.''
I guess the difference between me and some of these so-called
environmentalists is that I have more respect for local control and for
the ability of Nevada to take care of its own land.
As a life-long resident of Nevada, I refuse to subscribe to the
premise that federal ownership constitutes better care for our State's
lands.
I'm sure the folks who reside in California will say that they
believe Lake Arrowhead was worthy of protection. But under Lake
Arrowhead's ``Federal'' protection--locals were not allowed to thin
surrounding forestland and underbrush--and the federal government
refused to do it. And, tragically, we saw what happened.
Over 91,000 acres destroyed by fire, severe environmental impact on
air quality, water quality and wildlife--homes destroyed, property
destroyed and lives destroyed--all at a cost of more that $42
MILLION!!!
A few years back, a federally managed controlled burn in New Mexico
got out of control, ended up burning some 48,000 acres of the Santa Fe
National Forest, causing nearly $1 BILLION in damage!
Now, I believe our local BLM under Bob Abbey often does the best
they can, given their resources and manpower. But our resources--
Nevada's resources--which include our citizens and our land--do not
need that much oversight by the federal government.
And given my serious concerns over the amount of land the federal
government continues to acquire in Nevada, I will be proposing an
amendment to the SNPLMA that will modify the allocations of dollars
received from future lands sales in Clark County.
The time has come to begin placing a higher emphasis on Nevada's
needs, and a bit less on the federal government's desires.
The amendment I will be introducing early next year will do two
things. First, it will seek to adjust the 85 percent revenue allocation
that the federal government currently receives to 55 percent.
Again, these funds are currently used to purchase and acquire
significantly greater allotments of land in Nevada than the federal
government is actually selling off.
Second, I will ask that ALL future land acquisition take place
solely in Clark County.
Again, as the Act is written and carried out to this day, the
monies used for upkeep and maintenance of existing public lands is
currently kept in Clark County to address their public lands' needs.
So why use the money to purchase more land around the State--
without giving the federal government a revenue stream to maintain the
lands newly acquired from the monies generated by this Act?
The 30 percent that is taken from the federal government's coffers
will instead go to help fund Nevada's most pressing need--our education
system.
Consider these numbers:
Under the SNPLMA today, the State of Nevada has received
approximately $30 million towards our education needs over the last
four years.
If the original formula reflected the changes I hope to make in
this Act, our State education would have received well over $240
MILLION!
Folks, this is significant funding for our schools and educators.
Think of it this way: The federal government is selling small
parcels of land in Clark County, then going out and acquiring enormous
chunks of land in our rural counties.
Some of these rural counties are already 90 to 98 percent federally
owned and managed.
When you take the very little taxable property they have left off
the property tax rolls, how will you then pay for THEIR schools, THEIR
teacher salaries, and THEIR textbooks?
Now, I doubt anyone can argue that enabling the federal government
to purchase more land in Nevada--when they already have nearly 90
percent of our State--is more important than our children's education.
Under my proposal, federal land managers will still have hundreds
of millions of dollars to do important environmental upkeep and
oversight in Nevada.
It is my hope that the federal government can then prioritize the
use of their take from the SNPLMA, and utilize it by maintaining our
existing public lands in Nevada, rather than acquiring more.
Since 1998, under this Act, the federal government has experienced
a net gain of approximately 100,000 acres of Nevada's land. That's one
hell of a deal for the BLM, don't you think?
Clearly--CLEARLY we need to revisit this legislation so that we can
better address Nevada's growing needs.
And I'll leave each of the witnesses--who I thank for taking time
from their busy schedules to be here today--with this simple question:
How does increased federal ownership of Nevada help Nevada's
schoolchildren and their education needs?
We have a growing State. We have a growing population, which
includes families with children--who are seeking the best education
possible for their children.
We have 27,000 kids in school this year who were not here last
year. We have 65 new schools in Clark County alone since enactment of
the SNPLMA.
And the federal government is taking control of more and more of
our land.
I submit to this Committee--and to all Nevadans--that educating our
children should be our FIRST priority--- rather than allowing the
federal government to take further control of this state we love--and
that we call home.
I'll conclude by saying that under my proposal, we can still
accomplish our capital improvements. We can still accomplish funding
our parks, trails and natural areas. We can still accomplish our
conservation initiatives. We can still accomplish the acquisitions
under Burton-Santini. And, we can still accomplish our multi-species
habitat conservations plans.
Each of those efforts and their funding would not be affected if we
simply conclude that the $207 MILLION used for acquisitions of Nevada's
land since 1998 can be significantly reduced.
This is not a choice between educating our children or protecting
Nevada's environment and natural beauty. We can and should do both.
______
Mr. Gibbons.Let me also remind that all witnesses here
today will be asked to provide written testimony and all
witnesses who want to submit written testimony may do so for
this Committee. It will remain open for approximately 10 days,
within which you can submit any written testimony for those of
you that are not speaking orally here today.
We also are going to ask questions to each of you, and we
will at the end of each panel, probably because of the
testimony that will be generated here today, have additional
questions that we will submit to you in writing and ask that
you get back to us within the 10-day period as well. So those
will be in addition to the oral questions that you may get
asked here today.
Let me say and introduce the first panel for everybody. We
have with us an extra person who is not listed on your rolls,
and that is Commissioner John Ellison from Elko County. He is
here as a witness. He is going to submit his testimony for the
record, but we will ask questions of John and the other members
from Elko. We have also the Honorable John C. Carpenter, Nevada
State Assembly, District 33, from Elko County. We have Mr. Pete
Goicoechea, Nevada State Assembly from District 35, that is
Eureka, Nevada, and a whole lot of other places in Nevada. We
have the Honorable Mike Nannini, who is a County Commissioner
from Elko, Nevada, as well. We have Mr. Freeman Johnson,
Assistant Director, Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources from the State of Nevada. We have Dr. Walt Rulffes.
He is the Deputy Superintendent/CFO from Clark County School
District; and we have Dr. William Roberts, Superintendent, Nye
County School District from Pahrump, Nevada.
What I will do is start on my left, your right, and work
our way down the line. So we will start with Mr. Carpenter.
John, the floor is yours. Welcome. We look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN C. CARPENTER, NEVADA STATE
ASSEMBLY, DISTRICT 33, ELKO, NEVADA
Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John
Carpenter, I am a member of the Nevada State Legislature having
served for 17 years. My Assembly District covers all of Elko
County and the northern part of Humboldt County. I was also a
member of the Elko County Commission for 14 years and served as
Chairman for four years.
I am here today to discuss an important and contentious
issue for rural Nevada. We all know that with the huge amount
of money being generated by the sale of BLM land in southern
Nevada and the subsequent purchase of private land in Elko and
Humboldt Counties we are facing a huge dilemma. Loss of mining,
loss of livestock production, loss of tax base, loss of
economic value, loss of proper husbandry on lands purchased and
loss of our rural culture and way of life are just a few of the
reasons we believe the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management
Act needs to be amended.
The latest poll distributed by the Elko Daily Free Press in
April 2003 shows overwhelming opposition to the Federal
Government purchasing more land. Two of the questions were
especially telling. One question was, should the government be
buying or selling land in Nevada? Eleven percent were in favor
of the Federal Government buying land but 89 percent said the
government should be selling its land. Another question was,
should local governments support or oppose the Federal
Government in purchasing more land in Nevada? Eighty-seven
percent said that local government should oppose the Federal
Government land purchase. Only 13 percent said that local
government should support the land purchases.
Along with my testimony I offer Senate Joint Resolution 2
of the last session of the Nevada Legislature which passed both
houses of the Legislature by unanimous vote. SJR2 asks for the
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act to be amended to
use some of the monies for water development on public lands,
which goes right along for the resolution from the Nevada
cattlemen which asks for the amendment of the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act to allow for a more constructive use
of funds generated to include maintenance of purchased
properties and by improving lands already in the public domain.
Some would say local government should not interfere when a
person wants to sell their land to the government. I submit to
you the local government has every right to interfere when
their tax base is reduced, productivity of the land is
diminished and the Federal Government is able to exert more
control over the citizens of the county.
The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act as now being
administered makes for a speculator's paradise. Speculators are
purchasing property at market value, or a little over, and then
trying to sell it to the government for a ridiculous sum.
Amending the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act to
provide for use of money for improvement and rehabilitation of
existing lands, using a greater percentage for existing
infrastructure in Clark County and using at least 50 percent
for public schools in Nevada will eliminate speculation,
stabilize rural counties, improve Clark County and help our
schoolchildren. None should be used to purchase more private
land.
Thank you for allowing me to testify. I will be happy to
answer any questions. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter.
We will turn now to Assemblyman Goicoechea.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carpenter follows:]
Statement of John C. Carpenter, Assemblyman,
District 33 Nevada State Legislature
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
My name is John Carpenter. I am a member of the Nevada State
Legislature, having served for 17 years. My Assembly District covers
all of Elko County and the northern part of Humboldt County. I was also
a member of the Elko County Commission for 14 years and served as
Chairman for four years.
I am here today to discuss an important and contentious issue for
rural Nevada. We all know that with the huge amount of money being
generated by the sale of BLM land in southern Nevada, and the
subsequent purchase of private land in Elko and Humboldt Counties, we
are facing a huge dilemma. Loss of mining, loss of livestock
production, loss of tax base, loss of economic value, loss of proper
husbandry on lands purchased, and loss of our rural culture and way of
life are just a few of the reasons we believe the Southern Nevada
Public Lands Management Act needs to be amended.
The latest poll distributed by the Elko Daily Free Press in April
2003 shows overwhelming opposition to the federal government purchasing
more land. Two of the questions were especially telling:
One question was, ``Should the government be buying or
selling land in Nevada?'' 11 percent were in favor of the
federal government buying land, but 89 percent said the
government should be selling its land.
Another question was, ``Should local government support or
oppose the federal government in purchasing more land in
Nevada?'' 87 percent said that the local government should
oppose federal government land purchases. Only 13 percent said
the local government should support the land purchases.
Along with my testimony, I offer Senate Joint Resolution 2 of the
last session of the Nevada Legislature which passed both houses of the
Legislature by a unanimous vote. S.J.R. 2 asks for the Southern Nevada
Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) to be amended so as to use some of
the monies for water development on public lands, which goes right
along with the resolution from the Nevada Cattlemen's Association which
asks for the amendment of SNPLMA to allow for more constructive use of
funds generated to include maintenance of purchased properties and by
improving lands already in the public domain.
Some would say local government should not interfere when a person
wants to sell their land to the government. I submit to you the local
government has every right to interfere when their tax base is reduced,
productivity of the land is diminished, and the federal government is
able to exert more control over the citizens of the county.
SNPLMA as now being administered makes for a speculators' paradise.
Speculators are purchasing property at market value or a little over
and then trying to sell it to the government for a ridiculous sum.
Amending the SNPLMA to provide for use of money for improvement and
rehabilitation of existing lands, using a greater percentage for
existing infrastructure in Clark County, and using at least 50 percent
for public schools in Nevada will eliminate speculation, stabilize
rural counties, improve Clark County, and help our schoolchildren. None
should be used to purchase private land.
Thank you for allowing me to testify and I will be happy to answer
any questions.
______
Senate Joint Resolution No. 2--Committee on Natural Resources
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION--Urging the Secretary of the Interior, the
Secretary of Agriculture and Congress to take certain actions
concerning expenditures of money for restoration of and water
developments on the public lands in Nevada.
WHEREAS, In recent years, wildfires have caused extensive damage to
the public lands of this state by destroying thousands of acres of
public lands used for economic, wildlife and recreational purposes, and
have increased the threat of infestation of exotic annual grasses and
noxious weeds which may, if not contro1led, cause further degradation
of the lands, deterioration of wildlife habitat, erosion, and
diminished water quality; and
WHEREAS, Responsible management and preservation of the public
lands of this state require restoration of the public lands through
various means, including, without 1imitation, reseeding, planting
indigenous grasses and shrubs, combating exotic annual grasses and
noxious weeds and reducing the encroachment or density of certain
plants for purposes of fire suppression; and
WHEREAS, Because of a lack of adequate water developments on the
public lands of this State, wildlife and livestock on those public
lands have been forced to concentrate near the limited number of water
developments thus jeopardizing the ecological health of the public
lands; and
WHEREAS, Responsible management and preservation of the public
lands of this state require increasing the number of water developments
on the public lands of this state so that the wildlife and livestock on
those public lands will be properly dispersed; and
WHEREAS, Proper management and preservation of the public lands and
waters of this state are critical as these lands support a wide variety
of vital activities that are integral to the economic success and
enjoyment of the natural resources of this State, including ranching,
mining and recreation, and are a unique and important historical,
cultural, and environmental resource that must be maintained and
preserved for the use and appreciation of current and future Nevadans;
and
WHEREAS, The continued economic success of this State, existence of
wildlife diversity in this state and enjoyment derived from the natural
resources of this state depend on the maintenance of healthy ecosystems
within the public lands and waters of this State; and
WHEREAS, The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998,
Pub. L. 105-263, 112 Stat. 2343, authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to expend a portion of the proceeds of the sale or exchange of
certain public lands in Clark County for conservation initiatives on
certain public lands in Clark County; and
WHEREAS, It would greatly benefit and protect the ecosystems on the
public lands In Clark County if the Secretary of the Interior expended
the money authorized for such conservation initiatives to pay for
restoration of and water developments on certain public lands in Clark
County; and
WHEREAS, The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, 43 U.S.C.
2301 et seq., which addresses the sale or exchange of public lands in
areas other than certain public lands in Clark County, requires the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to use the
proceeds of such sales or exchanges for certain purposes, but the Act
does not specifically designate any money for restoration of and water
developments on the public lands in the areas in which the sales or
exchanges occurred; and
WHEREAS, It would greatly benefit and protect the ecosystems on the
public lands in the areas of this state where public lands are sold or
exchanged pursuant to the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, 43
U.S.C. 2301 et seq., if the Act authorized the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to expend a portion of the
proceeds obtained from such sales or exchanges for restoration of and
water developments on the public lands in those areas; now, therefore,
be it
RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
JOINTLY, That the members of the Nevada Legislature hereby urge the
Secretary of the Interior to expend the money authorized pursuant to
the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-
263, 112 Stat. 2343, for conservation initiatives on certain public
lands in Clark County to pay for restoration of and water developments
on such public lands in Clark County; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the members of the Nevada Legislature hereby urge
Congress to amend the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, 43
U.S.C. 2301 et seq. to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to expend money obtained pursuant to the Act
to pay for restoration of and water developments on the public lands in
the areas of Nevada where public lands are sold or exchanged pursuant
to the Act; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Senate prepare and transmit a
copy of this resolution to the Vice President of the United States as
the presiding officer of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary
of Agriculture, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and each
member of the Nevada Congressional Delegation; and be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution becomes effective upon passage.
______
Resolution 3
Private Land and Environmental Management
NEVADA CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION
NEVADA WOOLGROWERS ASSOCIATION
JOINT CONVENTION
RENO, NEVADA
NOVEMBER 21, 2003
WHEREAS, The Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA)
has, through the sale of public lands in the Las Vegas Valley, the
ability to generate an enormous amount of money; and
WHEREAS, Proposals for the use of that money for the purchase of
private lands in Northern Nevada have included parcels priced at many
times market value; and
WHEREAS, Such pricing and resulting sales even greatly discounted
will have a inflationary and destabilizing effect upon all private land
in Nevada; and
WHEREAS, Because SNPLMA monies can be used for acquisition of
environmentally sensitive lands, rather than for restoration, private
parcels in need of crucial restoration are not practically eligible for
consideration under the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Nevada Cattlemen's Association and Nevada WoolGrowers
Association support a no net loss of private land policy,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Nevada Cattlemen's Association and
the Nevada WoolGrowers Association urge for the amendment of the SNPLMA
in order to alleviate the destabilizing effects of the current Act, by
paying fair market value for acquired lands.
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Nevada Cattlemen's
Association and WoolGrowers Association urge for the amendment of the
SNPLMA to allow for more constructive use of funds generated to include
the maintenance of purchased properties and by improving lands already
in the public domain.
Directed to:
Nevada's Congressional Delegation
The SNPLMA Working Group
The SNPLMA Governing Board
Governor Guinn
Nevada Association of Counties (NACO)
All County Commissioners
RAC
______
[An attachment to Mr. Carpenter's statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0750.001
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETE J. GOICOECHEA, NEVADA STATE
ASSEMBLY, DISTRICT 35, EUREKA, NEVADA
Mr. Goicoechea. Good morning, Chairman Gibbons, and I will
address the balance of the members of the Committee as they
will be reading this record. For the record, I am Assemblyman
Pete Goicoechea. I was a county commissioner for Eureka County
for 16 years, now serving in the Legislature representing
Assembly District 35, which is all or part of seven counties in
northern Nevada.
