[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 150 (Tuesday, October 20, 1998)] [Senate] [Pages S12735-S12736] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] ENACTMENT OF THE SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACTMr. BRYAN. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to announce the enactment of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act. This historic legislation passed the Senate on October 8th and President Clinton signed it into law on October 19, 1998. Mr. President, this legislation has its roots in the Southern Nevada Public Lands Task Force. The Task Force was originally established in the summer of 1994 by Congressman Jim Bilbray to provide an open forum in which public land issues affecting the Las Vegas Valley could be discussed among federal, state, local, and private entities. It is comprised of representatives from the State of Nevada, Clark County, the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the Regional Flood Control District, the Clark County School District, and representatives of the development and environmental communities. At its inception, the Task Force set two primary goals for itself: (1) to establish and maintain a better working relationship between the BLM and local governmental planning agencies; and (2) to develop a ``master plan'' for the Las Vegas Valley that identified those BLM lands which should be transferred to private ownership and those which should be retained for public purposes. In the summer of 1995, Senator Reid and I reconvened the Task Force to build on the goal of developing a ``master plan'' for the Las Vegas Valley. We worked closely with the Task Force in our efforts to develop a legislative proposal that sought to improve the current BLM land disposal policy in the Las Vegas Valley; this proposal eventually became the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, which Senator Reid and I introduced in the Senate on March 19, 1996. Congressman Ensign then introduced a companion bill in the House, and I have enjoyed working with him in a bipartisan fashion over the last several years to fine tune this legislation and shepherd it through the Congress. The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act is a response to perhaps the greatest challenge facing Southern Nevada--the need to promote responsible, orderly growth in the Las Vegas Valley while protecting the surrounding environment and enhancing the recreational opportunities that exist in Southern Nevada. In the broadest sense, the legislation reflects a partnership between federal, state, and local entities to enhance the quality of life in the Las Vegas Valley and throughout the State of Nevada. As many of my colleagues are aware, the Las Vegas valley is the fastest growing metropolitan area in the country. Since the beginning of this decade, nearly five thousand people each month, on average, have chosen to make Las Vegas their new home. Last year alone, nearly 20,000 new homes were built in the Las Vegas valley to accommodate this explosive growth. And while the majority of Southern Nevadans have welcomed the benefits of an expanding, robust economy, there is a realization within the community that a long-term, strategic plan must be developed to deal with growth related problems. Both State and local elected officials are currently grappling with different ideas as to how best to meet the infrastructure needs and quality of life expectations of current and future generations of southern Nevadans. Local officials estimate that new infrastructure development over the next ten years will cost between three and eight billion dollars for such things as school construction and water, sewer and transit systems. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the situation, the Clark County School District needs the equivalent of a new elementary school every 30 days for the next five years to keep pace with the twelve thousand new students entering the school system every year. Mr. President, this legislation is a critical component of Southern Nevada's long term plan to manage growth in the Las Vegas valley. Each time the BLM transfers land into private ownership it has important repercussions for the local governmental entity that must provide infrastructure and services to that land. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) controls in excess of 20,000 acres of land throughout the Las Vegas valley. Consequently, unlike most communities, land use planning decisions are not made solely at the local level; the BLM is an important player in the local land use planning process. This legislation would strengthen the partnership between the BLM and local government and improve upon the current land use planning process. The BLM's primary method of disposing of land in the Las Vegas valley, through land exchanges, has been the subject of much attention over the past several years. I happen to believe that land exchanges serve a valuable public purpose--the Federal Government disposes of land it no longer needs in exchange for land that is worthy of public ownership. In the Las Vegas valley, however, the real estate market is such that it does not lend itself well to appraisal-driven land exchanges. Disagreements between the BLM and exchange proponents over appraisal methodology and value determinations are often the cause of protracted delays in the land exchange process. Because of the dynamic nature of the real estate market in the Las Vegas valley, any delay in the exchange process can cause the appraisals to become outdated before the transaction is closed. Mr. President, the legislation before us today would make two significant improvements over the current land exchange process: (1) it would allow local land managers to take a more pro-active role in federal land disposal decisions; and (2) it would institute a competitive bidding procedure to ensure that the disposal of BLM land yields the highest return, or true ``fair market value.'' There are currently over twenty-five land exchange proposals pending in the BLM's Las