U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–432 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–575

LAND IN FRANNIE, WYOMING; EDWARD H. McDANIEL

AMERICAN LEGION POST NO. 22; LAND IN WASHOE

CO., NEVADA; LAND TO THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA

AT LAS VEGAS; PARCEL OF PROPERTY TO BEAVER

CO., UTAH; AND AMEND THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY

CONVEYANCE VALIDATION ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 155 S. 2085

S. 1521 S. 2285

S. 1826 H.R. 1658

MAY 5, 2004

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BOB GRAHAM, Florida 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman 

CONRAD R. BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JON KYL, Arizona 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Carolina 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

PETE V. DOMENICI and JEFF BINGAMAN are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

DICK BOUTS, Professional Staff Member 

SCOTT MILLER, Democractic Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Anderson, Bob, Deputy Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and Resource 

Protection, Bureau of Land Management .......................................................... 7

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho .................................................... 1

Gallagher, John F., Ph.D., Vice President for Development, University of 

Nevada, and Executive Director, UNLV Foundation, Las Vegas, NV ............. 16

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator from Utah .................................................... 3

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada ....................................................... 4

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................... 2

Wells, Dr. Stephen G., President, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV ............ 14

Whitney, Mark, County Commissioner, Beaver County, UT ............................... 13

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 23

(1)

LAND IN FRANNIE, WYOMING; EDWARD H. 

McDANIEL AMERICAN LEGION POST NO. 22; 

LAND IN WASHOE CO., NEVADA; LAND TO 

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA AT LAS 

VEGAS; PARCEL OF PROPERTY TO BEAVER 

CO., UTAH; AND AMEND THE RAILROAD 

RIGHT-OF-WAY CONVEYANCE VALIDATION 

ACT 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry Craig presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Good afternoon everyone. The Subcommittee on 

Public Lands and Forests of the full Committee of Energy and Natural Resources will come to order. 

This is a legislative hearing on S. 155, S. 1521, S. 1826, S. 2085, 

S. 2285, and H.R. 1658. 

And in wishing you a good afternoon, let me also suggest a happy 

Cinco de Mayo. I would like to thank all of you for coming today. 

I would especially like to recognize Senator Hatch who is here to 

make a statement about S. 2285 and Senator Harry Reid who is 

here to make a statement on three bills affecting the State of Nevada. And they will introduce other witnesses from their States. 

Before I turn to our primary witnesses, I will also yield Senator 

Craig Thomas. But I want to welcome to the committee Bob Anderson, Deputy Assistant Director of the Bureau of Land Management, 

and finally I want to thank our witnesses for taking time to come 

to Washington to testify. I know that you have traveled a long distance and your effort will help us better understand the need for 

the legislation that is before us. 

We will be hearing the six bills that I mentioned today dealing 

with the conveyance issues. S. 155, introduced by Senator Enzi, to 

convey to the town of Frannie, Wyoming certain land withdrawn by 

2

the Commissioner of Reclamation. That is the issue you will talk 

about, Senator. Is that correct? 

Senator THOMAS. Yes, sir. 

Senator CRAIG. We have three bills introduced by Senator Reid, 

as I mentioned. Senator, you are going to have to not only correctly 

pronounce the name of the town in Nevada. I think it is Pahrump, 

is it? 

Senator REID. Perfect. 

Senator CRAIG. How about that. I guess it is because I live in 

close proximity to the State of Nevada. 

Then I am going to offer you a much larger challenge. You are 

going to have to tell me the origin of the community of Pahrump. 

S. 1826 would convey land in Washoe County, Nevada, to the 

Board of Regents of the State University System. 

And your third bill, S. 2085, would modify the requirements concerning land already conveyed to the Research Foundation at the 

University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 

Senator Hatch has a bill on the agenda, S. 2285, which would 

convey a parcel of property in Beaver County, Utah. 

And the final bill today, H.R. 1658, would validate and clear title 

to existing conveyances of certain lands in the State of California. 

So with that, first of all, let me turn to my colleague, a member 

of the committee, Senator Thomas. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM WYOMING 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just very briefly, S. 155 is a bill that has been out here for almost 2 years or a year and a half. I do not think there is controversy, but I did just want to mention that it directs the Secretary to convey to the town of Frannie, Wyoming certain lands, reserving oil rights and so on. 

Interestingly, Frannie is a town of 209 people. It wishes to gain 

ownership of the land described here. It is about an acre I think 

and they have been using it as a park, and for some reason or 

other, it seems to be difficult to get ownership changed. So the 

main concern, of course, the citizens of this town want to ensure 

that they continue to have the use of this park. 

I have a letter to submit for the record. 80 out of 209 citizens 

have signed the letter. So there is a good deal of interest there. 

[The letter follows:]

TOWN OF FRANNIE

Frannie, WY, August 4, 2003. 

Hon. CRAIG THOMAS, 

100 East B Street, Suite 2201, Casper, WY. 

Re: S. 155

DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: Senator Mike Enzi has been assisting the Town of 

Frannie with Senate File 155, a bill to convey to the Town of Frannie certain land 

withdrawn by the Commissioner of Reclamation. The bill has been in the Committee 

on Energy and Natural Resources since January 14th, 2003. 

We understand you serve as a member of the Energy and Natural Resources committee, and are writing to ask your help in getting the bill out of committee and 

passed. 

As you know, Frannie is a small town (as most Wyoming towns are!) of 200 citizens. Passage of this bill will give the Town of Frannie ownership of land adjacent 

to property the town owns and on which sits our town hall, town park, and library. 

3

* Retained in committee files. 

Assurance of ownership will enhance the town’s ability to store and protect public 

property and equipment. Part of the land included in this bill is now leased to us 

and used for a Centennial Park, which we want to continue as a public park. Additionally, the Frannie Elementary borders the north side of this block, and transfer 

of ownership will protect these public sites from commercial development. 

Attached is a signature page of townspeople who support this bill.* 

Our town clerk and council have been working on this transfer since April 1999; 

we would greatly appreciate your assistance in helping make this project a reality. 

Sincerely, 

DARREN WAGNER, Mayor, 

DAVID TABOR, Council Member, 

JOHN ELLIS, Council Member, 

MURIAM A. ROBERTS, Council Member, 

JERRY DART, Council Member.

Senator THOMAS. I appreciate your putting it on the list. My 

friend, Senator Enzi, has introduced this bill and I certainly urge 

us to move it forward. Thank you. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much. 

Let me first turn to our colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, U.S. SENATOR

FROM UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Senator, and I appreciate the 

work that you do on this committee. It means a lot to us in Utah 

and elsewhere throughout the West. So I want to thank you for 

holding this hearing today on important lands-related bills and for 

allowing the consideration of my bill to convey a parcel of land to 

Beaver County, Utah for its administration as a county park. 

Today it is my distinct pleasure to introduce to the committee 

two Beaver County Commissioners, Mark Whitney and Pat 

Yardley. They are sitting right back here. I appreciate Mark and 

Pat for traveling to attend this hearing. Commissioner Mark Whitney will provide testimony regarding the importance of this bill. 

Mark Whitney has served as a commissioner for 5 years now. He 

lives in Willford, Utah and has used the Minersville recreation 

area all of his life. He is an avid outdoorsman and has worked on 

this issue from the beginning. So, Mark, I welcome you and thank 

you for making the trip to testify before this committee regarding 

the importance of this bill. 

I know Commissioner Whitney will do a good job explaining why 

this bill is so important and necessary, but I would just like to 

make a few brief points if I may. 

I introduced S. 2285, the Beaver County Land Conveyance Act, 

because it is necessary. This bill is necessary to help Beaver County to be able to afford to administer the land as a park, and I 

would point out that the State of Utah administered the area as 

a State park for more than 40 years. Just as importantly, this bill 

is necessary to solve the dilemma that the Bureau of Land Management finds itself in today with regard to this land. 

Very simply, this bill would allow Beaver County to obtain and 

maintain, without restrictions, the former Minersville State Park. 

In sum, this bill is required to allow county officials to sell a small 

portion of this land, if necessary, in order to offset funding needed 

to maintain and operate the park. 

4

I will leave it to Commissioner Whitney to give the testimony 

about the history of the park. I just want to point out that as county officials stated during their negotiations, in order for Beaver 

County to afford the management of day-to-day operations of the 

would-be county park, they might need to be able to sell a small 

portion of the property to pay for park operations. However, after 

park management responsibility was transferred to the county, the 

BLM pointed out that the property had not yet been acquired 

through the Recreation and Public Purposes Act process, which 

would restrict the county’s plan. 