The concerns you hear this morning are very real. The
amount of money being generated by the Southern Nevada Land
Management Act makes everyone in northern Nevada, or anywhere
in Nevada, a willing seller. County officials end up opposing
constituents on something that is very sacred in rural Nevada,
and that is private property rights. But these county officials
are only trying to maintain their tax base. PET payments,
payment equal to taxes, PILT payments, payment in lieu of
taxes, are not the answer, although that makes county
government whole, it does nothing to capture those dollars that
are normally generated by the private sector. We have had some
analysis done. Those private sector dollars usually go through
a community three to seven times, especially if they are ag
dollars, I think it is around seven times. Those dollars are
the lifeblood of these rural communities.
We urge you to amend the Southern Nevada Land Management
Act. Establish a geographic area comprised of Clark County and
areas of adjacent counties that are clearly benefiting from
their proximity to the Las Vegas Valley. Some examples would be
Pahrump. We are going to have Tooley Springs, Coyote Springs.
These definitely should be incorporated into this geographic
area that would be in place for the acquisition of
environmentally sensitive lands.
With 87 percent of Nevada under Federal land management
agencies, it makes no sense to burden the American taxpayer
with the cost of managing more lands as these lands are
acquired under the Southern Nevada Land Management Act. Why not
instead use these funds to enhance the lands already under
public land management? We have riparian areas, uplands, pinyon
juniper encroachment where the thinning is of great benefit. In
Lincoln County we have got a real problem and southern White
Pine County, which I also represent. We have wildland/urban
interface. The protection of those areas are consuming a vast
amount of money. Let us use some of the money out of the
Southern Nevada Land Management Act to address those issues. We
can contract ARC, cultural, real estate transactions that would
in fact benefit the BLM as a whole. Let us use the money from
the sale of public lands to enhance public lands, not erode
rural tax bases and rural economies.
Acquisitions outside of this established geographic area
should be handled on a case-by-case basis legislatively as they
have been in the past. It does not matter if we are talking
about the Jarbidge Cemetery, the Maiden Grave; again, that is
handled on a case-by-case through Congress. So I ask you,
please, let us amend the Act and exclude the areas in northern
Nevada that truly are being impacted by these land
acquisitions.
Thank you. Any questions?
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Assemblyman Goicoechea.
We turn now to Commissioner Mike Nannini from Elko County.
Mike, the floor is yours. Welcome.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goicoechea follows:
Statement of The Honorable Pete Goicoechea, Assemblyman,
35th District, State of Nevada
Chairman Radanovich, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
invitation to speak before you today.
I represent one of Nevada's largest and most rural Assembly
Districts. Assembly District 35 encompasses much of rural northern
Nevada, including Eureka, Pershing and White Pine Counties and portions
of Churchill, Humboldt, Lander and Washoe Counties. The rural character
of this Assembly District says much about my perspective on public
lands management in general and the Southern Nevada Public Lands
Management Act (SNPLMA or Act) in particular.
The SNPLMA is clearly a unique and historically important piece of
legislative work. It benefits the State of Nevada by: 1) supporting
Nevada's education programs; 2) helping ensure a sound economic future
for southern Nevada's communities; and 3) providing a mechanism to
balance southern Nevada's economic needs with resource protection and
conservation. Unfortunately, the benefits of SNPLMA are tempered by
where you reside in the State.
The SNPLMA is a source of great distress to those who live and work
in rural Nevada. The fundamental bone of contention is that the Act
imposes a legislative remedy for a localized urban problem that
disproportionately impacts residents elsewhere in the State. Within the
boundaries of southern Nevada (delineated by the October 2002
Amendment), federal lands are privatized for economic development while
other private lands are transferred to public ownership for
preservation and conservation. Outside of the SNPLMA boundary only half
the equation applies, no lands are privatized, while environmentally
sensitive (substitute, economically viable) lands are transferred to
restrictive public ownership. This inequity has already exacerbated
economic hardships in rural Nevada by creating a political and
administrative situation that struggling local governments can ill
afford. Matters are destined to get worse as land acquisitions erode
rural tax bases and undermine local businesses. Outside a generic
requirement for consultation during federal land acquisitions, the
SNPLMA fails to acknowledge the needs and authorities of any unit of
local government or regional governmental entity outside of Clark
County.
From a national perspective, new land acquisitions will further
test the capacity of American taxpayers to support the growing burden
of public lands management. Federal land management agencies are
already responsible for improving the condition of 87 percent of
Nevada's land area. These agencies remain sadly underfunded and
understaffed. The cost to the health of our forests, grasslands and
watersheds is dear. The recent Interior budget impasse is testament to
our nation's limited ability to provide adequate long-term funding for
management of existing federal lands, let alone new acquisitions.
Rural Nevadans also fear the SNPLMA's indirect tie to water. The
Act provides funding to Southern Nevada Water Authority for developing
water transmission infrastructure. In regions of the State targeted by
Southern Nevada Water Authority for water acquisitions, the SNPLMA is
perceived to be a mechanism for accessing rural ground water resources.
The Act fails to address the local economic and environmental
consequences of exporting water from rural areas.
With these concerns in mind I urge the Committee to pursue
amendments to the SNPLMA as follows:
1. Limit expenditure of SNPLMA funds for federal land acquisitions
to a fixed geographical area in southern Nevada;
2. Identify all units of local government potentially affected by
SNPLMA federal land acquisitions within the boundary and clearly define
their roles under the Act;
3. Provide for a full accounting of future costs and benefits
incurred by a) potentially impacted local and regional businesses, b)
affected units of local government, and c) federal agencies for all
SNPLMA acquisitions; and
4. Earmark SNPLMA expenditures outside the geographical boundary
for enhancing management of existing federal lands and facilities.
In summary, the SNPLMA was designed to enhance economic and social
conditions in urban Clark County. Neither by content nor by name does
the Act pretend to address the needs of Nevada's rural communities. If
there is a need to dispose of federal lands and acquire environmentally
sensitive lands in areas outside of southern Nevada, then I strongly
recommend a separate legislative effort that can meet the needs of
those communities. Many of us have long argued that the SNPLMA would
generate enough money to buy most of the valuable private lands in
rural northern Nevada. Given that the Round 4 Auction on November 6th
grossed over $127 million to bring the SNPLMA coffers to well over
half-a-billion dollars, there is already enough money on the table to
turn all targeted landowners into willing sellers, and for enterprising
sellers to turn the United States Treasury Special Account their way.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE NANNINI,
COMMISSIONER, ELKO COUNTY, ELKO, NEVADA
Mr. Nannini. Chairman Gibbons and members of the Committee,
my name is Mike Nannini. I am the Vice Chairman of the Elko
County Board of Commissioners. I have been an Elko county
commissioner for 11 years and have served on various local
government boards and commissions since the 1970s, including
the mayor of Wells, Nevada.
Please accept my thanks for the opportunity to discuss the
impacts of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act upon
Elko County. Five applications from Elko County were approved
during the round four process. We are aware of at least six
potential Act applications for Elko County in the near future.
Elko County is located in the northeastern corner of
Nevada. Composed of more than 17,000 square miles or almost 11
million acres, Elko County is the fourth largest county in the
continental United States. Our county's land mass is larger
than some eastern states. Seventy-two percent of Elko County is
federally managed lands. Sixty-two percent is managed by the
BLM and about 10 percent is managed by the Forest Service. We
enjoy an abundance of open spaces and outdoor recreational
opportunities such as hunting, fishing, hiking and camping
activities which enhance our quality of life. As in many areas
in the western United States, large components of Elko County's
economy are directly tied to the use of public lands by
ranching and mining operations. Generations of our citizens
have been ranchers and miners.
In Elko County, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act causes two strongly held beliefs to be in contention. One,
that private property owners have a right to sell their
property as they see fit, and second, that Elko County has
enough federally managed lands. The conflict between these two
options is evident among our citizens and members of our county
commission. Elko County supports private property rights. We
are reluctant to interfere with the sale of private property
between willing parties.
While the Act provides an avenue for public land sales in
Clark County, its impact is the Federal acquisition of private
lands in Elko County. With millions of dollars that will be
generated by public land sales in Clark County, we fear that
many of our private ranches may be converted to federally
managed lands within the next decade unless other beneficial
uses of this windfall of monies are available.
Section Five of the Act defines lands for acquisitions as
environmentally sensitive land that will promote a variety of
purposes such as preservation, recreation, public access, land
management or for the public interest. We believe this
definition is vague enough that it will allow most of Elko
County's private lands to qualify for the acquisition under the
Act. Private property owners are lured by an artificial real
estate market created by the acquisition provisions of the Act
that makes it difficult to ignore the potential of high
property appraisals.
Elko County fears that the Act will cause the erosion of
our tax base due to the reduction of taxable property. The
Federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes program attempts to balance
this issue. However, our most recent PILT payment was 22 cents
an acre for federally managed lands. PILT funding does not
adequately provide funding for local government services such
as road maintenance, fire protection and law enforcement. If
the percentage of private property declines in our county, it
will force an increased tax rate on our citizens for local
government services.
Elko County offers these suggestions that may mitigate the
Act's impact on rural Nevada. These suggestions have been
developed from discussions by the county commissioners, the
Elko County Public Land Use Advisory Commission and from local
public hearings.
Amend the law so that lands acquired under the Act outside
of Clark County will be offset by disposal of land value of
federally managed lands within the same county. Such disposals
should be on an equal value basis and offered for private and
public ownership acquisition. Consideration for sales could
include grazing allotments to ranchers, unpatented mining
claims, potential mining and natural resource areas, recreation
for public purpose leases, RP&P, property and other lands to
consolidate checkerboard parcels or in-holdings, with priority
given to local government entities on lands bordering or within
their boundaries. The final resulting goal of no net loss of
private lands within the affected county should be a Federal
management commitment.
To address the problem of reduced taxable property in a
county through the Act land acquisition, a tax annuity should
be established by the seller or a percentage of the sale
proceeds should be allocated to offset the reduction of local
government tax revenues. This portion of the sales proceeds
could be utilized for lost tax revenues, enhanced economic
development activity and other local government services.
Allow a portion of the proceeds on the Act land sales in
Clark County to be appropriated toward the general funds of the
Federal land management agencies within the State of Nevada to
maintain lands and facilities currently under their management.
This could include range management improvements, wildfire
management, conservation, water developments for grazing,
recreation or wetland habitat, recreation developments such as
trails, parks, camping facilities, interpretive signs, wildlife
and critical habitat enhancements and improvements to existing
infrastructure and facilities.
John has already talked about how we feel about water. So I
will pass that up.
Increased emphasis should be given to improved access to
public lands through the acquisition of land easements and
consideration could be given to increase the current 5 percent
paid directly to the State of Nevada for use in the general
education programs in the State.
Again, I wish to express my appreciation for the
opportunity to discuss the issues related to the impacts of the
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act upon Elko County.
Perhaps serious consideration of these suggested amendments
will make the Act equitable for all who are affected by its
provisions.
Thank you.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Commissioner.
We will turn now to Mr. Freeman Johnson who is the
Assistant Director, Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources for the State of Nevada. Mr. Johnson, welcome. The
floor is yours.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nannini follows:]
Testimony of The Honorable Mike Nannini, Vice-Chair, Elko County Board
of Commissioners Elko County, Nevada
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
My name is Mike Nannini. I am the Vice-Chair of the Elko County
Board of Commissioners. I have been an Elko County Commissioner for
eleven years and have served on various local government Boards and
Commissions since the 1970's, including the Mayor of Wells, Nevada.
Please accept my thanks for the opportunity to discuss the impacts
of the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) upon Elko
County. Five applications from Elko County were approved during the
Round 4 process. We are aware of at least six potential SNPLMA
applications from Elko County in the near future.
Elko County is located in the northeastern corner of Nevada.
Composed of more than seventeen thousand square miles or almost eleven
million acres, Elko County is the fourth largest County in the
Continental United States. Our County's land mass is larger than some
eastern States. Seventy-two percent of Elko County is federally managed
lands. Sixty-two percent is managed by the Bureau of Land Management
and about 10 percent is managed by the Forest Service. We enjoy an
abundance of open spaces and outdoor recreational opportunities, such
as hunting, fishing, hiking and camping activities, which enhances our
quality of life. As in many areas in the Western United States, large
components of Elko County's economy are directly tied to the use of
public lands by ranching and mining operations. Generations of our
citizens have been ranchers and miners.
In Elko County, the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act
causes two strongly held beliefs to be in contention. One, that private
property owners have a right to sell their property as they see fit,
and the second, that Elko County has enough federally managed lands.
The conflict between these two opinions is evident among our citizens
and members of the County Commission. Elko County supports private
property rights. We are reluctant to interfere with the sale of private
property between willing parties. While SNPLMA provides an avenue for
public land sales in Clark County, its impact is the federal
acquisition of private land in Elko County. With the millions of
dollars that will be generated by public land sales in Clark County, we
fear that many of our private ranches may be converted to federally
managed lands within the next decade unless other beneficial uses of
this windfall of monies are available.
Section Five (Acquisitions) of the Act defines lands for
acquisition as ``environmentally sensitive land'' that will promote a
variety of purposes, such as preservation, recreation, public access,
land management, or for the public interest. We believe this definition
is vague enough that it will allow most of Elko County's private lands
to qualify for acquisition under the Act. Private property owners are
lured by an artificial real estate market created by the acquisition
provisions of SNPLMA that makes it difficult to ignore the potential of
high property appraisals.
Elko County fears SNPLMA will cause the erosion of our tax base due
to the reduction of taxable property. The Federal Payment in Lieu of
Taxes (PILT) program attempts to balance this issue. However, our most
recent PILT payment was twenty-two cents an acre for federally managed
lands. PILT funding does not adequately provide funding for local
government services, such as road maintenance, fire protection and law
enforcement. If the percentage of private property declines in our
County, it will force an increased tax rate on our citizens for local
government services.
Elko County offers these suggestions that may mitigate the SNPLMA
impacts upon rural Nevada. These suggestions have been developed from
discussions by the County Commission, the Elko County Public Land Use
Advisory Commission and from local Public Hearings.
Amend the law so that lands acquired under SNPLMA outside
of Clark County will be offset by disposal of a like value of federally
managed lands within the same County. Such disposal should be on an
equal value basis and offered for private and public (State or local
government) ownership acquisition. Consideration for sale could include
grazing allotments to ranchers, un-patented mining claims, potential
mining or natural resource areas, Recreation for Public Purposes Lease
(RP&P) property and other lands to consolidate checkerboard parcels or
in-holdings, with priority given to local governmental entities on
lands bordering or within their boundaries. The final resulting goal of
``No Net Loss'' of private lands within the affected county should be a
federal management commitment.
To address the problem of reduced taxable property in a
County through SNPLMA land acquisitions, a tax annuity should be
established by the Seller or a percentage of the sale proceeds should
be allocated to offset the reduction of local governmental tax
revenues. This portion of sale proceeds could be utilized for lost tax
revenues, enhanced economic development activity and other local
government services.
Allow a portion of the proceeds on SNPLMA land sales in
Clark County to be appropriated toward the general funds of federal
land management agencies within the State of Nevada to maintain lands
and facilities currently under their management. This could include
range management improvements; wildfire management; conservation; water
developments for grazing, recreation or wetland habitat; recreation
developments, such as trails, parks, camping facilities, interpretive
signs; wildlife and critical habitat enhancements; and improvements to
existing infrastructure and facilities.
The Nevada Senate and Assembly approved Senate Joint
Resolution No. 2 this past Legislative Session which requests SNPLMA
funding ``for restoration of and water developments on the public lands
in the areas of Nevada....'' Any acquired water rights should not be
transferrable inter-basin or inter-county but be utilized for wildlife,
grazing, recreational or habitat enhancement with any unused water
rights reverted to the Nevada Division of Water Resources for
reallocation within the basin.
Increased emphasis should be given to improved access to
public lands through the acquisition of land easements.
Consideration could be given to increase the current 5
percent paid directly to the State of Nevada for use in general
education programs in the State.
Again I wish to express my appreciation for the opportunity to
discuss the issues related to the impacts of the Southern Nevada Public
Lands Management Act upon Elko County. Perhaps serious consideration of
these suggested amendments will make the Act equitable for all who are
affected by its provisions.
______
STATEMENT OF FREEMAN K. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Johnson. Thank you Congressman Gibbons and members of
the Committee. As you stated, my name is Freeman Johnson for
the record. I am the Assistant Director for the Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources here in Nevada. It is my
pleasure to appear before you today to present--
[Microphone difficulty.]
Mr. Gibbons. You have just got to love technology.
Mr. Johnson. I will pick up where I left off. I am Freeman
Johnson and I am the Assistant Director for the Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources. It is my pleasure to appear
before you today to read into the record the testimony of Kenny
C. Guinn, Governor of the State of Nevada with respect to the
issue before us today.