Vegas office--some are clearly in the public interest, others are not. The vast majority of these proposals are intra-state exchanges, meaning the BLM has the authority to process them without Congressional action. This legislation would open the process to allow anyone who wishes to bid on BLM land to do so in a competitive sale, and it would eliminate the need to enter into protracted appraisal negotiations over selected BLM land that so often bog down the already cumbersome exchange process. The legislation stands for the same proposition as the current land exchange process--the sale of federal land in the Las Vegas Valley should be used as a means of protecting environmentally sensitive land throughout the State of Nevada and of enhancing the use of public land recreational areas in Southern Nevada. [[Page S12736]] At the conceptual level, the legislation represents a synthesis of two previously enacted public land bills that specifically address public land management issues in Southern Nevada--the Santini-Burton Act and the Apex land transfer legislation. You may recall that the Santini-Burton Act, which was enacted in 1980, authorized the sale of BLM land in Las Vegas to fund the acquisition of environmentally sensitive land in the Lake Tahoe basin. Our legislation embodies a similar proposition--the sale of federal land in the Las Vegas Valley should be used as means of protecting environmentally sensitive land throughout the State of Nevada and of enhancing the use of public recreational areas in Southern Nevada. With nearly 5,000 new residents moving into the valley each month, it is imperative that we protect our open spaces around the valley from development and expand recreational opportunities for the public in order to maintain the quality of life we have come to expect in Southern Nevada. Also in keeping with Santini-Burton, our legislation recognizes that land use planning decisions are best made at the local level, so our proposal gives local government an equal voice in deciding when and where federal land sales should occur in the valley. The map referenced in section 4 of the bill would establish a boundary for future BLM land sales and exchanges in the Las Vegas Valley, and combined with other components of the bill, it would serve as the blueprint to assist us in designing public land policy for the 21st century. The map essentially represents the maximum build-out boundary for the valley; it was generated in close consultation with local governmental planning agencies and other members of the Task Force to reflect their vision for future growth and development in the valley. It is important to note that virtually all of the BLM land recommended for sale or exchange under this bill has already been identified for disposal by the BLM under the existing Management Framework Plan for the Las Vegas Valley. In fact, our legislation would reduce the overall amount of land available for disposal in the valley. The Apex land transfer legislation, enacted in 1989, transferred over 20,000 acres of BLM land just outside the Las Vegas Valley to Clark County for the development of a heavy-use industrial site. When the land is improved and eventually sold by Clark County to a private entity, the revenue sharing provisions of the act allow Clark County recover the value of the infrastructure improvements it has made to the land before providing the federal government with its share of the proceeds from the sale. The legislation before us today recognizes the same principle--that the presence or proximity of local governmental services and infrastructure increases the value of federal land. Consequently, our legislation would direct a portion of the proceeds of federal land sales to local government to assist with local infrastructure development and to the state for the benefit of the general education program. Another important component of this legislation that I want to highlight today is involves affordable housing. This legislation will also make BLM land available throughout the State of Nevada to local public housing authorities for the purpose of developing affordable housing. There is currently a tremendous need in Los Vegas and Reno, and also in other communities throughout the state, for raw land to develop affordable housing projects. The BLM will now be able to assist each of these communities in meeting this important need. In closing, Mr. President, I want to acknowledge those members of the Public Land Task Force that played such an important role in the development of this legislation. Thanks go to Mike Dwyer of the BLM, Jim Tallerico and Alan Pinkerton of the Forest Service, Alan O'Neill and Bill Dickensen of the Park Service, and Ken Voget of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Thanks also go to State Senator Dina Titus, Pam Wilcox of the State Land Use Planning Agency, Rick Holmes, Jeff Harris, and Ron Gregory of Clark County, Pat Mulroy of the Las Vegas Valley Water District, Robert Baggs of the City of Las Vegas, Steve Baxter of the City of North Las Vegas, John Rinaldi of the City of Henderson, Gale Fraser of the Flood Control District, Dusty Dickens of the School District, Randy Walker and Jacob Snow with the Clark County Department of Aviation, and also Bob Broadbent, the former Director of the Aviation Department. A number of citizens representing the environmental community provided invaluable assistance; they include Jeff Van Ee, Lois Sagel, John Hiatt, Bob Maichle, and Steve Hobbs. From the development community thanks go to Robert Lewis, Bob Campbell, Scott Higginson, Mark Brown, and Jeff Rhoads. And finally, I want to thank Marcus Faust for all of his hard work on behalf of Clark County. Finally, Mr. President, I want to thank two members of my staff, Brent Heberlee and Sara Besser, for all of their work related to this legislation. I believe this legislation will make great strides toward improving public land management policy in Southern Nevada, and I look forward to continue working with all interested parties as this legislation is implemented. ____________________