[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 ACT
Mr. 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.
____________________