The passage of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act in 1998 was a landmark for the State of Nevada. As you
know, Nevada has more Federal land than any other state. Today
about 87 percent of Nevada's land is controlled by the Federal
Government. Nevada constantly struggles to cope with the
impacts of this overwhelming Federal presence. The State is
grateful to Congress for recognizing our unique status, and for
approving the concept that excess Federal land can be sold and
the proceeds used to benefit the environment of the State.
This concept was first expressed in the Santini-Burton Act
of 1980 under which land was sold in the Las Vegas Valley with
the proceedings benefiting Lake Tahoe. The Southern Nevada Act
built on this success with an innovative and comprehensive
program that benefits both the Federal agencies and the State.
The sale of Federal lands in the Las Vegas Valley
accommodates the needs of our rapidly expanding southern Nevada
communities. Lands are sold in cooperation with our local
governments, which help to determine sales schedules through a
joint selection process. This program has been an outstanding
success.
When lands are sold, funds are generated for many purposes.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority receives 10 percent of sale
proceeds to help them supply new residents of the Las Vegas
Valley. The State receives 5 percent for our public schools. I
note that Nevada, like other western states, has benefited for
many years from the receipt of 5 percent of the proceeds from
the sale of all Federal lands in the State. Our State
Constitution provides that the funds from these land sales are
deposited in the State Permanent School Fund. The State has
pledged that these funds will remain untouched in perpetuity,
while the interest is made available each year to schools
statewide. The success of the land sale program in the Las
Vegas Valley has, to date, generated more than $23 million in
welcome revenue for our Permanent School Fund.
The Act also makes funds available for many critically
important natural resource programs. The State and local
governments have been included in a partnership process to
decide how these funds are spent each year. We are proud of our
record of consensus on these funding decisions. Funds are made
available to local governments in Clark County for local parks,
trails and natural areas. Funds are also being expended by
Federal agencies for programs here in Clark County, including
capital improvements, conservation initiatives, and to protect
the desert tortoise and other sensitive plant and animal
species.
Funds are available for the acquisition of sensitive lands
anywhere in the State. These funds have been especially welcome
here in Clark County, and also in northwestern Nevada, where a
rapidly growing urban populations make it critically important
to protect sensitive lands from development. Funds have also
been useful in rural Nevada, where the Federal agencies have
been working with the State and with county governments to
identify some sensitive parcels that may be suitable for
acquisition.
The State will continue to support the use of these funds
to address Nevada's natural resource needs. Just a few weeks
ago, with strong state support, Congress acted to appropriate
Southern Nevada funds to implement the Lake Tahoe Restoration
Act.
The State of Nevada is pleased to be included in
discussions of other potential benefits of the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act. There are many resource needs
throughout the State. Our land is being increasingly threatened
by wildfire and invasive species. There are growing pressures
from people seeking open space for relaxation and recreation.
The public lands continue to provide resources for energy,
minerals, livestock grazing, hunting and fishing and other
traditional uses. Small communities throughout rural Nevada are
dependent on these resources for their continued existence. We
must continue to act decisively to protect our fragile
landscapes for future generations.
The State appreciates the opportunity to testify before you
today.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
[The prepared statement of Governor Kenny C. Guinn
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Kenny C. Guinn, Governor, State of Nevada
As you know, Nevada has more federal land than any other state.
Today, about 87 percent of Nevada's land is controlled by the federal
government. Nevada constantly struggles to cope with the impacts of
this overwhelming federal presence.
The State is grateful to Congress for recognizing our unique
status, and for approving the concept that excess federal land can be
sold, and the proceeds used to benefit the environment of the State.
This concept was first expressed in the Santini-Burton Act of 1980,
under which land was sold in the Las Vegas Valley, with the proceeds
benefiting Lake Tahoe. The Southern Nevada Act built on this success,
with an innovative and comprehensive program that benefits both the
federal agencies and the State.
The sale of federal lands in the Las Vegas Valley accommodates the
needs of our rapidly expanding southern Nevada communities. Lands are
sold in cooperation with our local governments, which help to determine
sale schedules through a joint selection process. This program has been
an outstanding success.
When lands are sold, funds are generated for many purposes. The
Southern Nevada Water Authority receives 10 percent of sale proceeds to
help them supply new residents in the Las Vegas Valley. The State
receives 5 percent for our public schools. I note that Nevada, like
other western states, has benefited for many years from the receipt of
5 percent of the proceeds from the sale of all federal lands in the
State. Our State Constitution provides that funds from these land sales
are deposited in the State Permanent School Fund. The State has pledged
that these funds will remain untouched in perpetuity, while the
interest is made available each year to schools statewide. The success
of the land sale program in the Las Vegas Valley has, to date,
generated more than $23 million in welcome revenue for our Permanent
School Fund.
The Act also makes funds available for many critically important
natural resource programs. The State and local governments have been
included in a partnership process to decide how these funds are spent
each year. We are proud of our record of consensus on these funding
decisions:
Funds are being made available to local governments in
Clark County for local parks, trails and natural areas;
Funds are also being expended by federal agencies for
programs here in Clark County, including capital improvements,
conservation initiatives, and to protect the desert tortoise and other
sensitive plant and animal species; and
Funds are available for the acquisition of sensitive
lands anywhere in the State. These funds have been especially welcome
here in Clark County, and also in northwestern Nevada, where rapidly
growing urban populations make it critically important to protect
sensitive lands from development. Funds have also been useful in rural
Nevada, where the federal agencies have been working with the State and
with county governments to identify some sensitive parcels that may be
suitable for acquisition.
The State will continue to support the use of these funds to
address Nevada's natural resource needs. Just a few weeks ago, with
strong State support, Congress acted to appropriate Southern Nevada
funds to implement the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act.
The State of Nevada is pleased to be included in discussions of
other potential benefits of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act. There are many resource needs throughout the State. Our land is
being increasingly threatened by wildfire and invasive species. There
are growing pressures from people seeking open space for relaxation and
recreation. The public lands continue to provide resources for energy,
minerals, livestock grazing, hunting and fishing, and other traditional
uses. Small communities throughout rural Nevada are dependent on these
resources for their continued existence. We must continue to act
decisively to protect our fragile landscapes for future generations.
The State appreciates the opportunity to testify before you today.
______
Mr. Gibbons. We will turn now to Dr. Walt Rulffes, the
Deputy Superintendent and CFO of the Clark County School
District. Doctor, welcome, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF DR. WALT RULFFES, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT/CFO, CLARK
COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. Rulffes. Thanks very much for the opportunity to be
here. I also want to thank the staff members from the various
agencies that helped guide us through this process, which we
are not very often involved in. So they have all been very
gracious and helpful.
I am from Clark County School District and I am always
proud to say that I represent 268,000 boys and girls. That kind
of puts it in context for the reason I like my job so well.
Our testimony today, Congressman Gibbons, is really very
fundamental and based on the simple premise that the agencies
that are directly impacted by the sale of the public land
should be given maybe some special priority in the distribution
of funds. You have already indicated in your opening remarks
that the increased population has an impact on various
agencies. You have also indicated the importance of education.
I could not have said it as well, so we will let the record
stand with that.
You probably know that we have a school construction bill
and the taxpayers in Clark County have chosen to impose a tax
upon themselves to build new schools, but that money is limited
exclusively only to the use of new school construction, not to
any of the support infrastructure that is necessary and
required to support schools. Where we need help are in areas
like in school security and student safety, school buses,
maintenance facilities and the support infrastructure to the
schools, because as indicated, the school construction program
in Clark County is adequately funded at least until the year
2008.
So in conclusion, first of all, we do not want to disturb
the 5 percent process that is done on a statewide basis. We
believe that should be left intact. But we would urge you and
any policymakers to give consideration to sharing some of the
State proceeds with the local agencies such as the school
district that have costs that occur as a consequence of the
sale of the land, because the sale of the land is linked to
more population, which is linked to costs that we have to incur
in this county. Even if it is to the extent that it is a
dedicated fund only for exclusive use for those purposes that
do occur because of the growth that resulted from the sale of
the land.
With that, again thanks for the opportunity to be here.
Mr. Gibbons. Doctor, thank you very much for your
testimony.
We will turn now to Dr. Roberts for your testimony. Dr.
Roberts is the Nye County School District Superintendent from
Pahrump. Dr. Roberts, welcome.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rulffes follows:]
Statement of Dr. Walter Rulffes, Deputy Superintendent/CFO,
Clark County School District, Nevada
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony related to the
distribution of proceeds from the sale of public land in Nevada by the
Bureau of Land Management. The Clark County School District urges that
consideration be given to increasing the proceeds from the sale of land
to benefit educational opportunities for students in southern Nevada.
Background
The Clark County School District is the sixth largest school
district in the nation and is home to approximately 70 percent of the
K-12 students in Nevada. The District serves approximately 270,000
students in 289 schools throughout the District, which covers 7,910
square miles. The Clark County School District may be the fastest-
growing school district in the entire nation, increasing by four to six
percent per year. This fall the District welcomed 12,566 new students.
To accommodate that growth, 12 new schools were opened. This fast-paced
growth has been with us for over a decade. Since 1990, 144 new schools
have been built, and the student population has nearly tripled. The
community is supporting about $1.25 million per day on school
construction, but operation funding per student is among the lowest in
the nation.
The fastest-growing segment of the District's population is English
Language Learner (ELL) students. The Clark County School District is
now a minority-majority district, with approximately 46 percent of the
population Caucasian, 32 percent Hispanic, and 14 percent African
American. The District, along with the rest of the country, embraces
the requirements of No Child Left Behind and faces many challenges as
we prepare our 46,000 ELL students to meet the rigorous testing
standards that will help ensure their success in life.
The District's fast-paced construction is financed by a voter-
approved, ten-year capital program, the fifth voter-approved building
program since 1986. However, expenditures are limited to school
construction and equipment. Funding for essential student, staff and
patron support functions, such as safety and security, food service,
maintenance, technology, central services, etc., must be taken from
operational revenues, thus diverting instructional dollars from
classroom activities.
The current per-pupil funding for Clark County School District is
approximately $5,600. This compares to a national per-pupil funding
average in excess of $7,000. The total funding gap on a district-wide
basis is approximately $400 million per year. This gap in funding
results in fewer educational opportunities for students in Clark
County.Against this background, Clark County School District is
desperately seeking needed funding sources for non-recurring
expenditures to address essential educational and school support
services and non-school capital projects. Examples are not limited to,
but include:
1. New textbook adoptions and related instructional equipment;
2. Capital improvements in technology areas, such as computers in
remediation centers, expanded library systems, and updated enterprise
systems;
3. Accountability reporting to the community, parents and
government agencies;
4. Reduce student dropouts with after-school and Saturday
opportunities for students to catch up and graduate;
5. Campus security improvements for student and staff safety;
6. Staff training academies;
7. Funding for facilities that will house all-day kindergarten
programs. (Currently, the District's half-day kindergartners attend
school for two hours, 40 minutes per day.); and
8. Updated safe and efficient housing for central educational
service personnel.
Under the current formula for distribution of land sale proceeds, a
portion is allocated to a legislatively established state fund from
which annual interest earnings (approximately $4.0 million annually)
are allocated to the State's Distributive School Account (DSA). While
this allocation is helpful to the Clark County School District, the
District could greatly benefit from an increase in the formula, which
would direct earnings from local land sales directly to southern
Nevada's students.
The District supports continuation of the existing allocation, but
requests that any increased allocation go to the direct benefit of the
local school district(s).
We are deeply appreciative of your support in this matter, as well
as your ongoing interest in improving educational opportunities for the
students of southern Nevada. We are mindful of the community's concern
that students from Nevada have full educational opportunities to not
only meet academic standards to graduate, but also to be competitive in
future job opportunities, objectives we know you share. We are readily
available to respond to questions or to provide further information.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide input on an important
topic.
______
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM ROBERTS, SUPERINTENDENT, NYE COUNTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT, PAHRUMP, NEVADA
Mr. Roberts. Congressman Gibbons, members of the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation & Public Lands,
thank you for allowing me, Rob Roberts, Superintendent of Nye
County School District, Nye County, Nevada, the opportunity to
provide testimony concerning the dispensation of funds from the
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act. The Nye County
School District requests increasing the percentage of profits
being distributed to the Nevada Department of Education from
the sale of land to benefit the educational opportunities of
the students in Nye County, Nevada.
The Nye County School District is the largest geographical
school district in the continental United States. It
encompasses 18,400 square miles with 17 schools serving over
5,400 students. We employ over 700 certified and classified
staff and operate some 74 buses which drive over one million
miles a year. Over 98 percent of our tax base is owned by the
Federal Government, thus denying us the opportunity of an
adequate tax base to support the education of our children. Nye
County is the home of the Nellis Air Force Bombing Range, some
3,000 square miles, yet we see no compensation. We are the Low
Level Nuclear Storage Site for the United States. Nye County
has been subjected to over 1,000 nuclear tests, rendering that
land unfit for human existence. And with the Yucca Mountain
project on the verge of licensing for high level storage of
nuclear waste for the entire nation, the students of Nye County
still see little to no Federal compensation for their
education.
The Nye County School District is a diverse community with
one commonality, being economically disadvantaged. Some 56
percent of Nye County schools are Title I and 49.5 percent of
our students qualify for free or reduced lunch. Nye County
classroom computers are averaging five years of use and older.
Many of our classrooms are in modulars. Several schools offer
no air conditioning and are not ADA accessible. Funding for
essential services are woefully inadequate. Nye County School
District per-pupil funding is approximately $5560. With a
national average of approximately $7000 you can see nearly an
$8 million funding gap. With these funds we could offer the
education our students deserve and the Federal No Child Left
Behind legislation demands. It is worth noting that in the
Washington, D.C. area the per-pupil funding is approximately
$11,000.
Nye County School District desperately needs monies for
their essential educational support and school capital
projects.
New buses. Currently our average route bus is approximately
25 years old. We would like to update our text books. We would
like to update the technology in the classrooms so that
computers, Internet and video connections are available in
every school. We have schools with one-room teachers--one
building in Duckwater to a middle school with 1,000 students in
Pahrump Valley.
After school programs including Saturdays and Sundays--I am
sorry, Saturdays and in summer schools. School safety
improvements, air conditioning and ADA assistance for several
of our schools. Staff professional development training and the
ability to staff teachers in remote locations. Special
education teachers, occupational therapists, speech
pathologists, school psychologists and medical staff. Currently
we have one school nurse in Nye County. We have been trying for
over a year to hire one for the north. No takers.
Presently approximately 5 percent of the profits from land
sales makes its way to education in Nevada. While that is
helpful, increasing the local land sales profit distributed to
school districts in rural Nevada would greatly improve our
ability to assist students impacted by local land sales and
Federal ownership and impact of their land.
The Nye County School District supports continuation of an
allocation process and the increase of the percentage going
directly to the students of Nye County and southern Nevada
school districts. I would have to say all Nevada school
districts.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide information
concerning Nye County and the rural school districts.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Dr. Roberts.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Roberts follows:]
Statement of Dr. William E. Roberts, Superintendent,
Nye County School District in Nevada
Members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and
Public Lands:
Thank you for allowing me, Rob Roberts, Superintendent of Nye
County School District, Nye County Nevada, the opportunity to provide
testimony concerning the dispensation of funds from the Southern Nevada
Public Lands Management Act. The Nye County School District requests
increasing the percentage of profits being distributed to the Nevada
Department of Education from the sale of land to benefit the
educational opportunities of students in Nye County.
Background
The Nye County School District is the largest geographical school
district in the lower 48 states. It encompasses 18,400 square miles
with 17 schools serving over 5, 400 students. We employ over 700
certified and classified staff, and operate 74 busses which drive over
1,000,000 miles a year. Over 98 percent of our tax base is owned by the
Federal Government thus denying us the opportunity of an adequate tax
base to support the education of our children. Nye County is home to
the Nellis Air Force Bombing Range, some 3,000 square miles, yet we see
no compensation. We are the Low Level nuclear Storage Site for the
United States. Nye County has been subjected to over 1,000 Nuclear
Tests, rendering that land unfit for human existence. And with the
Yucca Mountain Project on the verge of licensing for high-level storage
of nuclear waste for the entire nation, the students of Nye County
still see little to no Federal compensation for their education.
The Nye County School District is a diverse community with one
commonality, being economically disadvantaged. Some 56 percent of Nye
County Schools are Title I, 49.5 percent of our students qualify for
Free or Reduced Lunch. Nye County classroom computers are averaging
five years of use. Many of our classrooms are in modulars, several
schools offer no air conditioning and are not ADA accessible. Funding
for essential services are woefully inadequate. NCSD per-pupil funding
is approximately 5,560 dollars, with a national average of
approximately 7,000 you can see a $7,776,000 per year funding gap. With
these funds we could offer the education our students deserve and
federal No Child Left Behind legislation demands.