I do not believe that letting management of the park revert to 

the BLM is a viable option either. This park now features more 

than $1 million worth of park facilities constructed by the State. 

The intensive day-to-day management of this park can be best accomplished by our local officials. If Beaver County acquires the 

property, it will continue to make this park an excellent recreational refuge, a superb fishery, and a great place to visit. Beaver 

County will be able to provide a clean and safe park enjoyed by all 

who visit. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, that is why I introduced this legislation 

that would convey the Minersville park land to Beaver County. 

And I appreciate having my fellow Utah Commissioner, Mark 

Whitney, testify about this bill and I thank the committee for the 

opportunity to address this issue today. And I urge you and the 

rest of my colleagues to support this legislation. It would be very 

much appreciated by all of us in Utah. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and 

we will look forward to the testimony of Commissioner Whitney. 

Now let me turn to Senator Reid. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEVADA 

Senator REID. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would say to Senator Hatch, before he leaves, I went to school, 

as he knows, for a couple of years in southern Utah at Cedar City. 

I have never been to Minersville that I remember, but I remember 

fighting somebody from Minersville. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator REID. But I only remember the names of the people I 

beat, and so I do not remember his name but I know he was from 

Minersville. That is the first time I heard that name since that 

fight. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing. 

These three bills are all important for Nevada. Senator Ensign cosponsors all three of these. 

As we know, 87 percent of the land in Nevada is federally controlled and so we need most anything we do in Nevada to get the 

Federal Government’s approval before we can do it, even simple 

community actions as indicated with the town in Wyoming getting 

an acre of land transferred. As the chair knows, we have had trouble getting areas that have been used for decades for cemeteries. 

We have to come to the Federal Government to get help on that. 

So we need your help on these three items. They are very important. 

5

Pahrump, Nevada. The bill will make it possible for the American Legion to build a very, very nice center there, a veterans center and memorial garden. It will benefit the whole community. We 

have a very, very rapidly growing veterans population. Pahrump is 

about 55 miles from Las Vegas. It has become one of the bedroom 

communities for Las Vegas. They are talking about getting a new 

VA clinic there and lots of things, lots of veterans there, and this 

would be a tremendous help for us. 

The other two bills make small changes that will help Nevada 

develop and support world-class research institutions. I am not 

going to read in detail the testimony, but if there are any questions 

the committee has, I and my staff would be happy to respond. 

I would ask the full content of my statement be made part of the 

record. 

Senator CRAIG. Without objection, that is what will happen, Senator. 

Senator REID. I would say to the chair that Dr. John Gallagher, 

vice president for development at the University of Nevada, Las 

Vegas, and executive director of the Foundation, will testify on behalf of the bill that we spoke about earlier. 

Dr. Stephen Wells, president of the Desert Research Institute, 

will also testify. We are very proud of the work that UNLV does. 

They have developed tremendous programs, as some of you may 

know. UNLV now is ranked No. 1 in the country for the hotel management school. It has just passed Cornell. It is a wonderful institution, and we are doing so much better in so many different areas. 

The bill that we need help with at UNLV will allow us to become 

an even better scientific institution. 

The Desert Research Institute is a unique institution. It has numerous Ph.D.’s. Only 10 percent of their resources come from the 

State of Nevada. All the rest are Federal grants based on their academic excellence. There is no better example of that than the President of the university who is a renowned scientist in his own right. 

So thank you very much for listening to me and giving the opportunity to Dr. Wells and Dr. Gallagher to testify. 

[The prepared statements of Senator Reid follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

ON S. 1826

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to discuss the conveyance of 

an important tract of land in Washoe County, Nevada, from the Bureau of Land 

Management to the University and Community College System of Nevada. 

The University of Nevada owns 467 acres of public land located north of downtown Reno. In the early 1970s, the land was patented to the university pursuant 

to the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Now known as the Dandini Research 

Park, it is the home of the Truckee Meadows Community College and the Desert 

Research Institute’s Northern Nevada Science Center. 

In just over 25 years, the Desert Research Institute has earned a well-deserved 

reputation as a world leader in atmospheric, hydrologic, geologic, and ecosystem 

sciences. Its researchers take a unique interdisciplinary approach to natural resource management, economic diversification, and science-based education. As we in 

the West continue to grapple with extended drought, it is especially vital that the 

Desert Research Institute continue to provide policy makers with the essential scientific information they need to manage scarce water resources in arid lands. 

Having grown out of its original facility, the Desert Research Institute needs to 

expand its Northern Nevada Science Center. A private developer has agreed to build 

and finance the expansion and then lease it back to DRI. 

6

There is only one obstacle to this innovative approach to financing the expansion: 

The terms of the patents and the restrictions imposed by the Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act do not allow for such an arrangement. 

To rectify this problem, this bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey this 

property from the Bureau of Land Management to the University and Community 

College System of Nevada. Because of the significant public benefit provided by the 

Center, we ask that the land be conveyed for free, but that the University cover the 

costs of the transaction. 

The Northern Nevada Science Center is an exceptional asset to the scientific and 

educational community in the Truckee Meadows. The Center serves not only the 

citizens of Washoe County, but the needs of all Nevadans and the western United 

States as well. It deserves the opportunity to grow and prosper with the northern 

Nevada community—one of the fastest-growing regions in the Nation. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation for this hearing to examine this important bill for the people of Nevada. 

ON S. 2085

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on my bill to promote development of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas Research and Technology Park. I 

am pleased to note that my friend from Nevada, Senator Ensign, is a cosponsor of 

this bill. 

Mr. Chairman, we in Nevada have been working hard to establish the UNLV Research Foundation’s Research and Technology Park in the greater Las Vegas area. 

When completed, the Park will provide a focus for high-tech education and research, 

and create entrepreneurial opportunities for cutting-edge companies. It will fuel 

UNLV research endeavors in public/private collaborations and drive much-needed 

diversification of the Southern Nevada economy. 

Only one obstacle is blocking the fulfillment of this vision. 

To complete build-out, the Research Foundation must be able to secure mortgages 

on the fair market value of the property. And to attract private financing to develop 

a successful research park, the Foundation needs a revenue stream to invest in 

UNLV supported research, and to provide resources for sustaining the park. Current law prohibits the Foundation from reinvesting the revenues generated from the 

proceeds of leases of the property. 

The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 conveyed federal land 

to the Clark County Department of Aviation. Subsequently, through provisions in 

the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, 

Congress transferred 115 acres of this land to the UNLV Research Foundation for 

construction of the research and technology park. 

The bill you are considering today simply amends the Clark County Conservation 

of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 to allow the proceeds of the Foundation’s research park leases to be used to pursue the Foundation’s research mission. 

Having the ability to invest the full proceeds of any lease of the land would provide funds for park infrastructure development, Research Foundation buildings and 

incubators, and a long-term revenue source to further enhance research at UNLV. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I look forward to working 

with you to enact this important legislation, and I appreciate your time. 

ON S. 1521

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing to discuss the conveyance of 

a small parcel of land to American Legion Post #22 in Pahrump, Nevada. 

This bill is a simple one. 

It would transfer approximately five acres of land managed by the Bureau of 

Land Management to the American Legion for the construction of a new community 

center. 

The American Legion in Pahrump—where the veterans population has tripled in 

the last decade—has tried for over seven years to acquire a suitable tract of land 

for a new veterans facility. 

Many years ago the Legion started a pledge campaign and raised money for the 

acquisition of a suitable property. 

After this effort began, the parcel of land they sought to buy was removed from 

consideration for disposal by the BLM. 

Unfortunately, other tracts of land that might represent alternative sites in 

Pahrump are not suitable. 

7

So today I come before you to speak on behalf of this legislation that would provide the land needed by American Legion Post #22 to move forward with their 

planned construction of a post building, a veterans garden, and a memorial park. 

In this time of war and constant vigilance, Mr. Chairman, I can’t think of a more 

fitting thing for this body to do. 

Through this legislation we can enable our brave veterans in their quest to build 

a space for remembering those who have given, as President Lincoln once called it, 

‘‘the last full measure of devotion,’’ to our nation. 

The new American Legion hall in Pahrump will also be a place where other community organizations from Nye County—including the Veterans of Foreign Wars 

and a wide range of youth groups—can hold celebrations, convene meetings, and 

host other important community activities at no cost. 

And to diminish any strain that this conveyance might put on our federal agencies, the American Legion will pay for all costs associated with this land transfer. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, thank you for your time 

and attention. 

