Friday, Dec. 12, 2003 | 5:09 a.m.
WEEKEND EDITION December 13 - 14, 2003
By Jim Gibbons
Jim Gibbons, a Republican, represents Nevada's 2nd Congressional District. He also is vice chairman of the House Resources Committee.
The Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act sought to bring integrity back into the land exchange process and facilitate growth and economic development in a state where the federal government has a stranglehold on the majority of our land.
Southern Nevada has welcomed thousands of new residents and businesses. However, as a result of this growth, the time has come to modernize the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act to better meet the needs of our new residents and children.
The original legislation mandated that a portion revenues go to the state's education account. Obviously, the authors of the legislation and the people of Nevada placed education as a major priority then -- just as they do today.
In fact, in 1998 Sen. Richard Bryan and then-Rep. John Ensign fought for a higher share for education in the original bill. Ultimately, the previous administration and other interested groups forced a compromise setting the education level at 5 percent.
However, given our continued growth and education needs, we need to revisit that compromise. Just this year saw 12,500 new students enroll in our Clark County schools. Since 1990, 144 new schools have been built in Clark County alone to accommodate our children's needs.
Taxes have been raised to fulfill our state's obligation to fund education and to create and maintain crucial and worthy programs such as class-size reduction. I suggest we give our state's taxpayers a break.
I propose that we increase the amount dedicated to Nevada's education fund to 35 percent and lower the percentage dedicated to the federal government for acquiring more public land in the state to 55 percent. Under this formula, the federal land managers will still have hundreds of millions of dollars -- and a majority of the land sale revenues generated -- to spend on public lands, including maintaining our parks and trails, as well as acquiring environmentally sensitive lands.
Consider these numbers: Under my proposal, during the last five years, our state would have enjoyed approximately $240 million for education, instead of the $34 million it has received under this Act. Close to $380 million would still have been allocated for additional land acquisition and maintenance of our current public lands. Certainly, a great deal of land can be "protected" by the federal government with $380 million.
Further, in no way does my proposal seek "change the Act to remove the ability to acquire environmentally sensitive lands," as the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club asserted in their testimony to the House Resources Committee. My proposal merely seeks to adjust the amount acquired.
I absolutely agree that there are lands which are environmentally sensitive and worthy of protection. My proposal still leaves hundreds of millions of dollars for public land maintenance and acquisition.
However, under the current Act, the federal government has acquired approximately 100,000 more acres of Nevada land. It is time for the Act to be re-balanced to provide more resources for our state's children; they, too, are worthy of protection and deserving of a quality education.
Some environmental groups argue that spending money on education through land sales is a bad idea because the educational needs will still be there when the land available for sale is gone. They fail to recognize that even according to the government, proceeds generated from land sales are estimated to continue for many decades and will generate over $1 billion.
Additionally, by law, the money is placed in a trust fund where only the interest derived can be spent by the state. It's not hard to do the math -- it is far more beneficial for Nevada's children to have $350 million in that trust account than a mere $34 million.
A recent Las Vegas Sun editorial raised the concern that if we start "pumping more money into education from federal lands sales ... the Nevada Legislature simply will reduce its share of education funding." Not only does that sentiment show a complete lack of faith and trust in our state legislators, it also demonstrates a total disregard for the wishes of our state's taxpayers who have demanded that education funding remain a legislative priority. Under the Sun's rationale, the federal government should never adjust its federal education funding formulas to better reflect the growing needs of Nevada.
I doubt anyone can argue that enabling the federal government to purchase more land in Nevada is more important than our children's education and future. Under my proposal, we will still fund our parks, trails and natural areas. We will still accomplish our conservation initiatives and multi-species habitat plans. Federal land managers will still have hundreds of millions of dollars for environmental upkeep in Nevada.
My proposal is not forcing a choice between educating our children or protecting Nevada's environment and natural beauty. We have a responsibility to do both, we can, and we should.
By John Hiatt
John Hiatt is the conservation chairman of the Red Rock Audubon Society. He also is chairman of the Enterprise Town Advisory Board.