Nye County School District desperately needs monies for essential
educational support and school Capital Projects:
1. New School Busses--Currently average route bus is twenty-five
years old;
2. Updated Textbooks;
3. Technology in every classroom and Internet, Video connection to
every school;
4. After-school programs including Saturdays and Summer School;
5. School Safety improvements;
6. Air-conditioning and ADA assistance for several schools;
7. Staff Professional Development Training; and
8. The ability to staff teachers in remote location, i.e. Special
Education, OT, PT, School Psychologists and medical staff.
Presently approximately 5 percent of profits from land sales makes
its way to education in Nevada, while that is helpful, increasing the
local land sales profit distributed to school districts in rural Nevada
would greatly improve our ability to assist the students impacted by
local land sales and federal ownership and impact of their land.
The Nye County School District supports continuation of the
allocation process and an increase of the percentage going directly to
the students of Nye County and other southern Nevada school districts.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide information concerning
education in Nye County and Southern Nevada.
______
Mr. Gibbons. Let me say to each of our witnesses here
today, you have raised some very significant issues here. I
think it is clear to myself, it is clear to, I am sure, many
people in the audience that there is an enormous disparity
between urban parts of our state and urban school districts and
rural parts of our state and rural school districts, and this
disparity gets even greater based on the fact that we lose
taxpayer bases in rural parts of our county. We gain taxpayer
base, private property, in Clark County. I mean what I heard
Dr. Rulffes say was that, you know, we needed just help with
some of the operating costs. We have a taxpayer base that pays
for a lot of our educational needs and our schools here in
Clark County. That is not the testimony that I just heard from
Dr. Roberts. It is just quite the opposite.
So the point of this hearing today is to figure out how we
adjust the equality to make sure that the education of some
child in Pahrump or in Duckwater, Nevada, has the same quality
as a child being educated here in Las Vegas. I think clearly
that the Clark County school superintendent would agree with
the Nye County school superintendent that those children are
just as important, just as valuable and deserve just the same
opportunities as our urban schools do.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellison follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable John Ellison,
Chairman, Elko County Commissioners, Elko County, Nevada
My biggest concern of the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management
Act is the economic impact felt by the loss of productive lands and
those whose lives are supported by them.
I agree with my fellow Elko County Commissioners on the ad valorem
tax, but there is a broader concern of a trickle-down effect with the
loss of important members of our county ``community'' and a vital part
of our economy. I believe we lose so much more when we lose fuel and
retail sales taxes from those residents who are lost when Elko County
ranching lands are gone.
Keeping in mind an important purpose of SNPLMA is in protecting
environmentally sensitive lands, one must also take into account the
positive effects ranching has on our public lands including that of
fire suppression.
In addition, I do believe in Congressman Gibbons support of using
these funds for our school system.
I will be in attendance to support Assemblyman John Carpenter and
Elko County Commissioner Mike Nannini during their testimonies and will
be available to answer questions, but do not intend on testifying
myself.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Gibbons. Let me start off over here and ask
Commissioner Ellison who has submitted his testimony for the
record. John, what is the average PILT payment to Elko County
for public lands in Elko County per acre? If you have got an
estimated acre amount.
Mr. Ellison. Well, I think it averaged out about two cents
an acre and this year it was increased to $1.2 million, I
think, was it not, Mike?
Mr. Nannini. Mr. Chairman, it averaged out to about 22
cents an acre.
Mr. Ellison. Well, that does not include the Forest
Service. That is just strictly BLM.
Mr. Gibbons. So Elko County is receiving about 22 cents an
acre for all of the Federal lands in terms of taxes or PILT,
payment in lieu of taxes?
Mr. Nannini. It is about $1.5 million. They have boosted it
up to about $1.5 million a year.
Mr. Ellison. And I think the last--this is the first
increase we have had in two years, is that correct, Mike?
Mr. Nannini. [Nodding head affirmatively.]
Mr. Ellison. It still does not cover the--
Mr. Gibbons. That is what my next question is. What are the
deficiencies in county operation because you lack private
property taxpayer base even though you do get a PILT payment?
What are the deficiencies?
Mr. Ellison. We have done reduction in staff throughout the
county because of the gold prices in our area, which is our
largest industry right now, with the PILT--even with the PILT
and the ad valorem coming in, with the shortfall we had this
year. So we did have reduction in staff and services through
Elko County.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Carpenter, let me ask you a question,
because Commissioner Nannini brought it up. The no-net-loss of
private land concept. That is a concept that I am sure--
according to your poll--many of the people in Elko County and
in rural areas would support. Would you support a legislative
proposal that included a no-net-loss of private lands in Elko
or other rural counties in Nevada?
Mr. Carpenter. Well thank you, sir. I certainly think that
that is something that needs to be looked at. We have had a
little experience with that in Elko County. A few years ago
there was some speculators that came up there and they wanted
to buy a large chunk of land in Elko County. So I went to the
county commissioners, and Senator Norm Glazier, you know, also.
We went to the county commissioners and said, you know, if
these people buy this ranch it is going to take a large chunk
out of our economy. So the county commissioners told the
developer, the speculator, that--and he was going to trade that
land down here in Clark County. So the county commissioners
told him that before you can get title to the land in Elko
County, you are going to have to buy another ranch in Clark
County and do what we called a reverse exchange. So we have had
some experience with that. It did work in that case. I guess
what we would really like to see is that we have a Southern
Nevada Lands Act for northern Nevada so they could just sell
some of the land off up there. But certainly the no-net-loss is
a better deal than what is happening now. We just feel that we
need to get more land into private ownership so that we
increase that tax base.
Mr. Gibbons. Let me ask one final question, Mr. Carpenter.
Over the time period say of the last four years--three years,
since the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act has come
into place, how much land has the Federal Government sold for
private purposes in Elko County?
Mr. Carpenter. I would not know the exact amount, but I
think that it would be very little. I think that probably
they--and I do not know the figures for sure. But I think that
it is very little that they have sold. Even though the BLM says
that they have classified land for disposal, we have a very
hard time finding out where these lands are and what the
procedure to buy them is. So the BLM has not been too much up
front in the lands that they say that are there for disposal.
It is really hard for people to get a handle on it.
Mr. Gibbons. We will have Mr. Abbey here and perhaps he can
help us with that question as well.
Mr. Goicoechea, maybe you have got an answer to that
question from your standpoint. I also want to ask you about the
impact of groundwater and water rights and the acquisition of
private lands and how that impacts how you see water rights in
your rural district, which obviously seven counties is a huge
area out of the central part of the State.
Mr. Goicoechea. Thank you again, Congressman Gibbons.
Eureka County--you talk about the no-net-loss, Eureka County
has a component of their master plan that requires that there
be no net loss to the county. Unfortunately what you end up
with, are you talking acre for acre, net loss or are you
talking comparable values where maybe one acre is worth 100 of
what you get back in exchange. It is very difficult to work
through. So I think the net loss provision is very difficult.
I think, again, as Mr. Carpenter stated, when you talk
about land disposals in northern Nevada there are several that
are ongoing, some of them very large. I think the BLM is doing
a good job of--or is trying to work through it. But again, they
are so sorely underfunded. When we talk about PILT, again, we
have to realize that PILT was only paid at 55 percent, I would
like to remind the Congress. So we need those PILT dollars,
too, in these local governments.
I am just going across all the questions that you raised to
the other people. Clearly, I think it just fortifies the fact
that we do need more money in the Bureau's hands and to access
private land sales in northern--public land sales to the
private sector in northern Nevada. We have to make money
available to do the cultural--the real estate. If you started a
transaction today, it will be five years before you get a 40-
acre parcel purchased. It is not the fault of the BLM, it is
just the fact that there is no money and staff available to get
it done.
On the water rights side, of course, it is another issue.
In my district it is--at least portions of my district are
concerned about even the 10 percent of the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act money that goes to Southern Nevada
Water Authority. Technically that money--in some sectors it is
felt that that money is being used--or could be used to move to
northern Nevada and to supply--I think the Act allows for the
building of transmission lines. Again, some people in northern
Nevada are very concerned that maybe we will have money coming
out of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act that
would facilitate water rights being moved from northern Nevada
to southern Nevada. Any time you sell private property you sell
the water with it. We are a beneficial use state, if you cannot
use it, you lose it. If you sell the property the water is
gone. So again, at the point that you acquire a piece of
private land and it goes public then the water goes with it.
That water is the lifeblood of rural Nevada, northern Nevada,
all of Nevada. And we do recognize that southern Nevada will
need some additional water.
Thank you.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you.
Mr. Nannini, let me ask you a question because you
mentioned when I asked Mr. Ellison the value that you receive
under PILT averages about 22 cents per acre. Would you rather
have more privately owned land to be taxed or would you rather
have PILT payments on more public lands into the county? Which
would you prefer?
Mr. Nannini. Larger PILT payments for sure, and that is a
common-sense deal, I think. But just to add a little bit on
your question. You know, presently the BLM has 90,000 acres
that they would like to sell in rural Nevada, you might say,
northeastern Nevada. There is just no way under their system,
or under the Federal system, that they can put that land back
into the economy. There is just no way they can do it. I have
worked with several of the ranchers and some of the miners. An
easy way to do it was to allow the ranchers to buy their
allotments so that this threat of losing their AUMs is
continually over their head. The yearly operation of their
ranches is--it is always a threat on how many cows, how many
AUMs they can run on those allotments. If we would just let
those ranchers buy their allotments and let these mines buy the
property, even at an assessed value. If there is gold on those
lands, put the price up so they can buy it. The way it is now,
and the way we were raised as politicians or as elected
officials, is the mining industry has to buy a ranch or a piece
of sensitive property and then trade, you know, and that is no
different than what we are doing here in southern Nevada. But
if these folks could be allowed to continue to exist and
continue to build on their family ranches and to continue
mining in rural Nevada that would help all of us.
Mr. Gibbons. So what you are saying is, right now there is
a quasi extortionary process between a mine trying to get a
permit and a requirement that they go out and purchase a ranch
in order to get the permit to operate the mine?
Mr. Nannini. That is correct. If they find gold on a piece
of BLM property--I will pick on the BLM right now--or Forest
Service property, they have to go out and buy a piece of
environmentally sensitive ground and then trade it back for
that property. You know, that has been ongoing. We have lived
with that. We have dealt with that. But now with this money
from the Southern Nevada deal it is going to wipe us out. And
why not let these ranching families and these mining families
go out and pay market--they are willing to pay market value.
They paid that market value for their ranches. They paid two or
three million dollars for a ranch. You know, they have paid
several million dollars for trading land to get the gold. Why
can we not do that on a direct deal and allow these folks to
exist? That is all we are asking as Elko County commissioners.
Mr. Ellison. Some of these areas are so far off--
Mr. Gibbons. You have to speak into the microphone.
Mr. Ellison. I am sorry, Jim.
Some of the areas that BLM listed for disposal was in very
remote areas so it is kind of hard.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Let me turn over to Mr. Johnson for a second. You indicated
in your testimony that you felt, and the State felt that 10
percent of the funds used to supply new residents with water is
an adequate sum. Do you feel that 5 percent is an adequate sum
for the educational needs for the kids of Nevada?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I would have to defer responding
to that. The 10 percent is the Governor's testimony, and I do
not feel qualified to--
Mr. Gibbons. I am not asking you for a specific number of
dollars, just your opinion. I mean you are here testifying on
behalf of the Governor representing the State and you can give
your opinion, whether you think 5 percent is adequate. If you
think 10 percent is adequate for the water needs of Clark
County, do you think 5 percent is adequate for the needs of the
kids of Nevada?
Mr. Johnson. No, I do not.
Mr. Gibbons. OK. Because you said you did not want to
disrupt the 5 percent that is already existing. I mean this
plan that we are talking about under our proposal would
increase that to 35 percent.
Mr. Johnson. That is understood.
Mr. Gibbons. It would not disrupt the 5 percent. It would
just add a top to that, 30 more percent of the proceeds, which
does not quite go to where the bill was originally when it was
designed. Senator Ensign and former Senator Bryan had 50
percent of the proceeds used to go back to the education of the
kids of the State; however, that was beaten back by some
environmental groups and it threatened the passage of the Act
to the point where the compromise was well, we will give you 5
percent for the kids. I just think that by selling land down
here in Clark County and the added burdens that you hear,
either Dr. Rulffes or Dr. Roberts talk about, that
infrastructure seems to be as equally as important as the water
infrastructure is, which is now twice as important as education
seems to be.
Mr. Johnson. Congressman, personally I would agree that 5
percent is a minimum, but any more than that is certainly
necessary, and it is indicated by what has happened thus far
with respect to the funding that is being made available to the
school operations and to the children's educational
opportunities here within the State.
Mr. Gibbons. I am not trying to put you on the spot, Mr.
Johnson. I just want to get a comment into the record where the
State sits on this issue.
Let me also ask a question--now this is going to be a
little more subjective. Do you think, or does the Governor
believe that the Federal Government is doing a better job of
managing the lands in this state than the State?
Mr. Johnson. I can answer that in two manners, Congressman.
Personally, I do not, and I would have to presume that the
Governor shares that opinion or that I am in line with his
opinion that the Federal Government is not doing a better job
of managing the lands in Nevada than Nevadans could do such as
you have indicated in your opening remarks.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you.
Let me turn real quick like over here to Dr. Rulffes. I had
a question that I wanted to ask. I need to get this right
because the need for security, safety, buses, construction that
you testified to is critically important, yet we are always
exploring ways to get resources specifically in the proposal
that I have submitted. Clark County now seems to be on the
record opposing additional revenues from this, and I just
wanted to either clarify that for the record or maybe I
misunderstood what you were saying. Is Clark County in support
of getting additional revenues or are they opposed to getting
additional revenues under this bill?
Mr. Rulffes. In support. May I go on for just another
minute or so?
Mr. Gibbons. Yes.
Mr. Rulffes. As a former superintendent of a rural and
small school district, I have stood up many, many times and
defended the needs of rural school districts. I would never
want it to be suggested that we would want anything other than
more money for rural schools. But to segue into the increased
tax base that you mentioned to me, most of the increased tax
base under the funding formula of this state goes to an offset
so that the State portion is reduced to the school districts,
all school districts. So only a small part of the increase in
the tax base benefits directly the local school district, and
that, too, is computed into the per-pupil cost.
Mr. Gibbons. Well then it is an awful lot of differential
when you take that tax base away from a rural county that takes
the same revenue source. It then gets more state revenues if
state revenues are available, but your county--Clark County is
growing at such a tremendous rate that it--I do not believe the
State of Nevada has ever reduced its funding share to Clark
County in the last five years.
Mr. Rulffes. It reduces it by the increase in the amount of
sales tax and property tax.
Mr. Gibbons. Proportionately. But that amount still grows
at an enormous rate because of the growth rate in Clark County,
does it not?
Mr. Rulffes. It grows but our per-pupil does not grow.
Mr. Gibbons. Yeah.
Mr. Rulffes. And so we are kind of in the same boat as the
other school districts. And again, all of the school districts
have inadequate funding to deal with the kind of support
functions that I mentioned in my testimony.
Mr. Gibbons. Well let me just ask just for the record
clarification one more time. Does Clark County support the
proposal of going from 5 percent to 35 percent in the proceeds
of the sale for education?
Mr. Rulffes. We support an increase to go to education. I
do not believe we are qualified enough in the activity to say
what the percentage should be in the terms of balancing it out,
but we clearly support more of the dollars going to education--
Mr. Gibbons. Fair enough.
Mr. Rulffes. --in whatever format.
Mr. Gibbons. Dr. Roberts, we actually invited some of the
Pahrump Valley schoolchildren to attend this hearing today, but
they could not afford the bus trip over. Your school district
could not afford the bus trip over here to Las Vegas, and that
is 60 miles, is it?
Mr. Roberts. No, it was not budgeted.
Mr. Gibbons. So your school district--when it comes to
seeing Federal Government operation on a direct--is impacted
dramatically by a lack of funding to allow these children to
get the experience that they might have being able to sit out
here in the audience, as these adults are, to see what happens
at a Federal hearing.
Mr. Roberts. Well last year Nye County took a 2.8 million--
Mr. Gibbons. Is your microphone on?
Mr. Roberts. It is.
Mr. Gibbons. OK. I am sorry.
Mr. Roberts. Nye County took a $2.8 million budget
reduction. We actually lost 22 teacher positions and 20 staff
positions.
Mr. Gibbons. Did you have an increase in the number of
children?
Mr. Roberts. We did not last year. This year we did have an
increase. We actually buy--we buy Clark County's used buses.
When they get to the point they no longer want them, they are
kind enough to sell them to us, and we appreciate it.
Mr. Gibbons. I am sure you appreciate that, but it makes
you feel like a stepchild, does it not? You are getting the
used clothes or the used school buses handed down to you.
Mr. Roberts. It is very difficult to recruit people to live
in areas where there is no hospital, where the closest store,
gasoline station or restaurant is over an hour away. It is a 5-
hour drive from Duckwater to Pahrump, on and on.
