LV to pursue annexation

Friday, July 27, 2001 | 11:03 a.m.

Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign are talking about freeing more federal land for development in Southern Nevada -- but the land that Las Vegas wants hasn't been part of that discussion.

The city of Las Vegas has asked the Bureau of Land Management for 52,000 acres for future growth and development. The bureau Thursday rejected the request, but said the land might be freed up by Reid and Ensign's legislation -- possibly later this year -- to transfer more federal land to local private and public uses.

The new land is critical for the city's growth, city officials, including Mayor Oscar Goodman, said. The Las Vegas' population grew by 85 percent over the last decade, but is now largely landlocked.

In acres, the move would double the size of the city. And Doug Selby, deputy city manager, said the annexation could potentially make room to double the city's population, estimated at more than 478,000 in last year's census count.

Selby vowed that despite the federal denial and opposition from Clark County government staffers, the city will press on in its effort to expand its borders.

Ensign, a Republican, echoed one of the BLM's strongest concerns: That any annexation, especially one as huge as the Las Vegas request, include input from the city's neighbors.

"The city and the county have to work this out," Ensign said. "If the city and the county don't agree, nothing goes forward."

He said the key to getting a new land act protecting both environmental interests in Clark County and freeing land for development is to have everybody at the table, providing input on any property actions.

"You have to make sure that you have everybody at the table to come up with a balance."

Nathan Naylor, spokesman for Reid, a ranking Democrat, said his office hadn't been part of discussions between the city and the BLM. He agreed that consultation had to occur among everyone affected before Reid would sign on to the annexation.

"There are a lot of different groups representing families and governments in the Las Vegas area," Naylor said. "All of them need to have input and say in this."

Representatives from business, environmental groups and governments have been part of "bipartisan and pragmatic" discussions thus far on new federal land transfers, and Reid would like that to continue, Naylor said.

The city mailed its request to the BLM one week ago, asking for a response "within two weeks" and adding, "If we do not hear from you within that time frame, we will assume there is no objection."

BLM Field Manager Mark Morse outlined his agency's objections in the rejection letter.

He said his agency wouldn't support an annexation that didn't include "the participation and consensus of all affected stakeholders," including the county, other federal and local government agencies, individual landowners in the area and members living on the Las Vegas Band of Paiutes' Reservation.

But nobody outside the city and the BLM appear to have had any knowledge of the annexation before local newspapers broke the news Thursday. County staffers and policymakers said they only learned of the request from the newspapers.

"This completely has caught us off guard," Clark County planner Clete Kus said. "It is going to be very hard to get our support as well as the support of federal officials who would be involved in the decision making process."

Morse said the county needs to be part of the discussion over any annexation of what is now, technically, both federal property and unincorporated county land.

He also said federal rules prevent the BLM from endorsing annexation in land under the authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or designated by law as a federal Wilderness Study Area.

He said that the agency does not yet have an estimate of how much land would be under those two restrictions, but maps of the proposed annexation show about half the land is within the Fish and Wildlife Service's Desert National Wildlife Refuge.

The BLM hasn't ruled out further discussions on the issue, Morse said. But for now, the agency didn't have any choice but to quickly nix the request, he said.

"We just got this (request), and we wanted to get a response back to them as soon as possible," he said. "It hit us one day, and got to the paper the next.

"It caught us flat-footed."

The county, which has recently sparred with the city over land-use policies, environmental issues and other sore points, also panned the proposal Thursday.

County planning staff said that the proposed city expansion, if approved, could kill a dust-pollution control plan for the valley that the federal Environmental Protection Agency is evaluating.

The dust control plan needs EPA approval to prevent federal sanctions, including the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars for local roads and other infrastructure and potentially the federal takeover of local land-use planning.

Kus said the regional plan pledges to the EPA that most development will be within a boundary defined by federal law in the 1998 Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act. Loosely defined, the boundary circles areas already developed in the valley's urban core.

One of the goals of the act was to promote "infill development" on undeveloped parcels of federal land within the urban perimeter.

If development pushes beyond those limits before 2006, the EPA could reject the proposed dust control plan, he said.

"We were able to convince the EPA that the area of concern is that disposal area," Kus said. "This really negates the integrity of the (dust control) plan, which would put the EPA in the position of not being able to approve the plan."

The EPA has the county-prepared plan in its offices now and isn't likely to favorably view a dramatic modification of the plan to allow more development, he said. The federal agency needs to formally accept the plan before the end of the year to forestall federal sanctions.

"Here we are at 11th hour and another monkey wrench is being thrown at us," Kus said.

Goodman, however, said the county's concern isn't about air quality or preservation of the natural environment in the almost completely undeveloped land.

Transferring the land from the BLM and county to the city "would endanger (the county's) power," he said.

Goodman also used the annexation issue to slam the effort to consolidate all air quality functions under the county government's banner. Gov. Kenny Guinn early this month named the Clark County Commissioners as Southern Nevada's sole air quality agency, a move that some from the region's cities have protested.

Goodman and others fear that consolidating air-pollution control power under the county will undermine the cities' independence. The county commission and Clark County Health District, an independent agency that until now monitored and enforced air quality rules, have endorsed the consolidation of responsibilities.

Goodman said the annexation would give the city "some say over our destiny."

"I don't want to rely on the good graces" of the county commissioners, he said.

Goodman and other policymakers from throughout Southern Nevada are scheduled to meet with Guinn on Monday to argue for another, regional approach to a governing board on air quality. The move has been described as the last hope to blunt the county's takeover of air quality responsibilities.

But Selby, with Las Vegas city manager's office, said the annexation proposal was hatched independently of the battle over the air quality issue.

"The city has been looking to the northwest for a long time," Selby said.

Selby also said development patterns in the area -- and the county's commitment to control growth there -- wouldn't necessarily be affected by the annexation.

"We don't have a plan in terms of what would be developed," he said. "This doesn't change anything but the corporation boundaries of the city."

Selby said that if necessary the city will look to Nevada's congressional delegation to approve the annexation.

"We'll be talking to the congressional delegation as that becomes appropriate," Selby said.

Morse said congressional action might be necessary. There are two ways to amend the disposal boundaries from the 1998 law. The first is through a potentially years-long process of public review and intergovernmental consultation.

The second is through direct federal lawmaking.

Although Goodman said the city has been in touch with the federal delegation, Morse said their congressional staffers did not know of the proposal before Thursday.

Selby said the delegation might favorably view the city's move.

"We think there are compelling reasons to extend the disposal area," he said.

Among the reasons are the need to expand a city that, except for the northwest, is almost completely landlocked by property controlled by the federal government and other local governments, Selby and Goodman said. Selby said another reason for the wholesale annexation of land is that it avoids a pattern frequently repeated over recent years: piecemeal annexation that has kept "islands" of land under county authority.

Those islands have led to increasingly frequent disputes between the city and county over land-use and zoning proposals.

Chip Maxfield, county commissioner for the 80 square miles the city is eyeing, has been a peacemaker on those battles since taking office in January. But he said this annexation -- for now -- isn't appropriate.

He said the city needs to make a case for the annexation before the general public, the county and other government agencies.

"It just raises a lot of questions that need to be answered," he said.

archive