I hope that we can work together to move forward with this land conveyance that 

will benefit the people of Nevada.

Senator CRAIG. Senator Reid, thank you very much, and we will 

look forward to their testimony. But before you leave, you have not 

withstood the test of the chairman. Let us see how good your staff 

research is. 

Senator REID. Always when you have the ‘‘pah,’’ that is water. 

So we know it is water. And the ‘‘rump’’ is rock. So it is ‘‘water 

rock.’’ Pahrump is a place where——

Senator CRAIG. Is it Indian? 

Senator REID. Yes. 

Pahrump is a place where we for 40 years grew cotton there, lots 

and lots of water, but we ran into a problem with endangered species and that slowed down the cotton farming. Now there is still 

some ranching there, but it is mainly a community that serves Las 

Vegas. It is in a different county than Las Vegas, but even the community college system in Clark County, Las Vegas is going to build 

a community college there. 

So I appreciate very much attention and interest. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. You have withstood the test, and we 

do appreciate it. 

Senator REID. We have lot of towns named ‘‘pah’’ in Nevada. 

Senator CRAIG. And that is Indian for rock. 

Senator REID. Water, and ‘‘rump’’ is the rock. 

Now, I do know what the water is but sometimes I get the other 

part of it mixed up because there are so many towns in Nevada 

with water in them, even though we do not have much water. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAIG. I know that. 

Well, now let me call Bob Anderson, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Minerals, Realty and Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, forward. Bob, welcome before the committee, and I know 

you are going to testify on a variety of the bills that are before us. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF BOB ANDERSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERALS, REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION,

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for inviting me to testify regarding a number of land conveyance bills of inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:22 Sep 07, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\95432.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
8

terest to the Bureau of Land Management, BLM. I will briefly summarize my written statement as follows. 

H.R. 1658 is a private bill which amends the Railroad Right-ofWay Conveyance Validation Act of 1994, Public Law 103-2. That 

act validated the conveyances of 50 small tracts of land in Nevada 

and San Joaquin Counties, California. 

The bill before us today amends that act by adding two additional small parcels in San Joaquin County at the northern end of 

the city of Stockton. We see no conflict in clearing title for these 

lands through this legislation and, therefore, have no objection to 

H.R. 1658. 

S. 2285 proposes to convey approximately 200 acres surrounding 

the Minersville Reservoir to Beaver County, Utah. The administration supports the conveyance, but would suggest a few modifications to the legislation. 

The legislation authorizes Beaver County to sell at fair market 

value portions of the property. Those proceeds may be used only for 

the maintenance and further development of the public recreation 

facilities on the site. 

We support this proposal as a creative solution to a difficult 

problem. However, we recommend the elimination of the reversionary clause in section 1(c) to avert a situation where the BLM 

would be responsible for managing a small local park or to abandon 

its use as a park, either of which it is ill-prepared to do. We believe 

the requirements of section 1(b), limiting the use of sale proceeds 

specifically for the operation and maintenance of the park, are adequate to protect the interests of the public. 

We would also like the opportunity to work with the committee 

on an appropriate map of the area to be conveyed. 

The administration has a few comments with S. 1521 that we 

would like to work with you on. The main concern is that the tract 

identified for conveyance in S. 1521 has not been identified for disposal by BLM. The BLM would like to work with the committee 

and the American Legion Post No. 22 to identify an alternate site 

within the over 9,300 acres of public lands in the area currently 

identified as suitable for disposal. 

The legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to transfer 

the lands identified within 120 days. This requirement results in 

time concerns relative to BLM’s ability to fulfill certain requirements associated with the land conveyance, as well as our responsibility under the National Environmental Policy Act and other required clearances. 

So we would like to take this opportunity to work with you and 

American Legion Post No. 22 on these concerns. 

The BLM originally patented the lands referenced in S. 1826 to 

the Board of Regents of the University and Community College 

System of Nevada in 1972 and 1974. Subsequent legislation, Public 

Law 99-358, in 1986 provided for the development of a research 

park on these lands. S. 1826 would transfer the remaining right, 

title, and interest of the United States in these lands to the Board 

of Regents without further restrictions. 

The administration supports S. 1826 but would like to clarify 

what constitutes ‘‘net proceeds’’ in section 2(c)(2) of the bill. 

9

The administration does not support S. 2085, which would 

amend the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural 

Resources Act of 2002. The Clark County Act gives the Department 

of Aviation the discretion to convey, without consideration, 115 

acres identified for use by the University of Nevada at the Las 

Vegas Research Foundation. Currently if the foundation chooses to 

sell or lease portions of the 115 acres that it does not use for the 

research park, any proceeds are deposited into accounts following 

the general guidelines established in the Clark County Act. That 

is, 85 percent would go to the special account established for the 

Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act and 5 percent 

would go to the State of Nevada for general education. The remaining 10 percent would be available for use by the foundation. 

S. 2085 amends the Clark County Act by allowing 100 percent 

of the proceeds from the sale or lease of lands by the foundation 

to go directly to the foundation. We believe that proceeds from any 

sale or lease of lands by the foundation under the Clark County 

Act should be distributed as established in current law, which I 

just mentioned a few seconds ago. 

Finally, the Bureau of Reclamation has submitted a statement 

for the record on S. 155, a bill to convey to the town of Frannie, 

Wyoming certain lands withdrawn by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. We ask that this statement be included in the 

hearing record. 

Senator CRAIG. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of the Bureau of Reclamation follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR, ON S. 155

This statement presents the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 155, 

a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land withdrawn by 

the Commissioner of Reclamation consisting of approximately 37,500 square feet located in the N1⁄2 of block 26, T.58 N., R.97 W., to the Town of Frannie, Wyoming. 

This land was originally withdrawn from the public domain on April 19, 1920, for 

reclamation purposes and is managed by the Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation 

has concluded that it does not have any continuing project need for the land or any 

vested interest in or ownership of any appurtenances on the land. The Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) conducted a survey of the land and determined that the 

land is no longer suitable for return to the public domain and management under 

the public land and mining laws. 

The Town of Frannie has title to the S1⁄2 of Block 26, the adjacent parcel, which 

is where the Town Hall is located. In addition, pursuant to a Special Use Permit 

issued by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1990, the Town uses the NE1⁄4 of Block 26 

for the Wyoming Centennial Garden.’’ The Deaver Irrigation District (‘‘Deaver’’) 

managed this land for the Bureau of Reclamation. Previously, Deaver authorized 

the relocation of a building on the NW1⁄4 of the Block, which was subsequently conveyed to the Town of Frannie and is now being used as a meeting hall by the Town. 

S. 155 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey, without consideration, 

all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the parcel of land to the 

Town of Frannie. The bill would also revoke the Special Use Permit with the Town 

of Frannie for the Centennial Garden City Park and Secretarial Orders issued by 

the Commissioner of Reclamation which withdrew the land for the Shoshone Project 

in 1913 and the Frannie Townsite Reservation in 1920. 

It is customary for the Department to seek fair market value for land proposed 

for transfer. However, in this case, given that the parcel is less than one acre, its 

value is minimal as compared to the costs associated with the process of selling it, 

and the Town currently uses the land for the benefit of the public, the Department 

has determined that it can support S. 155, provided that the bill is modified to include language that more clearly describes the means by which the Secretary would 

convey this property. Similar legislation was passed in 1994 by Title VI of P.L. 103-

434, directing the Secretary to convey certain lands which are adjacent to the lands 

10

proposed for transfer under S. 155, by quitclaim deed, to the Big Horn County 

School District. The Department recommends that the words ‘‘by quitclaim deed’’ be 

added in. subsection (a) after ‘‘the Secretary of the Interior shall convey,’’ which 

would then read ‘‘the Secretary of the Interior shall convey, by quitclaim deed, without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the parcel of land described in subsection (b) to the Town of Frannie, Wyoming.’’

Thank you for the opportunity to detail the position of the Department of the Interior on S. 155.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you for the opportunity to present this 

testimony today, and I will be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOB ANDERSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERALS, 

REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, ON H.R. 

1658, S. 2285, S. 1521, S. 1826, AND S. 2085

Thank you for inviting me to testify regarding a number of land conveyance bills 

of interest to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

H.R. 1658

H.R. 1658 is a private bill which amends the Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance 

Validation Act. The administration has no objection to H.R. 1658. 