Mr. Gibbons. Let me say that I have had the great pleasure
of being in Duckwater for the annual commencement, the
graduation from the Duckwater school there. This was a couple
of years ago. I was the keynote speaker, and they had one
student graduating that day. There were 80 parents in the
audience for that one student, which tells me that there is a
great deal of involvement of parents in that school area around
Duckwater, Nevada. I was very pleased to be able to celebrate
the graduation of that one student from Duckwater School, which
is a traditional one-room, one-teacher kindergarten through
eighth grade or ninth grade.
Mr. Roberts. Also handles lunch, recess, medical
emergencies and occasionally drives the bus.
Mr. Gibbons. Well it was an amazing experience to be there
for that. So I congratulate you and Nye County on the work they
are doing as well with very limited resources.
Before I excuse this panel, I want to propose two questions
to all of you to submit in writing to us. The question is, do
you have more faith in how Nevada lands are cared for under
Federal control or under State, county and local control? That
is one question. The second question is, do you believe
additional Federal ownership of Nevada lands constitutes a
better educational environment for our children? Very simple,
open-ended questions that I would love to have you submit back
to us in writing.
I do not know if I have any more questions here. So at this
point in time, what I would like to do is excuse the first
panel. I want to thank you for taking time to come here. As I
said, your full and complete written testimony will be
submitted for the record. With that, we want to excuse the
first panel and call up the second panel of witnesses today.
Thank you, gentlemen, very much.
Now the second panel is going to be Mr. Larie Trippet,
President, Dust Devils Motorcycle Club and a Member of the
Northwest Sierra Front Great Basin Resource Advisory Council
for the Bureau of Land Management in Reno, and Mr. Donald
Decker, Management Member, Century Gold, Limited Liability
Corporation, Spring Creek, Nevada. It is pretty easy, just two
gentlemen here today on this panel. That means you get more
focus and more attention. Before you do sit down, I am sorry, I
have to swear you in as I did the last. So if you will please
rise and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Gibbons. Let me introduce each of you again.
Mr. Larie Trippet, as I said, you are President of the Dust
Devils Motorcycle Club, you are a member of the Northwest
Sierra Front Great Basin Resource Advisory Council here in
Nevada. With that, Mr. Trippet, welcome, the floor is yours. We
look forward to your testimony.
And again, if you need an explanation about the lights, it
is limited to five minutes.
STATEMENT OF LARIE TRIPPET, PRESIDENT, DUST DEVILS MOTORCYCLE
CLUB AND MEMBER, NORTHWEST SIERRA FRONT GREAT BASIN RESOURCE
ADVISORY COUNCIL, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, RENO, NEVADA
Mr. Trippet. Thank you very much, Congressman Gibbons. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak. It is an honor and a
privilege to be here.
I have been an active motorcycle rider since about 1970 and
was politically active in southern California with the issues
of land use down there and I have been active in northern
Nevada as well. My role on the Resource Advisory Council is as
a highway vehicle advocate.
I am pleased to hear that you are considering some
alternatives to the dispensation of the funds from the Southern
Nevada Public Lands Management Act. Because I am here mainly
talking about recreation, I certainly am not opposed to
spending more money on education. I do not want that to come
across at all. In fact, in thinking, certainly recreation, the
base of the word is to recreate that certainly should be part
of an education of our children. The use of the land, the
respect for the land, the stewardship for the land. So I
believe that recreation is certainly a component of the
education of our children but certainly not the formal
structured education that they get in the schools.
I think a positive and proactive use of the funds would be
for effective management of recreation, and although my
background is highway vehicle recreation, I do want to speak to
all recreation. I think that is fair.
Demand for recreation in Nevada is increasing. In northern
Nevada, we see a tremendous increase of off-highway vehicle use
at the Sand Mountain Recreation Area. A majority of those
visitors are from California. So what we see is an impact on
the economy, a positive impact on the economy, of these
tourists coming into Nevada to recreate. Certainly with the
urban pressures in Clark County and Las Vegas, I would suspect
that many of those residents, with their families, would choose
to leave Clark County and go to rural Nevada to recreate,
whether it be hunting, fishing, hiking, off-highway vehicles,
whatever the case may be.
We also see increasing demand for recreation in Peavine
Mountain outside of Reno and the Pine Nut Mountains outside of
Carson City. All these areas are getting impacted by the
increase in recreation and certainly could use additional
funding for effective management of recreation.
The key overriding issue is access to public lands and I
want to make a point that management of land for recreation is
not closure and restriction. It is my belief that we need a
fair amount of land for multiple uses, to design, engineer,
build and maintain quality trails, to provide signage, mapping,
education, to provide reasonable law enforcement. In order to
provide the recreation and to do it effectively takes money.
As I have mentioned, recreation supports the economy. The
visitors come into Nevada, they are buying gasoline, they are
buying supplies, they are taking use of the economy. It
provides a diversification for the State over and above the
gaming attraction and as you have probably noticed, the Nevada
Commission on Tourism is marketing Nevada as the wild place,
the wild place to recreate. In our Resource Advisory Council we
have wondered how the BLM and the Forest Service will manage
this influx of tourism that the Nevada Commission on Tourism is
inviting. We have had some panel discussions on that. So I am
here to argue for a little bit of funding to support recreation
in Nevada.
I also wanted to talk about the consequences of the
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, but they have
already been mentioned, so very briefly, one of the first
things our Resource Advisory Council mentioned when round one
of the acquisitions came up was that there was no money for
improvements. The Federal agency might be able to buy land, but
if there was a need for a parking lot, need for signage, need
for a toilet, need for a picnic area, there was no money for
improvements to make it more publicly accessible or usable. And
there was no money for ongoing maintenance and management of
the land. So those are two deficiencies that we noticed. And I
am not speaking for the RAC, I am speaking for me and the
conversations that I have had with some of those people on the
RAC.
We have also already talked about the percentage of Federal
land in Nevada. Some of my contacts on the Resource Advisory
Council have also expressed the no net loss concept and I
thoroughly support that idea.
That is the end of my oral testimony. Thank you very much
for the opportunity, I appreciate it.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Trippet.
We will turn now to Mr. Donald Decker. Mr. Decker, welcome,
the floor is yours. We look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Trippet follows:]
Statement of Larie Trippet (Larimore O. Trippet II), President, Dust
Devils Motorcycle Club, Member, Bureau of Land Management's Northwest
Sierra Front Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, Reno, Nevada
I would like to thank the members of this Committee for allowing me
the opportunity to submit testimony on this topic.
As I understand the purpose of this hearing, the Subcommittee is
considering amendments to the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management
Act (SNPLMA), which will allow for alternative uses of the money raised
from the sale of federal land in Clark County, Nevada. Currently, the
Act provides for the purchase of ``environmentally sensitive'' land
outside of Clark County, but within Nevada. The land sales in Clark
County have exceeded expectations with respect to revenue generated,
while purchases of land have been more difficult to achieve.
I applaud Congress's willingness to look at this issue.
I first want to comment on some discussions I have had at RAC
meetings. I do not speak on behalf of the RAC, nor for the BLM in
Nevada, but simply relate some feelings and opinions discussed by some
of the RAC members.
Three years ago, our RAC was involved in commenting on potential
sites for purchase with SNPLMA funds. It was the first such ``round''
of purchases. Several of us asked about money to make improvements or
to manage and maintain the land once purchased. An example of
improvements might be like this: Some land was purchased along the
Carson River to provide public access and prevent major development.
Improvements might be considered for better parking, signage, picnic
facilities, toilet facilities, etc. These all might be appropriate
improvements to better manage the land that was acquired. SNPLMA does
not provide for this. It should!
Similarly, we asked about funding for ongoing management of the
acquired land. SNPLMA does not provide for this. It should!
What SNPLMA does is provide for acquisition of land with no money
to properly ``set it up'' for use or to properly manage it over the
long run. This is a terrible oversight! This is true regardless of the
purpose of the acquired land: protected, recreation or other.
Other comments from some RAC members focus on the percentage of the
State of Nevada that is under federal control. Nevada has the highest
percentage of federal ownership than any other state. When I joined the
RAC three years ago, I agreed with the sentiment that there should be
NO NET GAIN in federal land ownership in Nevada and that, preferably,
that percentage would actually decrease.
However, the consequence of the SNPLMA is that the percentage of
federal land ownership in Nevada is/will grow. From my understanding of
the success in selling parcels in Clark County, the BLM is taking in
huge amounts of money for a small number of acres. If that same money
were used to buy land outside of Clark County, the number of acres
would be HUGE. In my opinion, this is a very NEGATIVE consequence of
SNPLMA.
Of course, one of the effects of private lands being acquired by
BLM/USFS is the reduction in tax revenue to the counties and State.
Nevada is already struggling with the following:
the low price of gold has caused the mining towns
economies to suffer;
environmental regulations have further squeezed the
mining businesses and communities;
endangered species issues and environmental regulations
have hurt the ranchers and livestock production; and
Congressionally designated lands (in particular the High
Rock Black Rock Emigrant Trail Conservation Area) has precluded
potential alternative energy development and reduced grazing
opportunities.
To acquire and set aside more land would continue to harm Nevada's
economy.
With these two points in mind, I strongly encourage Congress to
find alternative uses (other than acquiring land) for the proceeds of
land sales in Clark County.
What might be some alternative uses?
My interest and background are centered around recreation. Although
my specific background and interest is in motorized recreation, I
believe my comments apply to all forms of recreation. By including all
forms of recreation, I want to ensure that the resources (land) are
shared by all. Most areas should be kept as ``multiple use,'' thereby
allowing ALL forms of recreation (motorized and non-motorized). This
does not preclude some areas designated for exclusive use for some
forms of recreation. Hikers and equestrians already get exclusive
access to Wilderness areas.
Why recreation? It brings visitors from other states to Nevada to
recreate. Nevada has some outstanding resources for all sorts of
recreation and access to wide open spaces and solitude. Allowing SNPLMA
funds to benefit statewide recreation on federal land would be a great
economic benefit to Nevada and provide for appropriate management of
activities to promote resource stewardship and land use ethics.
I am involved with land use issues at the Sand Mountain Recreation
Area (SMRA) in Northern Nevada. This is about 4,000 acres set aside for
OHV (and other) recreation. However, concerns about a blue butterfly,
and it's host plant, the Kearney Buckwheat, along with fears over the
heavy hand of the Endangered Species Act, have caused the BLM to
restrict travel in this area. It is well-known that about 80-85 percent
of the visitors to SMRA are from out of state, California. These
visitors provide an economic benefit to the surrounding communities of
Fallon, Carson City and Reno.
The number of annual visitors to SMRA has increased every year
since it was established. This is due to the population growth in
Nevada along with the constant closures of land to OHV recreation in
California. The demand for OHV recreation continues to grow. Use of
SNPLMA funds can help meet that demand and help minimize the impact to
public lands.
With additional funding from SNPLMA, trails could be planned,
engineered and constructed to provide for a better recreational
experience while providing protection for the butterfly. Existing
trails that would get used extensively could be maintained through the
purchase of appropriate equipment and manpower to do the work.
Once again, let me reiterate that I support all forms of
recreation. I use OHV examples because I most familiar with that.
Another area that could benefit from additional funding is Peavine
Mountain outside Reno, Nevada. The Washoe County Backcountry Coalition
is a diverse group of interested parties working together to ensure
access to Peavine Mountain, which is part USFS and part BLM. They have
been very successful in gaining support from the City of Reno, Washoe
County, as well as several developers. Were it not for their efforts,
access points to public land would have been blocked by development.
Additional funding could be used for:
effectively designating and signing areas for multiple
use or specific use;
maintain roads and trails; and
plan, design, engineer and build new or alternative
trails.
Although I generally oppose the acquisition of more land by federal
agencies, Peavine Mountain is an example where it does make sense.
There are inholdings of private land that, if acquired, would provide
recreational opportunities, open space, and habitat protection.
The Nevada Commission on Tourism is already marketing Nevada as a
wild place for all sorts of recreation possibilities. Since so much of
Nevada is federal land, it is the federal agencies that will have to
manage this influx of wild recreational tourism. Clearly additional
funding from SNPLMA activities could help provide for effective
management of these activities. I personally think this is a pretty
good marketing campaign for tourism. It should bring needed revenues
outside of the draw of the gaming industry. However, the federal
agencies need the resources (money) to properly manage it. CLOSING THE
LAND, PREVENTING ACCESS, RESTRICTING USAGE IS NOT THE ANSWER! Proper
planning and management to meet the demand is the best approach...and
that takes money.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony as
you consider amendments to SNPLMA. I hope that some funding can be
directed toward recreation to meet the increasing demand and to ensure
the resources are well managed by the federal agencies.
______
STATEMENT OF DONALD DECKER, MANAGING MEMBER,
CENTURY GOLD, LLC, SPRING CREEK, NEVADA
Mr. Decker. Thank you, Congressman Gibbons. I appreciate
very much the opportunity to be here and to testify on this
very important public land management legislation.
I have chosen to live and operate a business in Nevada for
over 30 years. I have a Master of Science in geology from the
Mackay School of Mines in Reno and presently operate the second
largest privately held mineral exploration firm in northern
Nevada. I also serve on the Elko County Public Land Use
Advisory Commission, which is designated by the county
commissioners. I have been involved in public land issues all
of my life.
Nevada has been severely impacted by a multitude of
piecemeal land management legislation decisions over the last
150 years. Several of these actions in recent years have
addressed broadening the private land base in southern Nevada,
which has sustained the economic growth in southern Nevada for
many years. The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act
offers a unique opportunity to address many public land
management issues at one time, if we avoid the piecemeal
approach of the past.
Southern Nevada Land Management Act provides a method to
convert public land to private land base within the State. This
is working very well for Clark County and southern Nevada.
Through this Act, the private land and water base that is
required for any economic growth engine, is being increased in
southern Nevada, while being decreased in the remainder of the
State. This needs to be corrected.
There is a discussion about the acquisition process of
using the monies from the Act and I certainly support the
principle of private property rights. We just have to realize
though that the acquisitions made by the monies from the
Southern Nevada Land Act are not a free market transaction. It
may be argued that they are, but they are not necessarily a
willing seller/willing buyer. I actually personally have
offered to buy some of the parcels that have been offered in
round four and they were not available to me at the same price
as were offered by the Federal Government.
I basically have three recommendations for consideration:
One is to convert existing public lands in all areas of the
State to private lands. Presently over 87 percent of Nevada is
public land, which restricts the economic activity. We can say
that the PILT payments would compensate for that, and they do,
but to a very limited extent, but they do not offer the
opportunity for any other activity besides just a token payment
from the Federal Government.
The Nevada Association of Counties, NACO, has a policy of
no net loss of private land acreage in all of the counties, in
order to protect the tax base. The Southern Nevada Land Act
should make provisions for disposal of public lands to private
lands of equal acreage or value within any particular county
where private land acquisitions are made. There is no pressing
need to increase the control of public lands in the Federal
agencies within the State. These agencies are continually
lacking funding to carry out their designated managerial roles.
To increase their land holdings would only stretch the limited
resources they presently have.
The subject of the lands in Elko County that are available
for sale has been brought up. I have seen a map, there are
approximately 100,000 acres, which is designated as for sale.
At the present time, I believe there is around 1,000 acres
which is actually designated as being for sale, but those are
only designated by the BLM, they are not on a nomination
process such as we have here in the Southern Nevada Land Act
where I can nominate a parcel of land for sale. So the process
is very limited in Elko County as far as the sale of those
parcels. And the ones that are, I think it is around 1,000
acres total that is available presently in Elko County. And
that is several parcels so they are very limited, very small
parcels.
Second, I would encourage the economic activity by
privatization. All the tremendous economic activity in the last
50 years in Nevada has been encouraged and made possible by
private land base. Warehousing, gaming, mining are all
dependent upon the availability of private land. Private land
and the availability of water are the driving forces of
economic viability and diversification.
We just need to stop the piecemeal legislation. An
excellent example of the cooperative land management
legislation is the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and
other legislation over the last 25 years, which provided for
designation of specific scenic and wildlife resources as well
as the designation of specific areas for economic development.
All the people of Alaska were given the opportunity to use the
resources, they have for years, and the varied legislation in
Alaska since the early 1970s has proven to be a very workable
vehicle to address the varied resources available. This format
to apply to the Southern Nevada Land Act would be something to
consider.
Also, through the disposition of land to the State of
Alaska, they have set up what is called a permanent fund. The
term of a permanent fund was brought up for educational funding
here. And the State of Alaska has a permanent fund from
revenues derived from the State lands--it is not a Federal
permanent fund but a state permanent fund--which apparently
works very well.
The lack of addressing some of this piecemeal legislation,
the wilderness study areas is an excellent example of that. We
have about 200,000 acres of that in Elko County and maybe half
of that has been agreed to be yeah, that could have wilderness
value, but the other 100,000 acres is just in limbo and has
been for 20 years. So we just need to address it.