One thing that almost everyone in Nevada supports is the need for more money for education. However, Congressman Jim Gibbons' proposal to cut funding now used for dealing with environmental problems associated with growth, and divert a large share (35 percent) of the funds derived from the sale of Bureau of Land Management land in the Las Vegas Valley to fund education statewide, is off the mark.
Our state's education system needs a dependable funding source that can be relied upon year after year. Land auctions will never provide that. Witness the latest BLM auction held Nov. 6, in which the largest parcel offered, 1,940 acres appraised at $200 million, drew no bids.
If the need to fund the state education budget were to become the driving force behind the sale of federal land in Clark County, the need to supply water to those additional thousands of acres of developable land (on top of the more than 25,000 acres now available) would place an overwhelming demand on our already dwindling water resources.
The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act was authored by Rep. John Ensign (now a U.S. senator) and former Sen. Richard Bryan to deal with the problem of BLM land exchanges in which the public interest was often shortchanged, and to provide funding to protect the resources found on our public lands.
It was a carefully crafted and balanced compromise involving a wide array of stakeholders. Rep. Gibbons' proposed legislation essentially reneges on the key land protection commitments that were agreed upon by all parties.
The environmental community supported the expanded sale boundary of BLM lands included in the Clark County Public Land and Conservation Act of 2002 in large part because the Act provided that the revenues would be allocated under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act's formula.
Mr. Gibbons would now like to solve the state's fiscal woes by allocating funds from the sale of federal land in Clark County to the state of Nevada. This proposal will not solve the state's fiscal problems and we in Clark County will be the losers in this futile effort.
Contrary to the impression conveyed in Mr. Gibbons' statements to the press, the majority of the funds from BLM land auctions are not used to purchase private land for preservation under public ownership. In fact, much less than half the revenue raised from BLM land sales is likely to be used for land purchases.
Ten percent of the money goes to the Southern Nevada Water Authority to provide water infrastructure to serve the lands sold and 5 percent goes to the Clark County School District. Up to 25 percent is made available to local governments to fund acquisition of parks, trails and natural areas and to Clark County to develop the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
In 2002 Senator Ensign promoted legislation that calls for spending $30 million a year of Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act funds for restoration and preservation of lands around Lake Tahoe and also dedicates 10 percent of funds for "conservation initiatives" in Clark County. "Conservation initiatives" range from litter cleanup, to law enforcement on public land, to water quality monitoring at Lake Mead.
The remaining funds, about 40 percent of the total, can be spent on acquisition of "environmentally sensitive lands, principally in Clark County,"and on improving infrastructure on federally managed land in Clark County.
Infrastructure needs range from upgrading the existing U.S. Forest Service visitor center in Kyle Canyon, to building restrooms at the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, to remodeling the visitor center at Red Rock Canyon. The backlog of capital improvements needed at the Lake Mead National Recreation Area alone exceeds $150 million. The percentage of funds being allocated for purchase of "environmentally sensitive" lands is much less than what Mr. Gibbons plans to funnel into the state treasury.
Our quality of life in Southern Nevada depends in significant part on our access to and our ability to enjoy the public lands that surround Las Vegas. The rapidly growing population in Southern Nevada threatens to overwhelm the public facilities found on the federally managed lands in Clark County.
The only meaningful source of funding for recreational infrastructure available to the BLM, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Clark County is the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act account. Changing the formula for dispersal of these funds, so that virtually all the money allocated to public land infrastructure improvement and land acquisition goes to the state of Nevada for funding education statewide, would mean that we will see almost nothing spent on facilities in Clark County. The funds spent here serve not only residents of Clark County but also the millions of visitors that come here every year.
In this time of record federal deficits, members of Congress are always looking for alternative sources of revenue to fund their own pet projects. If legislation is introduced to reallocate Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act monies, this may well open the door to complete diversion of this money away from Nevada.
If Mr. Gibbons opens this cookie jar, it is naive to think that his hand will be the only one reaching in. The need to fund education in Nevada is very real, but a raid on Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act funds is not the answer.
archive