In 1994, the Congress passed H.R. 1183, Private Law 103-2. The Act validated 

the conveyances of 50 small tracts of land in Nevada County and San Joaquin County, California. The lands involved were originally part of the right-of-way grant of 

the United States to the Central Pacific Railroad by an 1862 Act of Congress. The 

Southern Pacific Railroad (the successor to Central Pacific) appears to have made 

conveyances of small tracts of land in some of these cases, and in others, adjacent 

landowners have made inadvertent encroachments. Under the original Act of 1862, 

a Federal reversionary interest existed if these rights-of-way were abandoned by the 

railroad. The 1994 Act was necessary to remove any cloud on the title of these small 

landowners. 

The bill before us today amends the underlying 1994 Act by adding two additional 

small parcels in San Joaquin County, California. The parcels in question are at the 

northern end of the city of Stockton, California. According to the master title plat, 

maintained by the BLM, these parcels have been in private ownership for nearly 

a century. We see no conflict in clearing title for these lands through this legislation. As with the underlying Act, the mineral estate of these lands will continue to 

be reserved to the Federal government, and the lands will continue to be unavailable to all forms of mineral entry. 

S. 2285

S. 2285 proposes to convey approximately 200 acres surrounding the Minersville 

Reservoir to Beaver County, Utah. The Administration supports the conveyance, but 

would like to recommend a few modifications to the legislation. 

In 1963, the BLM first granted a patent to Beaver County, Utah, for the lands 

that are now part of Minersville State Park pursuant to the Recreation & Public 

Purposes Act (R&PP) (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.). In 1964, title was transferred to the 

State of Utah Division of Parks and Recreation. Over the years the State made substantial investments in the park facilities including campgrounds, restrooms, and an 

entrance station. In 2002, the State of Utah moved to transfer title to Beaver County as part of cost cutting efforts. 

However, because the State did not have authority under the R&PP Act to transfer title, such an action was not possible. Beaver County has indicated that it will 

not accept a transfer of the lands because of the restrictions associated with the 

R&PP Act. Specifically, the reversionary clause prevents the re-sale of lands transferred under the R&PP Act. 

Beaver County, however, is willing to take over the park if it has an opportunity 

to create a funding source. The County proposes to sell some of the undeveloped 

lands within the park for cabin sites and use the revenue generated from the sales 

to operate and maintain the park for the benefit of the people of Beaver County and 

visitors. Under the provisions of the R&PP Act such sales would result in a reversion to the BLM. The BLM does not object to this proposal because this type of 

small, local park is most appropriately operated and maintained by a local government. 

11

S. 2285 proposes to transfer all right, title and interest of the United States for 

the approximately 200 acres to Beaver County. Beaver County would then be authorized by the legislation to sell, at fair market value, portions of that property. 

The legislation further directs that those proceeds may be used only for the maintenance and further development of the public recreation facilities on the site. 

Normally we would require payment of fair market value for any interest in lands 

conveyed without the requirement that they be used for a public purpose. However, 

we recognize the unique circumstances here, including the historical use of the area 

as a park, and support this proposal as a creative solution to a difficult problem. 

However, we recommend the elimination of the reversionary clause in section 1(c), 

which provides for the reversion of the site to the United States if the provisions 

of the Act are not complied with, and the elimination of a subsequent requirement 

that Beaver County repay to the United States any payments received from sales 

of land. We recommend the elimination of the reversionary clause to avert a situation where the BLM would be responsible for managing a small local park, or abandoning its use as a park, either of which we are ill prepared to do. We believe the 

requirements of section 1(b), limiting the use of sale proceeds specifically for the operation and maintenance of the park, are adequate to protect the interests of the 

Federal government. 

Finally, we would like the opportunity to work with the Committee on an appropriate map of the area to be conveyed. 

NEVADA LANDS BILLS

Let me now turn to three Nevada lands bills, S. 1521, the ‘‘Edward H. McDaniel 

American Legion Post No. 22 Land Conveyance Act;’’ S. 1826, the ‘‘Dandini Research Park Conveyance Act;’’ and S. 2085, the ‘‘University of Nevada at Las Vegas 

Research Foundation Reinvestment Act.’’ These bills provide for the conveyance of 

public lands to various entities. The Administration supports the goals of S. 1521 

and S. 1826, but would like to work with the Committee to address certain concerns 

and clarify technical issues discussed more fully below. The Administration does not 

support S. 2085. 

S. 1521

The Administration has a number of concerns with S. 1521 as introduced. First, 

the tract to be conveyed under S. 1521 has not been identified for disposal under 

the current land use plan, which was adopted in 1998. The BLM would like to work 

with the Committee and the American Legion Post No. 22 to identify an alternate 

site within the over 9,300 acres of public lands in the area currently identified as 

suitable for disposal in the current land use plan. 

Second, the legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to transfer the lands 

identified within 120 days. This requirement results in time concerns relative to the 

BLM’s ability to fulfill certain requirements associated with the land conveyance, 

which include, among others, conducting a cadastral survey and performing hazardous substances and cultural resources clearances. This is in addition to the ability to fulfill requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Selection of alternate lands that are currently identified for disposal in the land use 

plan could help alleviate the conflict created between the time limitation and the 

requirement to comply with applicable Federal laws, although more time may still 

be needed. 

Third, the Administration requests an addition to the reversionary clause to provide for the sale of these lands by the transferee, with the sale proceeds going to 

the Federal government, as an alternative to reversion. This would protect taxpayers from assuming potential liabilities that might arise by giving the Federal 

government discretion regarding the reversion. 

Finally, the BLM, as a matter of practice, receives fair market value for land 

being transferred out of public ownership. For conveyances to non-governmental entities that qualify under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, the United States 

receives 50 percent of fair market value. We would like to work with the Committee 

to address these concerns so that the necessary work can be completed and public 

notice and participation can occur. 

S. 1826

The BLM originally patented the lands referenced in S. 1826 to the Board of Regents of the University and Community College System of Nevada in 1972 and 

1974. Subsequent legislation, Public Law 99-358, provided for the development of 

a research park on the conveyed lands. P.L. 99-358 restricts the Board of Regents’ 

12

use of the patented lands to research and development activities. S. 1826 would provide the remaining right, title and interest of the United States in these lands to 

the Board of Regents, which would allow the University full discretion in the use 

or sale of these lands, with proceeds returned to the Secretary of the Interior. 

The Administration supports S. 1826, but requests technical corrections to add 

specificity to the conveyance, clarify ‘‘market value,’’ and modify the disposition of 

‘‘net proceeds’’ in Section 2(c)(2) of the bill as introduced. 

S. 2085

The Administration opposes S. 2085, which would amend Section 702(b)(2) of Public Law 107-282, the ‘‘Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002’’. Under the Clark County Act, 115 acres of land in Clark County, Nevada, that were conveyed to the Clark County Department of Aviation in the 

Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA), are identified as suitable for use by the University of Nevada at Las Vegas Research Foundation for the 

construction of a research park and technology center. The Clark County Act gives 

the Department of Aviation the discretion to convey without consideration the 115 

acres identified for use by the Foundation. If the Foundation chooses to sell or lease 

portions of the 115 acres that it does not use for the research park, any proceeds 

follow the framework of Section 702(b)(2) of the Clark County Act, in that 85 percent of these proceeds are to be deposited into a special account for conservation 

purposes, 5 percent of these proceeds are to be provided to the State of Nevada for 

education programs, and the remaining 10 percent of the proceeds are to be available for use by the Foundation. This framework was developed based on SNPLMA. 

S. 2085 amends the Clark County Act by allowing all proceeds from the sale or 

lease of lands conveyed to the Foundation to go directly to the Foundation. The Administration’s decision to support the original Foundation provision in the Clark 

County Act was premised on the assumption that the Foundation would develop research facilities on the land, and that land not utilized by the Foundation for development of these facilities would be sold and the proceeds dispersed under the framework described above. SNPLMA and the Clark County Act were both carefully crafted to assure that land sales and the disbursement of the proceeds would meet the 

demand for community expansion, economic development, and the conservation of 

environmentally sensitive land. 

Under S. 2085, the lands conveyed to the Foundation would be available to be sold 

or leased by the Foundation for any purpose, whereas the original intent of the conveyance was to provide these lands for research purposes. 

In order to assure that the public interest is met, and to be consistent with the 

provisions in SNPLMA and the Clark County Act, we believe that the proceeds from 

any sale or lease of lands conveyed to the Foundation under the Clark County Act 

should be distributed as established in current law. 