The third area is recreational opportunities. The
conversion of public lands to recreational uses at the same
time, setting aside multiple use concepts for the land is a
dangerous route to take. Several of the legislative acts in the
last 50 years have provided private lands for southern Nevada
while protecting specific parcels for recreation in the Tahoe
Basin. I believe this is primarily the Burton-Santini Act and
the designation of recreation in environmentally sensitive
areas has in effect limited the public access to the lands for
any use. A massive transfer of money to the Tahoe Basin has not
led to a proportional increase in the availability of or access
to the public land and the public lake.
We have the example of Arrowhead Lake in California was
brought up, which is an excellent example of that, which had
led to the same exact thing in Tahoe Basin, which is a
tinderbox ready to turn.
We have a case in Elko County, which is Franklin Lake,
which was a Federal/state purchase of a ranch about 12 or 15
years ago, which part of that was designated to be increased
access to the Ruby Mountains. It has not come about. The
Federal Government says they need more access into the Ruby
Mountains but yet they have had this designated for that many
years and no action has been taken on it.
The concept has been used to actually limit the access to
specific areas. Recent legislation approving the increase of
user fees for National recreation areas indicates a lack of
funding for these facilities. These agencies are continually
limited by funding restrictions and the lack of updating the
recreational facilities that they are to serve. More private
land-based recreation is a good alternative, and the use of
Southern Nevada Land Act to enhance the recreational
opportunities would be a great alternative.
We all need to look at using Southern Nevada Land Act as a
win-win solution to challenging land use issues in the next few
years. Please do not let it continue to benefit only one small
portion of the State while expropriating the economic resources
of the other portions of the State.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Decker follows:]
Statement of Donald J. Decker, Managing Member,
Century Gold LLC, Spring Creek, Nevada
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this very important
public land management legislation. I have chosen to live in and
operate a business in Nevada for over 30 years. I have a Master of
Science in geology from the Mackay School of Mines in Reno, and
presently operate the second largest privately held mineral exploration
firm in northern Nevada. I also serve on the Elko County Public Land
Use Advisory Commission. I have been involved in public land issues all
of my life.
Nevada has been severely impacted by a multitude of piecemeal land
management legislative decisions over the last 150 years. Several of
these actions in recent years have addressed broadening the private
land base in Southern Nevada, which has sustained the economic growth
in that area for many years. The Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act (SNPLMA) offers a unique opportunity to address many public land
management issues at one time, if we avoid the piecemeal approach of
the past.
SNPLMA provides a method to convert public lands to the private
land base within the State. This is working very well for Clark County,
and Southern Nevada. Through this act, the private land and water base
that is required for any economic growth engine is being increased in
Southern Nevada, while being decreased in the remainder of the State.
This needs to be corrected in order to sustain the quality of life in
all areas of the State.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. CONVERT EXISTING PUBLIC LANDS IN ALL AREAS OF THE STATE TO PRIVATE
LANDS
Presently over 85 percent of Nevada is public lands, which
restricts the economic activity. The Nevada Association of Counties (
NACO ) has a policy of no net loss of private land acreage in all of
the counties in order to protect the tax base. SNPLMA should make
provisions for disposal of public lands to private lands of equal
acreage or value within any particular county where private land
acquisitions are made.
There is no pressing need to increase the control of the public
lands by the federal agencies within the State of Nevada. These
agencies are continually lacking funding to carry out their designated
managerial roles. To increase their land holdings would only stretch
the limited resources further.
2. ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BY PRIVATIZATION
All of the tremendous economic activity in the last 50 years in
Nevada has been encouraged and made possible by the private land base.
Warehousing, gaming, and mining are all dependent upon the availability
of private lands. Private land and the availability of water are the
driving forces for economic viability and diversification.
An excellent example of cooperative land management legislation is
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and other legislation that has
provided for designation of specific scenic and wildlife resources as
well as designation of specific areas for economic development. The
native people in Alaska were given the opportunity to use the resources
they have on their lands to provide a more sustainable lifestyle. The
varied legislation in Alaska since the early 1970's has proven to be a
very workable vehicle to address the varied resources available. This
format to apply the SNPLMA would be very beneficial.
3. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
The conversion of public lands to ``recreational uses'' at the same
time, setting aside ``multiple use'' concepts for the land, is a
dangerous route to take. Several of the Legislative acts in the last 50
years have provided private lands for Southern Nevada, while protecting
specific parcels for recreation in the Tahoe Basin. The designation of
``recreation,'' or ``environmentally sensitive'' areas, has, in effect,
limited the public access to the lands for any use. The massive
transfer of money to the Tahoe Basin has not led to a proportional
increase in the availability of, and access to, the public access to
the lake.
This concept has been used to actually limit the access to specific
areas. Recent legislation approved the increase of user fees for
National recreational areas and indicate the lack of funding for these
facilities. These agencies are continually limited by funding
restrictions, and the lack of updating of the recreational facilities
they are to serve. More private land-based recreation is a good
alternative, and the use of SNPLMA to enhance the recreational
opportunities would be a great alternative.
We all need to look at using SNPLMA for a Win-Win solution to
challenging land-use issues in the next few years. Please do not let it
continue to benefit only one small portion of the State, while
expropriating the economic resources of other portions of the State.
______
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Decker.
I was particularly struck by the part where you said that
you have a Master's Degree in geology from Mackay School of
Mines.
Mr. Decker. Good school.
Mr. Gibbons. I guess we cannot all be perfect, since I
share that commonality with you.
Mr. Decker. Right.
Mr. Gibbons. Let me just ask you a brief question. What I
gathered from your testimony was that you said that acquisition
of private land to put into public holdings oftentimes results
in less access or denied access or no greater access to the
public land. Especially you were talking about the Franklin
Lake acquisition up in Elko County. Is that what you were
saying that not always does acquisition by the government
result in greater access?
Mr. Decker. I believe that is true. I think Franklin Lake
is a classic example of that, where the access was apparently
to go forward.
Another case is the Pequot Mountains where the 70,000 acres
was traded out a few years ago, but there is no increase in the
access, it is just the same as it was. Actually the road system
to access most of the public lands, the Forest Service is a
great example, are the county roads which are maintained by the
county to provide access to that. So it does limit the access.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Trippet, let me ask you, you have been
around recreational vehicles, off-road, motorcycle riding for a
little more than three decades. In your experience over those
three decades, have you found the Federal land management
agencies to be more or less recreation friendly than they were
10 years ago?
Mr. Trippet. Well, with respect to motorized recreation,
the Federal agencies are much less friendly. One of the
comments that I make at our Resource Advisory Council--because
we have many points of view on that Council--is that over the
past 30 years, the lands available to motorized recreation have
shrunk and shrunk and shrunk. And my goal is to try to stop
that shrinkage. And I do not want to deny the need for some
wilderness areas, I do not want to deny some areas for
exclusive use for hikers or equestrians, but we need some areas
for some other recreation. So in a broad general statement, I
would say the Federal agencies are less friendly to off-highway
vehicle motorized use now than they were before.
Mr. Gibbons. Is it just that they are concerned about the
quality of the environment where a lot of off-road recreation
takes place or are they refusing to provide alternatives? In
other words, do they just want to restrict down your operating
area to more and more smaller areas until they get to a zero
point or do they say we are going to take 100 acres out of you
here, you cannot operate here but we are going to let you
operate on 100 acres over here? Is that what you experience?
Mr. Trippet. The concept of no net loss that we apply here
to Federal land in Nevada I also try to apply to off-highway
vehicle recreation and I try to say that if the Federal
agencies want to restrict us in one area or close another area,
I say give us a different area to go to. Sometimes it is a
function of the quality or the terrain in question. For
example, Sand Mountain Recreation Area is a mountain of sand
that ATVs and dune buggies like to ride on. To close or
restrict part of that area, there really is not another similar
area to open up. So that is a challenge.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, I can see that if you restrict an area,
you force the same number of people that were operating in a
large area into a smaller operating arena, which does even more
damage or wear and tear on the land by forcing that same number
of people into a smaller and smaller arena.
Mr. Trippet. Yeah, it concentrates the impact, absolutely.
Some of that impact could be handled with appropriate
management. There are tractors and devices that can smooth out
the trails and to maintain the trails such that the impact is
minimized. But again, that takes money.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Decker, I wanted to step back to your
testimony for a moment. Even though this hearing is about
increasing the percentage of proceeds going to education, you
mentioned something in your testimony that I just wanted to
kind of go over and get onto the record, because you indicated
that in the acquisitions or the sale of private property in
northeast Nevada, that even though this was a ``willing seller/
willing buyer'' to the Federal Government, if you walked in and
were willing to buy the property, you were not allowed to make
the offer or to buy the property. Can you explain that a little
more? This is a foreign concept to me. Why did that take place?
Mr. Decker. Well, I may have been too late in the process,
I am not sure. But I did ask the ranch if they had some other
land available at that price, which was above, probably above
market price, I think Realtors in the area could address that
better, but I am not totally sure except maybe--the particular
parcels I was interested in were in the top of the Santa Rosa
range between Winnemucca and McDermott, along the drainages,
and the Nevada First Corporation was selling them, but I do not
believe it is a willing seller/willing buyer transaction. It is
not at all a free market transaction. And I know the argument
comes up that we cannot restrict the private property rights of
a person, but if you really are supporting that private
property rights, then it should be a willing seller/willing
buyer, free market transaction.
Mr. Gibbons. Let me ask one final question, Mr. Decker, and
that is the difference between what benefits would accrue to a
county from mineral resources on private land versus mining
mineral resources on Federal lands? Do you have an idea or a
concept that you could share with us?
Mr. Decker. Well, I think the primary benefit to the county
from the mining is obviously through the Net Proceeds in Mines
tax which was a process which was put in place by the mining
industry in the early 1980s, which is a tax on your net
proceeds which goes to the State back to the counties. And I am
sorry, I do not have the figures per acre in the county with
me. I will get those.
Mr. Gibbons. Would you? For the record, that would be
great.
Mr. Decker. I guess it would be probably about 5 percent of
two billion dollars for the last couple of years that would go
back to the State, but that is overall in the State.
Other than that, of course there is tax revenue on the
buildings and the land, ad valorem tax on the land. But many of
the mining companies have moved and transitioned from public
land to private land in the last 10 years, just because--part
of that is the permitting process is easier on the private land
and you have more control over what you are doing.
I would estimate in at least Elko and Eureka Counties that
probably 60 or 70 percent of the mining activity, economic
mining activity, is probably on private lands and part of that
has obviously been through the process of patenting mining
claims which has--did proceed, but it is under moratorium now.
Mr. Gibbons. Yes. So I guess the real issue is that there
is a defined benefit for a county to have an operation on
private land based on property tax basis versus an operation on
public land which does not generate a tax base other than the
net proceeds of mines royalty to the State which comes back to
the county.
Mr. Decker. Right, I think so.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, gentlemen, I do not have any more
questions for you at this point in time. I did want to again
ask those same two questions, which I know you heard from the
previous testimony about the confidence in whether land is
better managed by the Federal Government or the State, county
and local agencies. And the second question is does the State
benefit, do the children of this state benefit in terms of
education by having more public land and less private land, or
vice versa?
So if you could just sort of summarize your answer to those
two statements and provide it back to me with the other
information, Mr. Decker, that you were going to provide, I
would appreciate that as well.
I want to thank both of you for coming down to Las Vegas
and taking time out of your busy schedule to help us better
understand our job and what we are doing here. Your testimony
has been very valuable, very helpful to the Committee as well.
With that, we will excuse the second panel with a great deal of
thanks.
And we will call up the third and final panel, which is Bob
Abbey, who is the Director of the Bureau of Land Management,
the State of Nevada. Bob, it is always pleasure to have you
here testifying with us. As you can see, you are all by
yourself, that makes you the star of the show. While you are
standing there, let me swear you in. Would you raise your right
hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Gibbons. Let the record reflect that the witness
answered in the affirmative.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY. STATE DIRECTOR,
NEVADA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Abbey. For the record, my name is Bob Abbey, I am the
State Director for the Bureau of Land Management here in
Nevada.
Once again, Congressman Gibbons, it is my pleasure to
appear before one of your field hearings, in this case to
discuss the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act of
1998.
Nevada's Congressional Delegation is commended for its
vision and innovation in developing this law. This legislation
allows the Bureau of Land Management to sell public lands in
the Las Vegas Valley to meet the demands for community
expansion and economic development, and to use these proceeds
from these sales to address critical environmental and
education needs in Clark County as well as other areas of the
State. This legislation has been successful in bringing various
groups together to address resourcing and growth issues in
Nevada.
Since you have already provided some basic background on
the legislation, I will just kind of limit my comments along
those lines, but as you pointed out, this legislation promotes
competitive land sales that allow the public to have an
opportunity to acquire public lands through competitive market
auctions.
I provided this Committee with a handout that highlights
the various categories of expenditures that have been
authorized under this Act and the dollar amounts approved to
date in each of those categories. You have also already pointed
out that 5 percent of all the revenues generated from the sale
of these lands go to the State general education fund for the
education of Nevada's schoolchildren. Ten percent goes to the
Southern Nevada Water Authority to fund the infrastructure
needed to help support the development resulting from land
sales. And the remaining 85 percent is deposited into a special
account and is available to be spent in six categories, which
you have already identified.
Since enactment of this legislation in 1998, the Bureau of
Land Management and our partners have generated more than $690
million by selling a little more than 5600 acres of public land
at 15 public auctions, including nine oral auctions and six
online auctions. The amount of revenues that have been
generated certainly has far exceeded our original projections
when the law first passed.
Local government entities in Clark County determine both
the sequence and timing of the lands that we offer for sale.
Clark County and the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and
Henderson agree on what parcels they would like to have us
offer at these sales and then advise the Bureau of Land
Management of their decisions and we try to accommodate their
wishes.
I wanted to spend a brief moment giving an overview of the
full spectrum of the lands disposal program for the Bureau of
Land Management here in Nevada. In addition to the lands that
have been designated for disposal in the Southern Nevada Public
Lands Management Act, the BLM has identified, as you heard from
previous witnesses, approximately one million additional acres
of land throughout the State, under other authorities, that are
also available for disposal. These are lands that are
designated for disposal into private ownership through a very
public planning process that provides for community expansion
and economic development. Recent disposal actions include the
sale of approximately 7700 acres to the city of Mesquite under
the Mesquite Lands Act. And we are working with that same city
on conveyance of an additional 4500 acres of land near their
airport.
The BLM is offering for sale 13,500 acres under the Lincoln
County Lands Act of 2000. Over the next several years, we also
plan to offer for sale approximately 21,000 acres of land in 13
Nevada counties outside of Clark County.
In addition to providing much needed revenues to the State
education fund, the Bureau of Land Management has conveyed land
to communities throughout Nevada for schools and other
facilities through the Recreation and Public Purpose Act. This
legislation allows state and local governments and qualified
nonprofit organizations to acquire public lands for schools,
fire houses, municipal and law enforcement facilities,
hospitals, churches, parks as well as fairgrounds. Over the
past 15 years, the Bureau of Land Management has conveyed
approximately 7500 acres in 105 areas throughout Nevada under
the Recreation and Public Purpose Act. A significant number of
R&PP transfers exist in Clark County which has the highest
number of recreation and public purposes transfers, bureau
wide, as throughout the nation.
Additionally, the Clark County Public Lands and Natural
Resources Act of 2002 directed the BLM to convey public lands
to the city of Las Vegas for the development of low income
housing, to establish a research and technology center at the
University of Nevada at Las Vegas, to the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department for a shooting range and to the
city of Henderson to expand the Nevada State College.
Under the specific laws that have been supported, and in
many cases authored by the Nevada delegation, the Bureau of
Land Management is presently taking actions to dispose of
approximately 100,000 acres of public land into private
ownership to accommodate community growth and economic
development. The partnership among Federal, state and local
governments has been a good one and the public has truly
benefited from the actions that have been taken today to
implement the provisions of the Southern Nevada Public Lands
Management Act as well as some of the other specific
legislation.
We believe that the lands which have been identified for
acquisition through the first four rounds of the implementation
of the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act will enhance
the public's realty portfolio and provide an overall
enhancement of their quality of life.
Congressman Gibbons, again, we appreciate the opportunity
to be here and I am willing to answer any questions that you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbey follows:]
Statement of Robert V. Abbey, Nevada State Director,
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's field
hearing to discuss the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act of
1998 (SNPLMA). Nevada's Congressional Delegation is to be commended for
its vision and innovation in developing this law. SNPLMA allows the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to sell public lands in the Las Vegas
Valley to meet the demands for community expansion and economic
development, and to use the proceeds from these sales to address
critical environmental and educational needs in Clark County and other
areas of Nevada. Decisions on land sales and acquisitions authorized by
SNPLMA in concert with other applicable laws, and funding for special
resource projects authorized under SNPLMA, involve critical input and
coordination with local governments and related local entities. SNPLMA
has been successful in bringing various groups together to address
resource and growth issues in Clark County and elsewhere in the State.
