Editorial: Residents want a new county seat

Thursday, Feb. 4, 1999 | 11:25 a.m.

A growing number of Pahrump residents believe it's time to move the Nye County seat of government from Tonopah to their town. As the Sun's Martin Kuz reported Sunday, Pahrump residents note their town dwarfs Tonopah in population -- three-fourths of Nye County residents live in Pahrump -- and that it would make more sense to have the county seat in the economic hub of the county.

A compelling case can be made that having the county seat 160 miles to the north creates hardships, including diminished services. Still, to a visitor looking at a map of Nevada, it probably would seem more logical for Pahrump to be part of Clark County since Pahrump is just 65 miles west of Las Vegas. But such a suggestion would drop faster than a lead balloon in Pahrump, since residents almost uniformly have sought to escape the congestion of urban areas, including many who used to live in Clark County.

Considering the boom-bust economics of mining in Nevada, county seats have changed over the course of the state's history as population centers shifted. But switching county seats certainly hasn't been common during most of this century. The most recent time a county seat was changed was 20 years ago in Lander County when the seat of government was moved from Austin to growing Battle Mountain. Prior to that the last time a county seat was changed was in 1916, when the Douglas County seat moved from Genoa to Minden.

State historian Guy Rocha said sometimes what has happened instead is that when population shifts have occurred, a new county is created by the Legislature. Especially in Nye County with its large geographic area -- it is the nation's third largest county in land mass -- if the county seat is moved one could make a credible argument that some residents will be inconvenienced no matter the county's seat and that a more equitable solution might be creating a new county.

Ultimately it will be up to Nye County residents whether they would be better served by moving their county seat. But before a decision is made to hold a vote of the people to see if residents want the county seat moved, Pahrump residents should explore whether the logistical difficulties and some of the additional costs that can be incurred warrant a switch. In addition, prior to a referendum being held, residents of Pahrump should see whether a $5 million county satellite complex in their town, which is expected to be completed this year, ends up improving the quality of services they receive and negates the need for changing the county seat.