We look forward to working with the Committee and local interests to address the 

concerns we have identified in S. 1521 and S. 1826. We hope the Committee will 

reconsider S. 2085 in light of the concerns we have raised in this testimony. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I’ll be happy to answer any questions

Senator CRAIG. Well, Bob, we have just had a vote start, and I 

am going to try to get these other folks before us, because we have 

several votes in a row. I have a series of questions here, and I will 

submit them to you in writing. If you would respond to them specific to your concerns and the bureau’s concerns. Of course, we will 

work with you and with the Senators involved to try to work out 

these differences prior to moving the legislation out of the committee. Thank you very much for your testimony. Appreciate it. 

With that, let me call forward our second panel, Commissioner 

Mark Whitney, Dr. John Gallagher, and Dr. Stephen Wells. I thank 

all of you for being here. Your full testimony will become a part of 

the record. We hope you can stay to our 5-minute request. 

Commissioner, we will start with you. You have already been appropriately introduced by your senior Senator, and we appreciate 

that. But you are one of the commissioners from Beaver County, 

Utah. Welcome. Please proceed. 

13

STATEMENT OF MARK WHITNEY, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, 

BEAVER COUNTY, UT 

Mr. WHITNEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, a very good afternoon. As you have said, I am Mark Whitney. I am a member of the 

Beaver County Commission and I am here to provide special comments on Minersville Reservoir conveyance, S. 2285. 

S. 2285 would convey approximately 200 acres of Bureau of Land 

Management property to Beaver County. These 200 acres are located in rural Utah on the shore of Minersville Reservoir between 

the communities of Beaver and Minersville. 

From 1963 to 2002, this property was managed by the State of 

Utah as the Minersville State Park under a lease with the BLM 

through the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. During this time, 

the State constructed campground facilities, a boat launch ramp, a 

park, a pavilion, an entrance station, and a maintenance building 

on the property. 

In April 2002, Beaver County was informed that the State of 

Utah would be closing the Minersville Park due to budget cuts. We 

were told the Minersville State Park was losing approximately 

$90,000 annually. 

Shortly thereafter, we convened discussions with the local BLM 

office to determine the options for the future of the property. The 

local BLM office staff told us that the existing facilities would be 

removed from the property and the property would have to be reclaimed back to its native condition unless another governmental 

entity took over the lease with the BLM. There are no other governmental entities other than Beaver County interested in managing the park. 

The park is very important to the residents of Beaver County. 

We do not want to see the park demolished. However, as with 

State, Beaver County with its limited resources and small tax base 

does not have the funds to subsidize the park indefinitely. We feel 

that in order for the county to be able to increase the usage of the 

park, to the point that it can generate its own revenue, we need 

more than a lease. We need to own the property. As we move forward with the park, we need the flexibility to develop the park in 

a manner that will increase its usage. S. 2285 would allow us this 

flexibility. 

For example, under S. 2285, the county would be allowed to develop certain lots in harmony with the surrounding environment 

which could be sold for vacation homes, a lodge, rental vacation 

cabins, et cetera. This would increase the usage of the park and 

also provide revenues that could only be used for maintenance and 

improvements at the park. 

I am confident that with S. 2285, the Minersville Reservoir will 

become successful without becoming a burden on the taxpayers of 

our county. I also feel that the reversion clause in the bill does an 

excellent job of assuring the United States the property will always 

be taken care of properly. 

I look forward to working with you further on this bill and would 

be happy to answer any questions at this point. 

Senator CRAIG. Commissioner, thank you very much. We will go 

to our other witnesses before we come back for questioning. Now 

14

let me turn to—well, we will stay in order—Dr. Wells, Stephen 

Wells, president, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada. 

Dr. Wells. 

STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN G. WELLS, PRESIDENT, DESERT 

RESEARCH INSTITUTE, RENO, NV 

Dr. WELLS. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Steve 

Wells. I am president of the Desert Research Institute, which is the 

Nevada System of Higher Education’s environmental research campus. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want to 

thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony regarding 

S. 1826. As you know, S. 1826 was introduced on November 5, 2003 

and directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey land in Washoe 

County, Nevada to the Board of Regents of the University and 

Community College System of Nevada. 

The University and Community College System of Nevada, which 

I will here refer to as the ‘‘university,’’ is the holder of two patents 

from the BLM for land located north of downtown Reno. A total of 

467.3 acres was patented to the university pursuant to the Recreation and Public Purposes Act in 1972 and in 1974. 

The lands, known as the Dandini Research Park, are home to 

DRI’s Northern Nevada campus and the campus of the Truckee 

Meadows Community College. 

The lands serve three primary purposes: housing scientific, academic, and research and development programs, all supporting economic and work force development within Nevada. 

Unfortunately, the university is limited by the terms of the patents in regards to the uses that are allowed on the property. First, 

the university may not use the lands as security in development 

transactions, and second, the land is subject to BLM’s definition of 

research activities and services. 

Restrictions attached to the patents act as significant barriers to 

the university’s ability to develop these lands in the best interests 

of the Nevada public and to operate a research park that provides 

a site for technology transfer, science-based economic development, 

and partnering among academic, governmental, and industrial sectors. 

In 1986, the university was successful in having legislation 

passed that allowed the university to lease property and buildings 

to the research park tenants. 

Yet, in 1999, the Department of the Interior’s regional solicitor 

told the Nevada congressional delegation that while legislation is 

set aside, certain restrictions on the use of the patented lands mandated in the R&PP Act, the ability of the university to develop the 

research park is not unqualified. The solicitor indicated that any 

attempt to use the land as security or collateral for private financing of building construction would be considered a violation of the 

act because such an action would convey a potential ownership interest in the patented lands to a third party. 

This interpretation is seen by potential partners as a risk that 

significantly decreases the attractiveness of participating in a research park. Development of the research park and all of the public 

15

benefits that would result from its development are hindered by 

this constraint. 

DRI has two primary goals with respect to these lands: to expand 

its existing Northern Nevada Science Campus and to promote the 

development of the research park. However, these two goals are inhibited since both private developers and the university’s legal 

council view the R&PP Act as an impediment to financing such development. 

In November 2003, Senators Reid and Ensign introduced S. 

1826, the legislation that directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

convey the 467.3 acres from BLM to the university system. It is important to note that the university would cover the costs of these 

transactions. 

On behalf of the institution, the research park’s board, the DRI 

Research Foundation, and local economic development agencies, I 

strongly endorse this bill. It would allow DRI to realize the development of a research park. This is important to the citizens of Nevada who stand to benefit economically and socially by an expansion of the research enterprise. For this reason, I am here today 

to underscore how significant it is that this legislation be passed. 

Thank you again for this opportunity, and I will answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wells follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN G. WELLS, ON BEHALF OF THE DESERT

RESEARCH INSTITUTE (DRI) 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity 

to submit this testimony regarding S. 1826. S. 1826 was introduced on November 

5, 2003 and directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey land in Washoe County, 

Nevada, to the Board of Regents of the University and Community College System 

of Nevada. 

The University and Community College System of Nevada (‘‘the University’’) is 

the holder of two patents from the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for public land located north of downtown Reno. The land was patented to the University pursuant to the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (‘‘R&PP 

Act’’), with 158.22 acres patented on July 17, 1972, and 309.11 acres patented on 

August 29, 1974 for a total of 467.33 acres. The lands, which ate now known as the 

Dandini Research Park, are currently being used by the Desert Research Institute 

(‘‘DRI’’) and by Truckee Meadows Community College. They house DRI’s Northern 

Nevada Science Campus and they are the site of DRI’s research park. 

The University is limited by the terms of the patents as to the uses to which it 

can put the property. Specifically, the patents, and the R&PP Act, require that the 

property be used only for ‘‘public purposes,’’ and state that the University may not 

‘‘transfer control’’ of the property. Moreover, the patents require the University to 

file and follow a plan of development that must be approved by the BLM. The conditions that adhere to the patents are now acting as a significant barrier to the University’s ability to manage and develop these lands in the best interests of the Nevada public, specifically to operate a University-sponsored research park that provides a site for technology transfer, science-based economic development, and 

partnering among the academic, governmental and industrial sectors. 

For example, the BLM initially disapproved of the development of the research 

park because it believed that leasing portions of the property to other entities would 

have constituted a transfer of control. However, in 1988, the University was successful in having legislation passed (P.L. 99-358) that allowed the University to lease 

property and buildings to research park tenants. 

