Wednesday, Nov. 21, 2018 | 2 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
With Rep. Jacky Rosen’s election victory against Sen. Dean Heller and Democrats gaining the majority in the House of Representatives, some of Nevada’s most pristine outdoor areas appear to have dodged a bullet.
Now that the danger has passed, though, the state’s congressional delegates should hit the ground running in January to help the areas remain protected.
At issue are what are known as wilderness study areas, places that have been identified by the Bureau of Land Management as meeting requirements to receive the highest level of protection given to federal land.
Nevada is home to about 60 of those areas, most of which are small and all of which currently can be used only for limited-impact activities such as hiking, horseback riding and camping, minus any mineral or grazing leases that existed before the designation.
The problem is that the spots are currently not guaranteed ongoing protection.
Enter Heller’s proposal, which would reduce the areas in two ways. One, it would remove lands that the BLM designated as wilderness study areas but, for various reasons, didn’t recommend for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, where they would receive the most strident protection. Two, it would place the rest of areas on a “shot clock,” in which Congress would need to designate them as wildernesses within five years or the areas would lose protection. Given that the designation process takes a number of years and few areas are approved, conservationists say, the shot clock would guarantee that many of the study areas would lose protection.
Environmental advocates were furious, not just because the bill threatened some of the state’s outdoor treasures but because it was a radical departure from the bipartisan approach that the state had taken in crafting previous measures of its type.
Instead of bringing various groups to the table, they said, Heller was taking advantage of Republican control of the White House and both chambers of Congress to ram through his bill.
Then came Nov. 6, though, when Heller was voted out in favor of Rosen, and Democrats earned control of the House starting next year.
Now, with time running out on Heller’s time in office, the good news is that he apparently isn’t planning to make a last-minute effort to push through the measure.
But the bad news is that Heller’s bill and similar measures in other states revealed a major weakness in the protections for wild public lands. If Heller and others could do it, there’s no reason to think a future lawmaker whose party was in control couldn’t do the same.
And Heller was definitely poised to push the measure through. As originally reported by the Reno Gazette-Journal, an aide for Heller told the Lander County Commission in February that the measure had support from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and that Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, had promised Heller a hearing on it in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which she chairs.
Heller’s office did not respond to messages asking about his intentions with the bill.
But assuming he doesn’t introduce it, it’s critical for lawmakers to step up to protect the lands.
That process should start by bringing together key stakeholders for a conversation, including environmentalists, outdoor recreation advocates, business interests, local and state officials, and the BLM.
The state’s outdoor areas offer a dizzying array of benefits, including by providing outdoor recreation opportunities that can boost the economies of nearby communities. With the state increasingly highlighting Nevada’s natural areas in its tourism efforts, it’s important to protect those places.
Then there are the environmental benefits — habitat for plants and animals, helping improve air quality, etc. — which are simply invaluable.
Do all of the areas deserve full protection? No. Portions could be designated for development without causing substantial harm, which is why business interests and local officials need to be included in the dialogue.
But many of the areas should be preserved, not only for current residents and visitors but for future generations.