Background
SNPLMA promotes competitive lands sales that allow local interests
to have an opportunity to acquire public lands through competitive
market auctions. Because SNPLMA provides local governments the
opportunity to participate in the selection of lands, and gives them
the first right of refusal of lands to be used for public purposes,
they are supportive of the Act.
The allocation of SNPLMA proceeds from the sales of public lands
subject to SNPLMA is specifically outlined in the law. Five percent of
the funds go to the State General Education Fund for the education of
Nevada's schoolchildren; ten percent goes to the Southern Nevada Water
Authority to fund the infrastructure needed to support the development
resulting from land sales under the Act; and the remaining 85 percent
is deposited into a special account and available to be spent on the
following activities:
to acquire environmentally sensitive lands in the State,
with an emphasis in Clark County;
to support wildlife habitat initiatives through the Clark
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan;
to fund capital improvement projects at designated
Federal recreation areas in Clark County;
to develop parks, trails, and natural areas in Clark
County;
to implement conservation initiatives in Clark County;
and
to restore Lake Tahoe.
Since enactment of SNPLMA in 1998, the BLM has generated more than
$690 million by selling 5,635.56 acres of public land at 15 public
auctions, including 9 oral auctions and 6 on-line auctions. The funds
raised thus far have provided the Nevada General Education Fund with
nearly $29 million; the Southern Nevada Water Authority with nearly $53
million for new infrastructure; and over $473 million has been
deposited into the special account for the purposes noted above. These
disbursements do not include funds generated from recent land sales.
Land Sales
Presently, approximately 49,000 acres of public land are within the
disposal boundary designated by SNPLMA as amended by the Clark County
Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-282). The
Clark County Act added approximately 22,000 acres of public land to the
disposal boundary area. The BLM is currently developing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act requirements for disposing of the additional
lands. It is expected that this EIS will be completed in September
2004.
Local government entities in Clark County determine with BLM
approval the sequence and timing of lands offered for sale through a
process provided for in SNPLMA called ``joint selection.'' Clark County
and the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson agree on
what parcels they would like to have offered for sale and advise the
BLM of their decisions. The BLM believes that it is appropriate for
local governments to drive the timing and amount of land that is placed
on the market because local officials must determine if the
infrastructure, zoning, and other requirements are in place to
accommodate the development that will result once the lands are
conveyed into private ownership.
BLM contracts with the General Services Administration (GSA) to
hold live auctions every six months. Last month the BLM sold an
additional 733.75 acres of public land for $127.1 million. Parcels not
sold at the live auction may be offered for sale on the Internet by
GSA, or they may be offered at future live auctions.
In addition to the land designated for disposal in the Las Vegas
Valley under SNPLMA, the BLM has identified nearly 1 million additional
acres of land throughout the State under other authorities that are
also available for disposal. These are lands that are designated for
disposal into private ownership through a public planning process that
provides for community expansion and economic development in other
areas of Nevada. To date, the BLM has sold 7,700 acres to the City of
Mesquite under the Mesquite Land Act of 1986, and we are working with
the City on the conveyance of an additional 4,500 acres of land. The
BLM is offering for sale 13,500 acres under the Lincoln County Land Act
of 2000. Over the next several years, the BLM also plans to offer for
sale approximately 21,200 acres of land in 13 Nevada counties outside
of Clark County.
The Department of the Interior recently reorganized its land-
appraisal function and consolidated the Department's various appraisal
functions within a newly developed Department office. This reform will
provide unbiased land appraisals consistent with the public interest by
increasing appraiser independence, making certain that appraisals meet
recognized professional standards, and advancing conservation goals.
Expenditures from the Special Account
Since implementation of SNPLMA in 1998, the Secretary has approved
over $630 million in expenditures from the special account. Of that
total, $207 million has been approved for acquisitions of
environmentally sensitive lands, $153 million for capital improvements,
$155 million for parks, trails and natural areas, $36 million for
conservation initiatives, $44 million for Burton-Santini acquisitions,
and $20 million for multi-species habitat conservation plans.
On October 28, 2003, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation
with the Secretary of Agriculture, approved the fourth round of
expenditures from the special account totaling nearly $376 million. In
this most recent round, nearly $104 million is earmarked for
development of 28 park, trail and natural area projects in partnership
with local governments in Clark County, $118 million for capital
improvements and $101 million for land acquisitions. Seventy-four
percent of those expenditures will be made in Clark County.
Some examples of on-going efforts and past successes that were
funded using the special account include the following:
Parks, Trails, and Natural Areas--To date, the special account has
provided for over $155 million to park, trail, and natural area
projects in Clark County. Funds are used to partner with local
governments in Clark County to meet the increasing demand for outdoor
recreation, protect significant resources, and link urban areas with
public lands as part of a regional trail system. With the special
account funds, Clark County purchased more than 750 acres of private
lands that were inholdings within the proposed area for the Clark
County Wetlands Park (Park). The County Departments of Comprehensive
Planning and Parks and Recreation started the Park project in 1999. The
Park encompasses about eight square miles along a seven-mile stretch of
the Las Vegas Wash in the southeastern corner of the Las Vegas Valley.
In addition to providing exceptional recreation opportunities for
visitors, park improvements are helping to control erosion of the Las
Vegas Wash, increase wildlife and plant diversity, and benefit Lake
Mead by controlling erosion and sediment loading.
Conservation Initiatives--Conservation initiatives are a new
funding category under SNPLMA authorized by an amendment included in
the Clark County Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002. Funds
are used for the planning, implementation, and monitoring of projects
that promote conservation on Federal lands through education and other
means. Since passage of this law, over $36 million have been approved
for expenditures benefitting Clark County in this category of
activities. One of the first projects to be implemented was an
educational outreach program for off-highway vehicle riders. Through a
public awareness campaign, riders are being encouraged to stay on roads
and trails to control dust and to protect sensitive areas and listed
species such as the desert tortoise. Another conservation initiative
recently approved is funding for the clean up of unauthorized desert
dumping sites.
Federal Recreation Areas in Clark County--The special account is
also used to address capital improvement needs in Federally-managed
areas within Clark County that receive high annual visitation. These
areas include the BLM's Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, the
National Park Service's Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Forest
Service's Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service's Desert National Wildlife Refuge. Nearly $153 million
from the special account has been approved to address capital
improvements in these areas. BLM is using the special account to build
an environmental education facility at Red Rock Canyon National
Conservation Area to be operated in cooperation with Clark County
Public Schools. The special account is also being used to fund a new
visitor center for the Forest Service in the Spring Mountains National
Recreation Area; archaeological excavation work by the Fish and
Wildlife Service at the Desert National Wildlife Refuge; and the
building of boat launch ramps and upgrades of campgrounds by the
National Park Service at the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. This
resource work and new facilities will enable Federal agencies to
provide better visitor services for those who come to enjoy these
exceptional recreation areas.
Lake Tahoe Conservation--Within the SNPLMA land disposal boundary a
smaller boundary also exists around land designated for disposal in the
Burton-Santini Act of 1980. The proceeds from the sale of these lands
are specifically designated for the purchase of land around Lake Tahoe.
Since the enactment of SNPLMA, nearly $44 million has been made
available for the purchase of land at Lake Tahoe. Additionally, the
Fiscal Year 2004 Department of the Interior Appropriations Act (Public
Law 108-108) contains an amendment to SNPLMA that authorizes $300
million to be spent over the next eight years for project work to
restore and preserve Lake Tahoe's water clarity.
Acquisition of Environmentally-Sensitive Land--SNPLMA authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to expend revenue in the special account
for the acquisition of environmentally-sensitive lands in Nevada with
priority given to lands within Clark County. To date, four rounds of
acquisitions have been completed. The nomination process is currently
open for the fifth round of acquisitions. The BLM facilitates a
nomination and selection process designed to provide for public input
and to identify and prioritize land available from willing sellers.
Acquisitions focus on supporting the recovery of threatened or
endangered species, protection of riparian areas and associated species
in the Virgin River, Muddy River, Lake Mead and Meadow Valley Wash, and
enhancement of recreational opportunities.
About one quarter of the fourth round of expenditures recently
approved by the Secretary of the Interior are earmarked for the
purchase of environmentally-sensitive lands or interests in lands
throughout Nevada. While the Secretary of the Interior approved a
considerable amount of land for purchase, she also directed the BLM to
continue an aggressive land disposal program consistent with BLM land
use plans.
Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plans--With significant growth
and development occurring in Clark County, providing for the
conservation of sensitive species is critical. SNPLMA has provided more
that $20 million in funding for development of the Clark County Multi-
Species Habitat Conservation Plan. One of the projects recently
approved by the Secretary of the Interior is the development of a
strategy for conservation along the Virgin River to protect several
Federally-listed fish species while allowing for property development
and community growth.
Land for Education and Community Services
In addition to providing SNPLMA funds to the Nevada General
Education Fund from the sale of land, BLM has conveyed land to
communities in Nevada for schools and other facilities through the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP). Through this Act, state and
local governments, and qualified nonprofit organizations, are
authorized use of the public lands for schools, fire houses, municipal
and law enforcement facilities, hospitals, churches, parks,
campgrounds, landfills, and fairgrounds. Over the past 15 years, the
BLM has conveyed approximately 7,530 acres in 105 areas throughout
Nevada under the R&PP Act. A significant number of R&PP transfers exist
in Clark County, which has the highest number of R&PP transfers BLM-
wide.
Additionally, the Clark County Public Land and Natural Resources
Act of 2002 directed BLM to convey public land to the City of Las Vegas
for the development of low-income housing; to establish a research and
technology center at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas; to the Las
Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for a shooting range; and to the
City of Henderson to expand the Nevada State College.
Conclusion
Under the various laws enacted to benefit Nevada, BLM is conveying
almost 100,000 acres of public lands into private ownership to
accommodate community growth and economic development in Clark County
and elsewhere in Nevada. The BLM is pleased to join with State and
local government partners to implement SNPLMA and to help address
pressing needs in the State.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss
SNPLMA and other land disposal actions in Nevada. I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Gibbons. Director Abbey, thank you again. And first, I
want to thank you for your service to the employees and to the
people of this nation for what you do and the State of Nevada
especially. I want to thank you because from someone who deals
almost daily, day in and day out, with your staff and your
employees, I think we have been more productive because of your
leadership, and I want to thank you for that. I hope that that
relationship will continue into the future as well.
I have a question to put you on the spot right away,
because you are one of my favorite witnesses that always comes
to my Resource hearings. With regard to this proposal to
increase the amount of proceeds that come out of the sale of
public lands to go from five to say 35 percent for education,
do you support that, or not?
Mr. Abbey. I support, and the Secretary of Interior
supports, the opportunity to work with the Nevada delegation
and members of Congress to amend the Southern Nevada Public
Lands Management Act to allow other uses for the funds that are
being generated. Whether those uses would include an increase
to the education school fund for Nevada or for additional funds
that could be used to implement what we refer to as the Great
Basin Restoration Initiative, to address some of our natural
resource needs that we have in this State, to reduce the
threats of catastrophic wildland fire, to address noxious weed,
to provide additional management in some of these new areas
where the public are discovering on a daily basis. We would
certainly welcome the opportunity to work with the members of
Congress on a possible amendment.
Mr. Gibbons. You have been in this job long enough that
that was the most beautifully obscure, bureaucratic answer that
I have heard from you in a long time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gibbons. That was great.
Mr. Abbey. You have given me plenty of practice lately.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, let me ask--
Mr. Abbey. Congressman Gibbons, if I could, in response to
your direct question. School systems in Nevada as well as
school systems throughout this nation are in dire need of
additional funds. My daughter is a second grade school teacher
in the State of Mississippi, she has been doing so for, this is
her third year. And I am routinely reminded of the needs that
the education systems have for additional funds. I am
constantly amazed how much money, individual money, that our
teachers are forced to use to buy school supplies and to
provide other learning materials to the students because the
school systems cannot afford that.
So yes, do I believe that the school systems in Nevada need
additional funds? I do. Do I believe school systems throughout
this nation do need additional funds? I do.
Whether or not the revenues from the Southern Nevada Public
Lands Management Act is the best source for those funds, I
think is up to further discussion.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, let me also add that unlike Mississippi,
Nevada has 87 percent of its land owned by the Federal
Government, some counties are 98 percent owned by the Federal
Government, one of them is 98.7 percent owned by the Federal
Government which makes it far more difficult than any other
state to deal with the revenue resource requirements, with the
growth requirements that this state has. It is unique, Nevada
is unique among all 50 states in terms of this ratio of private
to public land being so disparate, its ratio of growth with the
population demands that are coming in here, the impact of the
urbanization--no other state is as urban as the State of
Nevada. So the issue here is how do we with such a small
taxpayer base, unlike Mississippi, unlike any other state,
generate the revenues needed to be able to afford the education
that is required by the Federal Government under the No Child
Left Behind Act, without finding unique ways as we grow. It is
one thing to be able to buy private property that is on the
taxpayer rolls, to be able to build a school on. It is another
thing to be able to buy private property just to put it in the
government's coffers, which do not generate PILT, and you heard
many of the witnesses here earlier talk about the fact that we
get 22 cents per acre under PILT, on average. I do not know
many school districts that can afford to build a school unless
they have got millions of acres because it takes about three to
six million dollars to build an elementary school today, that
can afford to do that. Because we combine so many people in a
small area, we never really end up generating the revenues from
payment in lieu of taxes that would have been generated from a
private tax base, private property tax base anyway.
Let me ask a question that you heard either Assemblyman
Carpenter or Commissioner Nannini talk about. It seems to be a
speculator's paradise out there in northern Nevada, running
out, buying some of these properties in advance. When you have
identified them as being sensitive, they will go out and buy
these properties, and according to either Assemblyman Carpenter
or Commissioner Nannini, these properties are being purchased
at or near fair market value and then turned around and sold to
the Federal Government at an elevated price. Is that your
experience? Are you seeing that? What is happening out there on
the ground?
Mr. Abbey. Congressman Gibbons, let me--and I will address
that. I am not seeing a lot of that, we are seeing some of
that.
Mr. Gibbons. OK.
Mr. Abbey. I will also say that while the Secretary of
Interior has approved a little over $200 million under the
first four rounds of expenditures for Southern Nevada Public
Lands Management Act for land acquisitions in the State of
Nevada, that to date, only 2200 or so acres have been acquired
in those four-year periods. There have been projects that have
been identified that encompass thousands of acres, $200 million
has been approved by the Secretary for acquiring those
properties, but in implementing the first four rounds, we have
actually only acquired a little over 2200 acres. Now there are
a lot of reasons for that too.
Acquisitions and disposals are not easy tasks, by any
means. We want to make sure that the American public is
protected for any lands and resources that might come into
Federal ownership, or in this case, public ownership. So there
is an awful lot of clearance work that is done. We get into
situations sometimes with surveys, hazardous materials, and
then appraisals. We have worked through several of these issues
to get to the point of doing an appraisal to determine what
is--what we can offer under a fair market value transaction,
only at that point in time to have the private landowner decide
they do not want to participate. So we have had several of our
projects that were identified in rounds one through three, when
we get to the point of making an offer, the landowner decides
it is not what they want.
Mr. Gibbons. Let me go back to an issue that we talked
about earlier because I want to talk about the inequity between
urban counties and rural counties. It seems to me--and I do not
know if you would agree with this, but we sell public land in
Clark County that becomes very valuable, we are talking
hundreds of thousands of dollars per acre for development, and
then we take the money and purchase a ranch in Elko County,
take it off the taxpayer rolls because of its desirability, by
your agency or the Forest Service, and it seems to me that we
are creating prosperity in Clark County at the expense of the
rural counties by doing this. Does that seem equitable or fair?
Mr. Abbey. We recognize that we have a responsibility to
rural Nevada to ensure that we have a balanced lands program,
that at the same times lands are being nominated and identified
for possible acquisition by the Federal Government, the Bureau
of Land Management through our land use planning processes and
the authorities that are already vested to us by Congress, that
we need to ensure that appropriate public lands that have been
identified for disposal are thereby disposed of. Therefore, in
some sense, whether you call it a no net gain or whether you
call it a fair and equitable approach, we certainly have a
responsibility to make sure that rural Nevada does not suffer
because of this legislation.
Mr. Gibbons. What I do not want to do is create a two tier
system--Clark County against rural counties and rural counties
against Clark County. That is absolutely something that I think
we should never get into.
Mr. Abbey. I agree.
Mr. Gibbons. And I do not want to ever see our state
feeling that we are enriching one area at the expense of
another. This is why this whole issue is so important to us,
because the education of a child in Elko County, who is
dependent on far less land, taxable land, available each year,
is just as important as the education of a child in Clark
County. Having to represent those rural areas along with a lot
of Clark County puts me right in the middle of that dispute.