Nonetheless, in 1999 the Department of the Interior’s Regional Solicitor told the 

Nevada Congressional delegation that while P.L. 99-358 set aside certain restrictions on the use of the patented lands mandated by the R&PP Act, the ability of 

the University to develop the research park is not unqualified. Specifically, the Solicitor indicated that ‘‘any attempt to use the land as security or collateral for private financing of building construction . . .’’ would be considered a violation of the 

16

Act because such an action would convey a potential ownership interest in the patented lands to a third party. This interpretation is seen by potential partners as 

a risk that significantly decreases the attractiveness of participating in a research 

park. Development of the research park and all of the public benefits that would 

accrue from its development are hindered by this constraint. 

DRI also wishes to expand its existing Northern Nevada Science Campus and is 

considering the use of an innovative means of financing the expansion by which a 

private developer would build and finance the expansion and lease it back to DRI. 

However the private developers with whom DRI has discussed the matter as well 

as DRI’s counsel view the R&PP Act as an impediment to such an arrangement. 

In order to address these concerns, in November of 2003, Senators Reid and Ensign introduced S. 1826. This legislation directs that the Secretary of Interior convey 

the 467.33 acres from the BLM to the UCCSN. The University would cover the costs 

of the transaction. Obviously, I strongly endorse this bill, as it would allow DRI to 

begin to pursue its research park and to expand its own research facilities. These 

projects are important to the citizens of Nevada who stand to benefit economically 

and socially by an expansion of the research enterprise. For this reason, I am here 

today to underscore how critical it is that this legislation be passed. 

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. Thank you 

for your consideration of this request. I would be happy to answer any questions 

you might have.

Senator CRAIG. Doctor, thank you very much. 

Now let me turn to our last panelist, Dr. John Gallagher, vice 

president for development, executive director of UNLV’s Foundation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 

Doctor, welcome to the committee. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. GALLAGHER, Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT 

FOR DEVELOPMENT, UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNLV FOUNDATION, LAS VEGAS, NV 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John 

Gallagher. I am the vice president for development at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and in that capacity I am also the executive director of the UNLV Foundation. The UNLV Foundation is 

a nonprofit organization that raises and manages private funds, 

undertakes certain construction activity, undertakes some real estate activity, and provides a number of other services to the university. I am also today joined by my colleague, Tom Williams, who 

is here in the audience with us. 

I am here today to ask the committee to support the passage of 

S. 2085, the University of Nevada at Las Vegas Research Foundation Reinvestment Act. 

The University of Nevada, Las Vegas is a major research institution. In 2001, the university established the UNLV Research Foundation under the general organizational umbrella of the UNLV 

Foundation as a nonprofit affiliate of the university. The purpose 

of the research foundation is to encourage and support research activities at UNLV, to facilitate the creation of intellectual property, 

facilitate the commercialization of the products of research activity 

by UNLV faculty members, and support economic diversification in 

southern Nevada through research activities at UNLV. 

As a result of the enactment of the Clark County Conservation 

of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, 115 acres of formerly public land in the Las Vegas Valley in the possession of 

Clark County’s McCarran Airport was authorized to be conveyed to 

the UNLV Research Foundation for the creation of a research and 

technology park. The park, when completed, will be a location for 

basic and applied research, as well as a location for science and 

17

technology-based companies whose work supports the university’s 

mission. 

The UNLV Research Foundation must attract private funding in 

order to develop the research park over time. It is not any kind of 

a misstatement to say that public money in Nevada is not going 

to be available for that kind of activity. In order to so, that is, in 

order to attract private funding, it must have the ability to secure 

mortgages in the commercial markets and return and utilize any 

proceeds from the lease of the property. In other words, the ability 

to lease the property to secure action through those leases with private commercial ventures provides the funding to build out the research park. This is a standard finance mechanism in the private 

sector. Such leases and related conveyances are the only available 

sources for the funds to accomplish the goals associated with the 

research park both for the university and for the community. 

The statute, as currently enacted, requires that the proceeds of 

any lease or sale or conveyance of this property go to entities unrelated to the purposes of the research park or of the university, and 

so it would defeat the entire intention of the original research park 

concept. 

Neither the university nor the research foundation envisions a 

time when we will sell this property. We understand that this property is an immensely valuable resource for the people of the State 

of Nevada. We do, however, need the ability to utilize the underlying value of the ground through the form of lease activity in 

order to finance the development of the research park. 

University-affiliated research parks are not new. There are well 

over 300 of them around the country. Parks located at major universities in California, for example, or the famous Research Triangle in North Carolina, or many others around the country provide examples of the way science and technology research parks 

can enhance the capabilities of a university and provide many benefits to communities. We believe that the UNLV research park will 

do all of these things. It will strengthen the economy in southern 

Nevada, lead to further economic diversification, particularly of 

high value jobs in the region, and provide for general business 

growth and expansion. 

Once again, we strongly urge the subcommittee to support the 

enactment of S. 2085 to allow the University of Nevada, Las Vegas 

to gain the full economic use of this land in order to develop the 

research park. 

Thank you for this opportunity to be here, and I too will be 

happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gallagher follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN F. GALLAGHER, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT FOR

DEVELOPMENT, UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is John F. Gallagher, Vice 

President for Development at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and the Executive Director of the UNLV Foundation. The UNLV Foundation is a nonprofit organization that raises and manages private funds, and undertakes certain construction 

and other projects, for the benefit of the University (UNLV). This work enhances 

the quality of the University and strengthens its mission of teaching, research, and 

public service. I am also joined today by my colleague, Thomas F. Williams, who 

serves as the Executive Director of the UNLV Research Foundation. 

18

I am here today to ask that the Committee support the passage of S. 2085, the 

‘‘University of Nevada at Las Vegas Research Foundation Reinvestment Act’’. 

The University of Nevada, Las Vegas is a major research institution, the only university-level educational and research entity in Southern Nevada. In 2001 the University established the UNLV Research Foundation under the general organizational umbrella of the UNLV Foundation as a nonprofit affiliate of the University 

of Nevada, Las Vegas. 

The purposes of the Research Foundation are to encourage and support research 

activities at UNLV; facilitate the creation of intellectual property; facilitate the commercialization of the products of research activity by UNLV faculty members, laboratories and programs; and support economic diversification in Southern Nevada 

through research at UNLV. 

As a result of the enactment of Clark County Conservation of Public Land and 

Natural Resources Act of 2002, (Public Law 107-282), 115 acres of formerly public 

land in the Las Vegas Valley, in the possession of Clark County’s McCarran International Airport, was authorized to be conveyed to the UNLV Research Foundation 

for the creation of a research and technology Park. The Park, when completed, will 

be a location for basic and applied research, as well as a location for science and 

technology based companies whose work supports the University’s mission. 

The Park will support additional UNLV research; enable public/private collaborations; create technology jobs; and encourage economic diversification in Nevada. The 

businesses and organizations that locate in the Park will employ University students and provide internship opportunities. Park tenants may use University facilities, while University faculty and researchers likewise will join in the Park tenants’ 

research and technology work. 

The UNLV Research Foundation must attract private funding in order to develop 

the Research Park over time, and must also provide an ongoing revenue stream to 

operate the Park. In order to do so, it must have the ability to secure mortgages 

in the commercial markets, and to retain and utilize any proceeds from the lease 

or conveyance of any of the property. Such leases and related conveyances are the 

only available sources for the funds to accomplish the University and community 

goals associated with the Park. 

The statute as currently enacted requires that 90% of the proceeds of any lease, 

sale or conveyance of this property go to entities unrelated to the purposes of the 

UNLV Research Foundation or the University. This provision makes it impossible 

for the Research Foundation or the University to raise the funds needed to develop 

the Park, provide funds to operate the Park, or return any of the long-term benefits 

of this activity back to the University and community. 

Neither the University nor the Research Foundation envision a time when the 

land will be sold. However, the ability to reinvest the full proceeds of any lease of 

the land will provide the funds to build the Park’s infrastructure, science and technology buildings, and research incubators. This ability will also allow the University 

to structure a long-term revenue stream to support the activities at the Park. 

University Affiliated Research Parks are not a new phenomenon. Parks located 

adjacent to major universities in California, the famous Research Triangle in North 

Carolina, as well as Parks in many other parts of the country, provide examples of 

science and technology Parks that have contributed to major economic changes to 

the regions in which they are located. We believe a UNLV Park will also strengthen 

the economy of Southern Nevada and lead to further economic diversification in the 

region. The benefits to the community will include the creation of high-value jobs, 

business growth and expansion, improved opportunities for Nevada’s workers, and 

less dependence on the region’s primary tourist based industry. 

Once again, we strongly urge the Committee to support the enactment of S. 2085 

to allow the University of Nevada, Las Vegas to gain the full economic use of this 

land to the benefit of the Las Vegas valley and the entire State of Nevada. 

Thank you for this opportunity. I would be happy to answer any questions the 

Committee may have.

Senator CRAIG. Well, I thank you. I am going to set the committee in recess for a few moments, run over and vote and return. 

Bob, if you would stay. There may be some questions of you. I 

wanted to make sure that all of our witnesses who have traveled 

the distance you have are treated appropriately and properly before 

the committee, and there are several questions we will want to engage you in. So if you will stay for a few moments. There are two 

votes that I need to make. I am catching the tail end of one and 

19

the beginning of another, and I should be back in the next 5 to 10 

minutes. Thank you. 

The subcommittee will stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Senator CRAIG. The subcommittee will reconvene. If we could ask 

the commissioner, the two doctors, and Bob to come to the table, 

we have got a few questions of you. It will be merciful and limited 

in character. 

Bob, let me talk, if I could, about Minersville State Park in Utah. 

You testified the BLM recommends eliminating the reversionary 

clause and the requirement for Beaver County to repay the United 

States for sales of land. 

Can you explain why and how this bill differs from other conveyances? 

Mr. ANDERSON. In S. 2285, we are doing away with the reversionary clause, as we would for Beaver County. Also, we testified 

here some weeks back about another site in Nevada. It was an 

R&PP, Recreation and Public Purpose Act, conveyance of a cemetery called Maiden’s Grave. We recommended that the reversionary 

clause be deleted at that time because BLM did not want to be 

managing a cemetery if it reverted back to the United States. So 

there are a couple of examples. 

So every case is different, I think, in terms of R&PP conveyances, 

in looking at the reversionary clause and how it might impact us 

and the public. If it is in the interest of the public, we are going 

to take a hard look at it. 

Senator CRAIG. In S. 1521, has BLM had any discussions with 

the American Legion Post about its proposal to identify an alternate site? That would be the first question specific to that. 

Mr. ANDERSON. I understand that there have been discussions 

and I think the American Legion is pretty set on that particular 

tract of land. But we would like to continue to work with them to 

see if we cannot find something that might expedite this disposal 

on another piece of land that we have already designated as suitable for disposal. 

Senator CRAIG. If the post were to receive the land specified in 

the bill, would it result in a land pattern that is less manageable 

for BLM? Other than designated for disposal, is there any other objection to this piece of land? 

Mr. ANDERSON. No. It would not cause any disruption in management because the tract is bounded on one side by a highway. 

But we have had people on-site and our appraiser has characterized the site as having very high commercial value. Very high. So 

this is another reason that we might think another site might be 

more suitable. 

Senator CRAIG. We will take a look at that. If it is close to Nevada and it is available land or land that could be made available, 

my guess there is a high value to it based on the character of what 

is going on out there. 

Both S. 1826 and S. 2085 provide Nevada universities authority 

to sell certain lands previously conveyed. One of the bills you support and one of the bills you oppose. Can you explain why? 

20

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, S. 1826, of course you heard the testimony 

there. There the regents may dispose or lease the lands, but those 

proceeds would come back to the Secretary. 

In the other case, S. 2085, they would not. They would stay with 

the foundation. Right now, if the lands are conveyed by the county 

board for aviation to the foundation, the foundation would, in fact, 

be able to keep 10 percent of the proceeds. Under this bill, they 

would be able to keep 100 percent, and those lands have very high 

values. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I have several other questions that we will 

send to you and ask for your response in writing. But thank you. 

I appreciate that. 

Let me turn to you, Mark. Can you briefly describe how you see 

the county managing the site if the bill passes? 

Mr. WHITNEY. Well, currently at this point, Beaver County does 

not manage any recreational sites. It is kind of a vision and it is 

a small area. Recreation has become very important and growing 

out there, especially desert type of recreation, trails, for example, 

and it is kind of the vision of the current county commission to 

take a lead on that to enhance because we realize we have got a 

special niche on that and we feel like we can do a good job at doing 

that. 

Senator CRAIG. I am looking at those properties right now, the 

aerial view that you provided us. 

Does Beaver County operate other parks? This would be a new 

venture. 

Mr. WHITNEY. As I said, no, it is a new venture that we feel like 

we need to get involved in for the citizens of our county. 

Senator CRAIG. And how would it affect the county’s approach if 

the reversionary clause were removed as proposed by BLM? 

Mr. WHITNEY. And that is an important component to that because we need to be able to sell portions of that ground off to concessionaires, for example. The State of Utah does not allow concessionaires on their State parks, and we feel like that that park right 

there demands the need for certain concessionaires to draw people 

into it, and by doing so, that is what we plan on doing. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. WHITNEY. Thank you. 

Senator CRAIG. Dr. Wells, in your testimony you spoke to the fact 

that the university has already had a piece of legislation passed, 

with the intent of solving the problem. Are you confident that we 

now have legislation that will provide the university with what it 

needs to manage and develop these lands? 

Dr. WELLS. Yes, Chairman Craig, but I do need to clarify one 

point based on the administrator’s testimony that our reference of 

net proceeds refers to the sale of the land and not the lease of the 

land. So I wanted that clarified. The leasing, just as it is with 

UNLV, is critical to us to be able to have that for an opportunity 

for reinvestment. It was the sales of the land that we were talking 

about in the act. 

Senator CRAIG. And, Bob, is that understood with BLM? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Let me take a look at that. OK, yes, that is true. 

It is the sale. 

21

Senator CRAIG. Dr. Wells, the administration testified it would 

like to clarify market value and modify the disposition of the net 

proceeds. Does the university see any problem with the changes 

proposed by BLM? 

Dr. WELLS. No. I think we could answer those very clearly. 

Senator CRAIG. Dr. Gallagher, the administration testified that it 

opposed this concept when it was proposed in the Clark County bill 

passed in 2002. Why was this not resolved in 2002 and why do you 

feel it can be now? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. The language in the 2002 bill, Mr. Chairman, 

was something of a surprise to us. The limitations on the property 

had not been discussed with us or with the staff in Washington 

that we were dealing with. Had they been apparent to us at that 

time, we would have made every effort to resolve them at that 

time. But because they are in the form that they are in, we have 

been working approximately the last year and a half to bring forward an alternative that would allow us to do at the park what we 

thought we were being allowed to do initially. 

Senator CRAIG. I think Bob referred a moment ago to values. The 

BLM now estimates the value of this 115 acres to be about $26 million, which would be quite a windfall for the research foundation. 

Although you indicate the foundation has no plan to sell the land, 

how would the foundation use the land to raise funds? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. A standard mechanism in the commercial markets is to ask a developer to bring what amounts to a down payment to the table. Often, for commercial developers, that down payment is the underlying value of the land. That land needs to available for lease in order for that mechanism to work. Under a circumstance like this, we would lease that ground to a third party, 

who would be one of our partners on the park. That third party 

would then bring to the table the rest of the funding to allow onsite development, off-site development, and the construction of facilities. Without the ability to lease that underlying ground, that 

mechanism does not work. 

This is particularly attractive to the university because as the 

owner of the underlying ground, as soon as the facility is completed, under Nevada law, it becomes our facility, and the tenant 

then continues to occupy the facility that, after all, they have built 

with their own money as our tenant. But after the end of that 

lease, not just the land reverts to us, but the facility also reverts 

to us. So it is, from our point of view, a terrific mechanism by 

which to develop a park such as this. 

Senator CRAIG. And you cannot leverage at this time based on 

the current law. That is the problem. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Correct. That is the problem. 

Senator CRAIG. Are there significant guarantees to ensure these 

lands only support research and funds would not be siphoned for 

other purposes? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. We would certainly not be opposed to language 

of that sort in the statute. It is clearly our intention, everything 

that we have ever written about this, every conversation we have 

ever had, and in fact, the entire purpose of the creation of the research park was to develop that entire 115 acres as a research entity and not to sell any of the property for other purposes. So everyVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:22 Sep 07, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\95432.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
22

thing that would happen out there, by the very conception of the 

enterprise, is to make it a research focused activity. 

Senator CRAIG. Do you know of any other university research 

parks where public lands was used for these purposes, or were they 

all private properties? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Several of the pieces in the University of North 

Carolina Research Triangle activities in that State were public/private partnerships. I do not know the specific manner in which 

those lands were assembled, however. I know that at any number 

of research parks around the country, State-owned property, not 

necessarily federally owned property, was used for these kind of 

purposes. It would not surprise me, quite frankly, sir, to know that 

they have been utilized in that fashion. I simply do not know of 

any cases. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, gentlemen, thank you very much for being 

willing to stay and respond to those questions. I do appreciate it. 

We will move as expeditiously as we can on these pieces of legislation, working cooperatively with all of you and, of course, BLM as 

we try to resolve some of these differences. I view them as relatively minor. At the same time, we are dealing with some highvalue properties here and recognize that value as it relates to properties of the United States. 

I am from a landlocked State myself and I also appreciate the 

frustrations that we go to in States like Idaho and Utah and Nevada when we are surrounded by Federal properties that limit our 

ability to do certain things. 

Thank you all very much, and the subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(23)

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, 

Washington, DC, July 26, 2004. 

Hon. LARRY E. CRAIG, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed are responses prepared by the Bureau of Land 

Management to questions submitted following the May 5, 2004, hearing on H.R. 

1658, S. 2285, S. 1521, S. 1826, and S. 2085. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material for the record. 

Sincerely, 

JANE M. LYDER, 

Legislative Counsel, 

Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs. 

[Enclosure.] 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CRAIG

Question 1. Can you give us estimated land values for the various bills being discussed today? 

Answer.

ESTIMATED LAND VALUES FOR PROPOSED CONVEYANCES 

Bill Location Acres Estimated 

Cost/Acre 

Total Estimated Cost 

S. 2285—Beaver 

County.

Beaver County, UT 1200 $500 $100,000

S. 1521—American 

Legion Post No. 22.

Pahrump, NV .......... 4.5 $174,000–

$260,000 

$766,656–

$1,149,984

S. 1826—Dandini 

Research Park.

Washoe County, NV 467 $100,000 $46,700,000

S. 2085—UNLV Research Foundation.Clark County, NV ... 115 $230,000 $26,450,000

1Land not in Federal ownership 

Question 2. Concerning the Minersville State Park in Utah, you testified that 

BLM recommends eliminating the reversionary clause and the requirement for Beaver County to repay the United States from sales of the land. Can you explain why 

and how this bill differs from other conveyances? 

Answer. The lands we are discussing were conveyed by patent to the county and 

subsequently the state over 40 years ago. The BLM does not own these lands and 

its only interest is in the current reversionary clause and subsurface estate (there 

is no mineral potential in this area). Our best estimate for land values in this area 

is less than $500 an acre. Given these facts and the continuing use of this area as 

a state park, it seems reasonable to work cooperatively with the local community 

to find a creative solution to managing the future of this local park. By allowing 

Beaver County to maintain proceeds from sales, there is the possibility of a revenue 

flow, albeit small, which would allow the county to maintain the park. A reversionary clause could reduce the incentive for the county to take possession of the 

24

park, and BLM is ill prepared to take responsibility for managing a small local park 

such as this should the land revert to federal ownership. 

Question 3. On S. 1521, has BLM had any discussion with the American Legion 

Post about its proposal to identify an alternate site? If the Post were to receive the 

land proposed, would it result in a land pattern that is less manageable for the 

BLM? 

Answer. The BLM Las Vegas Field Office has had several meetings with the 

American Legion Post to discuss possible alternatives to their proposal. The BLM 

would prefer to convey land identified for disposal in its land use plan, and we have 

worked closely with the American Legion in identifying an alternative site. We do 

not believe that the proposed conveyance will result in a land pattern that is less 

manageable for the BLM since the proposed property is an isolated tract of public 

land bordered on two sides by private land and by state route 160 on a third side. 

However, to complete the proposed conveyance, the BLM would require additional 

time to complete appropriate surveys, NEPA analysis, and clearances under other 

pertinent laws. We look forward to continuing to work with the American Legion 

Post to identify a suitable alternative site. 

Question 4. Both S. 1826 and S. 2085 provide the Nevada University’s authority 

to sell certain lands previously conveyed. One bill you support and one bill you oppose. Can you explain? 

Answer. S. 1826 maintains previous provisions that if the Board of Regents for 

the University sells any portion of the land that has been conveyed, the net proceeds 

will be paid to the Secretary of the Interior for use by the BLM in Nevada. The 

provision related to the sale of the conveyed land is distinctly different than the provision in S. 2085, which would provide the University Research Foundation with all 

proceeds from the sale of the federal lands in question. The lands considered in S. 

2085 also fall within the larger framework of the Southern Nevada Public Lands 

Management Act, which established public policy comprehensively on the distribution of funds from public land sales in Clark County. The Southern Nevada Lands 

Management Act and the Clark County Act were carefully crafted to assure that 

land sales and the disbursement of the proceeds would meet the demands for community growth, economic development and the conservation of environmentally sensitive lands in Clark County and elsewhere in Nevada. 

Question 5. In S. 1826, you stated BLM would like to make ‘‘technical corrections’’ 

to clarify the ‘‘market value’’ and modify the disposition of ‘‘net proceeds.’’ Can you 

explain what is needed to clarify this language? 

Answer. The BLM suggests that the following technical corrections be made to S. 

1826 to add specificity to the conveyance and to ensure that the Federal government 

is appropriately compensated for any public lands conveyed by the Board of Regents. 

The technical corrections are in italic:

Sec. 2(a)(1) ‘‘The Secretary shall convey to the Board of Regents, without consideration all remaining right, title and interest of the United States in and to 

the approximately 467 acres of land located in Washoe County, Nevada, formerly patented to the Board of Regents . . . .’’

Sec. 2(c)(1) ‘‘the amount of consideration for the sale shall reflect fair market 

value, at the time of sale, as determined by an appraisal; and 

Sec. 2(c)(2) ‘‘the Board of Regents shall pay to the Secretary an amount equal 

to the net proceeds, remaining after reimbursement of associated conveyance 

costs of the sale, to be deposited in a special account in the Treasury of the 

United States to be made available for use by the Director of the Bureau of 

Land Management in the State of Nevada, without further appropriation.’’

Question 6. You testified the Administration opposes S. 2085. Doesn’t this bill in 

essence provide additional lands to what has already been provided for land grant 

schools in Nevada? 

Answer. No. S. 2085 does not provide additional lands to what has already been 

provided for land grant schools in Nevada. These lands were conveyed to the Department of Aviation under the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. 

The Clark County Act subsequently provided for the conveyance of 115 acres of 

these lands from the Department of Aviation to the University of Nevada at Las 

Vegas Research Foundation. S. 2085 amends the Clark County Act by allowing all 

proceeds from the sale or lease of lands conveyed to the UNLV Research Foundation 

to go directly to the Foundation, rather than distributed under the framework established in the Clark County Act. 

Question 7. Do you see a workable alternative to the approach proposed in the 

bill? 

Answer. The Administration opposes S. 2085. Both the Southern Nevada Lands 

Management Act and the Clark County Act were carefully crafted to assure that 

25

land sales and the disbursement of the proceeds would meet the demands of community growth, economic development and the conservation of environmentally sensitive lands in Clark County and elsewhere in Nevada. The decisions concerning the 

expenditure of the proceeds realized from sales of land under those laws are developed through a process that includes considerable public involvement. S. 2085 instead earmarks a significant portion of these receipts for a single entity. This is contrary to the public process provided for in SNPLMA, which allows for a balancing 

of priorities among many competing interests. 

Question 8. My colleagues from Alaska have tried for several years to have BLM 

lands conveyed to expand Alaska’s land grant school land base. I’m sure I can find 

lands in Idaho that well serve the same purpose. Why has this administration and 

previous administrations been unwilling to support expanding land grants? 

Answer. The BLM is not categorically unwilling to support expanding land grants. 

Individual proposals are weighed on their own merits and determinations are made 

on associated benefits to local communities, residents and a multitude of other factors. The BLM will continue to work closely with local communities and the Congress on future proposals. 

DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, 

Reno, NV, July 28, 2004. 

Hon. LARRY E. CRAIG, 

Subcommittee Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR CRAIG: We are pleased to offer the following responses to the list 

of questions regarding S. 1826 forwarded in your correspondence dated June 25, 

2004. 

Question 1. In your testimony you spoke to the fact that the University has already had one piece of legislation passed with the intent of solving this problem. 

Are you confident that now we have legislation that will provide the University 

what it needs to manage and develop these lands? 

Answer. We are confident that the legislation, as introduced, will allow the University to manage, develop and lease the subject land parcels. 

Question 2. The Administration testified it would like to clarify ‘‘market value’’ 

and modify the disposition of the ‘‘net proceeds’’. Does the University see any problems with the changes proposed by the BLM? 

Answer. We see no problem in concept, although we have not seen the language 

proposed by the Administration. Our understanding of ‘‘market value’’ is the appraised value at the time of sale. We understand that the disposition of the ