Editorial: Don’t toy with public lands law

Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2003 | 8:19 a.m.

In the mid-1990s there were allegations of sweetheart deals involving land exchanges between the Bureau of Land Management and developers. Critics noted that some developers were able to get prime federal land in return for private holdings worth considerably less. In response, Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., and then-Rep. John Ensign, R-Nev., led the effort to reform this practice. Their work resulted in passage, in 1998, of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, which required that federal lands be sold to the highest bidder at public auctions.

Very importantly, this law also requires that money from the auction of federal lands in Southern Nevada be spent primarily for the protection of the environment in Nevada, providing a win-win for the taxpayer. Currently, 85 percent of the money from these sales goes for parks, trails, natural areas and environmental and conservation projects, while 10 percent goes to the Southern Nevada Water Authority and 5 percent is devoted to public education.

Since the law's passage, 5,600 acres of federal land -- located mostly in the Las Vegas metropolitan area -- have been sold to developers for $690 million. To get an idea of where some of the money has been used in the state, $155 million has been used to improve and build parks, trails and natural areas; $153 million has been spent on capital improvement projects for national recreation and conservation areas, including at the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Desert National Wildlife Refuge Area, the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area and Spring Mountains National Recreation Area; and $207 million has been spent for the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands, including some in Northern Nevada.

Nevertheless, Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., wants to make a sweeping change to the law. Last week Gibbons, vice chairman of the House Resources Committee, held a congressional field hearing in Las Vegas on his plan to shift more of the land-auction proceeds to public education. Gibbons would cut the amount for environmental and conservation projects to 55 percent and raise the amount for education to 35 percent. For the most part, the initial response to Gibbons' proposal has been tepid at best. Sens. Harry Reid (Democrat), Ensign (Republican) and Rep. Shelley Berkley (Democrat) haven't signed on.

Nevada already is fortunate that the money from the sale of federal lands stays here instead of going back to Washington to be put in the federal treasury. Federal lands, after all, belong to all of the American people, so a good argument could be made that Nevada doesn't have much of a right to keep the money here from the sale of these lands. If Gibbons tries to change the funding formula, thereby undermining one of the original purposes of the legislation (to set aside money for environmental protection), members of Congress could react negatively and reduce the amount of money that now stays here in Nevada.

Gibbons contends that both education and the environment will win under his proposal. We don't disagree with Gibbons' view that more money should be spent on our public schools. But primary responsibility for this rests with state government. (It's also more than a tad ironic that Gibbons is saying that more money should be spent on education when it is his own constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds majority instead of simple majority to raise taxes in Nevada, that has made it more difficult to fund education properly in this state.) If we start pumping more money into education from federal land sales, we worry that the Nevada Legislature simply will reduce its share of education funding in kind. And, in a double hit, there would be less money to buy environmentally sensitive lands and to pay for recreational opportunities in this state. Th e Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act has worked well. Let's not mess with it.