Let me ask a question, how much money currently sits in the
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act today?
Mr. Abbey. We have over a couple of hundred million
dollars.
Mr. Gibbons. Do you have a closer figure?
Mr. Abbey. I can give you--
Mr. Gibbons. So it is over 200 and some million.
Mr. Abbey. Yes.
Mr. Gibbons. OK.
Mr. Abbey. Now again, there has been a need identified for
all the monies that have been approved for expenditures. Over
$100 million have been identified to local governments here in
Clark County for parks, trails and natural areas. Nowhere else
in the Nation does local governments have access to such monies
as what local government here in Clark County has for parks,
trails and natural areas.
Mr. Gibbons. Do you think if we took 35 percent for
education, increased it from five to 35 percent, that we would
impact the ability of the Bureau of Land Management, under
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, to provide for
parks and trails and the maintenance of those areas in Clark
County?
Mr. Abbey. I think it would limit the availability of funds
to address the needs that have been identified to us. For
example, even though we have not completed round five
nominations, I have--
Mr. Gibbons. But that is acquisitions. I am talking about
O&M--
Mr. Abbey. That is for all projects.
Mr. Gibbons. That includes acquisitions and O&M.
Mr. Abbey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbons. Let us just take the acquisitions out for a
minute.
Mr. Abbey. OK.
Mr. Gibbons. Do you have enough money to do the O&M today?
Mr. Abbey. For parks, trails and natural areas?
Mr. Gibbons. Yes.
Mr. Abbey. Based upon a draft list of proposals that I have
seen from local government, from Clark County, I would say no.
Mr. Gibbons. So you still want to spend the extra money on
buying more land even though you cannot manage the operation
and maintenance of the existing lands, parks, trails you have
today.
Mr. Abbey. Congressman Gibbons, I was referring back to
parks, trails and natural areas that would be managed by local
government, not necessarily acquisitions of more lands by the
Federal Government. There is a wish list, and I use that term
loosely, that have been completed and provided to me from local
governments in Clark County for round five, which means we have
not approved any expenditures for round five, in excess of $600
million for parks, trails and natural areas in this county
alone. We are not going to generate that much money during this
next year.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, next year. But over the life of the
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, I am sure that
since we have already generated $670 million?
Mr. Abbey. Thereabouts. Over the first four years.
Mr. Gibbons. That those revenues would adequately cover the
operation and maintenance of the parks, trails and public land
wish list that you have got now.
Mr. Abbey. Those monies would be available for development
of parks, trails and natural areas, they are not available for
maintenance and operations of those.
Mr. Gibbons. And what is your estimated income expectation
from the balance of the sale of lands in Clark County?
Mr. Abbey. For the balance of the lands?
Mr. Gibbons. Yeah, that have not been sold yet.
Mr. Abbey. In excess of a billion dollars.
Mr. Gibbons. Billion.
Mr. Abbey. That is if we are not stopped by lawsuits or
other possible actions.
Mr. Gibbons. I guess what I am trying to do is get a sense
of the equity here, understanding that we only allocate 5
percent for education.
Mr. Abbey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbons. We have got all this public land currently in
your portfolio and inventory that have all of these
requirements that you want to do, I mean they are needs and
they are niceties and some of them--you know, it would be nice
to gold-plate every faucet, but we cannot do that. I mean we
have to prioritize and spend some things that, you know, that
we think are reasonably necessary.
Mr. Abbey. Yes.
Mr. Gibbons. So we will not be able to do everything. If we
stopped today, stopped buying land today--I agree with you in
your statement that a lot of the monies that we have in this
account could be used to rehabilitate burned areas of the
State, to be able to go back in and do the maintenance, do the
management and the operation of the current existing portfolio
versus adding to that requirement without a steady stream of
revenues that would, therefore, make those lands no better
managed than they are today, and in some cases not as well
managed as they are today under private ownership.
I guess I struggle with the concept of going out and buying
more land to put into Federal ownership without the ability, as
you have indicated even in Clark County, to do the necessary
O&M on these parcels that you have got identified. There is a
breakdown, and maybe it is just me that I do not understand it,
but my goal is to see how we can use the monies both to protect
the land and acquire the land that is critically needed,
absolutely must have for protection of sensitivity and wildlife
habitat versus nice to do, wants and desires, and the education
of the kids in this state as well, because when we sell public
land here, we add more kids, 27,000 last year to the school
system, 65 new schools are now on the list. And we are only
giving 5 percent, we have only allocated 5 percent of the
dollars to education. But yet we can think that providing them
water at 10 percent is more important than giving them an
education.
So I have got some real equities that I want to deal with
here and I just wanted the public to understand this, that my
proposal in this is increasing the education fund from 5
percent to 35 percent would mean $70 million out of the
proposed amount that we have already spent, versus $29 million
that is going to education. So what I am doing is just adding a
little more to the education while still preserving you 55
percent of the proceeds to do the things that you really are
doing today.
Mr. Abbey. I understand that.
Mr. Gibbons. And that is what I gathered from Dr. Rulffes
and Dr. Roberts as critical needs from some of our rural
counties as well as our urban counties who are impacted by this
whole process of selling a few acres here in Clark County, very
valuable, very expensive, buying very large, very expensive
ranches in rural counties. I am just trying to balance out some
of the things we do in the Federal Government, you and I work
for the same government.
Mr. Abbey. You bet.
Mr. Gibbons. And everybody has to benefit from what we do
or they suffer from what we do. And we are just trying to bring
the education of our kids into a higher priority.
With that, let me see what else I might want to talk about.
What is the department's priority right now when it comes
between the operation and management of trails, parks, et
cetera or the acquisition of new land? What is the priority?
Mr. Abbey. The priority within the Department of Interior
and the Bureau being an entity within the Department of
Interior, is to maintain what we already have and to provide
the services that the public demands and expects and deserves.
The acquisition of additional properties is a plus and
certainly the Secretary as well as all of us who benefit from
the acquisition of additional lands in the State of Nevada are
also concerned about our ability to provide the appropriate
management of any additional lands that may come into the
public portfolio.
At the present time, we do not have access to these
revenues that are generated from land sales in Southern Nevada.
So all management funds, with the exception of Clark County,
our Federal lands in Clark County, all management funds would
have to come through the appropriations process.
Mr. Gibbons. So when you buy property in Elko or Eureka,
you do not have the management fund stream coming to you to
manage those lands, but you do in Clark County where you
acquire private lands for sensitive natures because we have
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, which then creates
that revenue stream for O&M for the lands down here in Clark
County.
Mr. Abbey. That is true.
Mr. Gibbons. So would you support then a Northern Nevada
Public Lands Management Act where we used the monies to do the
same or similar activities in northern--well, let us just say
everywhere outside of Clark County?
Mr. Abbey. Due to your leadership and many others in
Congress, the Congress did approve the Federal Land
Facilitation Act, which included the BOCA authority, I think a
couple of years ago. That in itself provides us the authority
to dispose of lands that have been identified in our existing
land use plans as available for disposal with up to I think it
is 80 percent of the funds being returned back to the State
where that land is sold. So we already have some authorities
that exist today to allow us to dispose of properties and to
recoup some of the revenues to pay for the cost of those
properties.
We were using that authority to dispose of the property in
Douglas County that we offered for sale and actually sold. The
consummation of that transaction is on hold pending the outcome
of a lawsuit that Carson City filed against the Bureau of Land
Management. We were quite interested in selling that property
because it would bring sufficient revenue into our account that
would allow us to provide greater emphasis in rural Nevada to
sell lands that we had identified for disposal. You have heard
testimony from folks from Elko County, we have identified about
800 acres for sale this year and we are working on another 1200
acres in Elko County alone for sale in the very near future. We
were going to use the monies that were generated from that land
sale in Douglas County to offer those lands as well as other
lands in rural Nevada for sale.
Now there is not a lot of market for some of the lands that
have been identified for disposal. Some of them, as you heard,
are in remote areas and probably the only one that might have
an interest in acquiring those lands might be the grazing
permittee.
Now when we go through the process of disposing of land, we
again have to do the clearances, the cultural clearances, the
threatened and endangered species clearances, the survey
checks, the appraisal, it is a very expensive process. Some of
the lands that we have identified in these remote areas would
cost us more to dispose of than the revenues that would be
coming in from the sale. Nevertheless, we understand the
responsibility we have for a balanced lands program and we are
willing to make that commitment to go forward and to take
greater actions and place greater emphasis on disposals, if we
had a source of revenues that we could use to sell those
properties.
Mr. Gibbons. The amount of land that you sold in Douglas
County, how many acres was that?
Mr. Abbey. Congressman, I do not know the exact figure, but
I can certainly get that to you. I think it was something in
the neighborhood of 1200 acres or so, but I would have to get
that back to you.
Mr. Gibbons. All right. Let me ask just a final question. I
want to get your thoughts, when you heard Mr. Decker talk about
earlier the permitting complications in the mining industry on
public lands and the requirement oftentimes that a permittee,
in order to be able to get a permit issued, is asked to go out
and buy a ranch or something else, just to get a permit. You
heard him testify to that.
Mr. Abbey. I did.
Mr. Gibbons. What would be your recommendations in
situations like that?
Mr. Abbey. Well, I would have to say that I do not believe
that that is the case. Certainly under the 1872 mining law,
anyone can go out and stake a claim on public lands that have
not been withdrawn from the mining law. And therefore, if they
have a discovered mineral, then they have the right to mine
that property and it does not require any kind of land exchange
with the Bureau of Land Management or any other requirements
that we would place on that individual. What they would do if
they have a discovered mineral is provide us with a mining plan
of operation which would describe the operation that they would
undertake to mine that mineral resource. At that point in time,
we would do an environmental impact statement and issue a
decision, you know, approving the mine or making modifications
or, in very rare instances, denying the mining plan of
operation.
So again, I did hear the testimony, I do not believe that
is the case.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, I just would like to add that I have
heard from several mining companies--now whether it is the
Forest Service and not the BLM, but they were required, in
order to obtain a permit--the final phase was that they had to
go out and buy a portion of land, offer that trade to the
Federal Government in exchange for part of the permitting
process.
Mr. Abbey. The only thing that I could think of--
Mr. Gibbons. I do not know why they would say that if it
were not a reality that they had experienced.
Mr. Abbey. Well, there are a couple of examples of where
companies have purchased ranches. Again, it is primarily for
water issues. Either they need additional water rights for
mining purposes of they need a place for dewatering purposes.
Mr. Gibbons. Sure.
Mr. Abbey. And I certainly am well aware of some of the
mining companies going out and buying fairly large ranches and
then using those lands and resources for dewatering purposes.
The only other exception that I could think of would be
where there may be some offsite mitigation requirements due to
threatened and endangered species habitat or whatever the case
may be, or cultural resources, where there could be, through
the decision process, a requirement for offsite mitigation.
That in itself might lead to acquisition of a property by a
mining company, but I do not know of too many specifics along
those lines.
Mr. Gibbons. Is there a requirement in the permitting
process under 1872 mining law to do offsite mitigation?
Mr. Abbey. There is not. In fact, we try to mitigate
onsite. Off-site mitigation is the exception rather than the
norm.
Mr. Gibbons. Perhaps that is what we have.
Mr. Abbey. The way we would deal with that is through a--
Mr. Gibbons. Let me ask just one--I said one final question
and I keep asking more questions--you are oftentimes, in the
sale of these lands that you identified, blocked by litigation,
people who are opposed to the Federal Government selling the
land for one reason or another, are blocked and that land sale
gets either stopped--well, it does get stopped until a
resolution of the lawsuit and oftentimes is prevented from ever
occurring because of the delay, it means that the value and the
requirement for why it is there disappears.
If I were an individual, an entity, nonprofit organization,
anything, could I come in and file a lawsuit against you for
buying a piece of land?
Mr. Abbey. I think anybody can sue people for any reason.
Mr. Gibbons. And would that stop you?
Mr. Abbey. We would defend our actions in court. We would
believe that we have the authority and the right to acquire
properties that we believe would benefit the American public.
Mr. Gibbons. Sure. But it can go both ways. We can stop you
from buying and you can be stopped from selling by the
institution of litigation, which happens.
Mr. Abbey. Which happens. We would probably pursue the
acquisition even though a lawsuit has been filed, unless the
Judge issued a restraining order.
Mr. Gibbons. Do you do the same with a sale?
Mr. Abbey. We have.
Mr. Gibbons. Is it your policy to proceed forward with a
sale absent an injunction from a Federal court?
Mr. Abbey. Yes, it is. In fact, every land sale that we
have proposed to date under the Southern Nevada Public Lands
Management Act has been litigated.
Mr. Gibbons. Every one of them.
Mr. Abbey. And we have gone forward with the sale.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Abbey, you have, as usual, impressed all
of us with your wit and wisdom, and certainly help us better
understand this and we appreciate the time you have taken to
become one of our regulars before this Committee.
I want to thank you, I want to thank all the witnesses
today. That is the end of my remarks and the end of this
hearing. We are actually a little bit over in terms of
utilization of this building. Today's hearing will remain open
for 10 days, as I indicated.
I want to welcome all of the citizens here to submit
written comments on this issue. You can submit them to the
Committee and they will be incorporated into the record.
I would like to thank our clerk over here, who is Casey
Hammond, with the Committee on Resources, and Casey, can you
raise your hand? Thank you. If you have a question about the
Committee's activities or address, get in touch with Casey over
here and he will give you the information you need to get your
comment in to the Committee, and the addresses to us.
And I want to welcome again your comments to our district
offices as well here in Elko County for the Second
Congressional District--I should have said Clark County--or
Elko or Reno as well.
And finally, before I bring the gavel down, let me thank
again Mark Robertson as well as Steven Long for our Pledge of
Allegiance and the invocation that was given at the beginning.
With that, there are no further questions, this Committee
hearing is ended. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Porter follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jon Porter, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nevada
Good morning. I would like to thank Congressman Gibbons for holding
this field hearing in Las Vegas today on the dispensation of funds from
the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, and for his diligence
and hard work for the people of Nevada. It is an honor to serve as his
colleague in the House of Representatives, and I appreciate the
tremendous work he has done regarding public lands in our great state.
I would also like to thank Chairman Radanovich and the distinguished
members of the House Resources Committee for coming to Southern Nevada
to examine this important issue. I look forward to hearing comments
from the many notable public officials and citizens that have come
today to offer their input. It is wonderful to have so many people
gathered here today working for Nevada.
As you know, in 1998 Congress enacted the Southern Nevada Public
Lands Management Act (SNPLMA). While I was not yet a member of Congress
when this law was enacted, I have witnessed the immense benefits this
legislation has provided to Southern Nevada. As of October 31, 2003,
almost $700 million has been generated from BLM land sales. Recently,
Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton announced the approval of nearly
$385 million for projects in Southern Nevada. Recommendations including
$104 million for the development of 28 park, trail, and natural area
development projects in Clark County, $36 million for conservation
initiatives, $16 million for continued development of the Clark County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, $118 million for 39 capitol
improvement projects at Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NCA), Red
Rock Canyon NCA, Spring Mountain NCA, and the Desert National Wildlife
Refuge, and $111 million for 53 acquisitions of environmentally
sensitive lands in Nevada to provide recreation opportunities, protect
endangered species habitats, and protect important cultural values.
The incredible growth that has taken place in Clark County has
raised unique issues regarding our public lands and the Southern Nevada
Public Lands Management Act. The growth of Clark County has been
significant, and is a tribute to the leadership of our elected and
Administration officials, the hard work and dedication of local
developers, and the economic success of the Las Vegas region.
Since the passage of the SNPLMA, we have been able to ensure the
organized, strategic and orchestrated growth of our southern Nevada
community, while still maintaining and preserving many of Nevada's
environmental treasures and resources. This growth, while positive, has
created and placed new and increased pressures on our existing precious
resources, such as infrastructure, education and water. Since my 20
years in public office, I have seized opportunities to better manage
this growth and the responsibilities and liabilities it brings. I
believe growth should pay for growth. As we undergo the process of
reviewing this legislation and looking for opportunities to improve
upon the original Act of 1998, I would support a provision to allow
more of the proceeds from the sale of public lands to go to state and
local governments to help meet the growing needs of our community as a
result of the privatization of our federal lands in southern Nevada. I
am interested in hearing the opinions offered today and am open to
examining this legislation in order to improve the benefits it offers
to the citizens of Nevada.
I look forward to following the example set by the other leaders of
our great state by continuing to protect our public lands and preserve
our natural resources while maintaining Nevada's long tradition of
economic growth. I look forward to continuing to work closely with
Congressman Gibbons, Chairman Radanovich, my fellow members of Nevada's
Congressional Delegation, members of the House Resources Committee, and
distinguished community officials and leaders to examine this important
legislation.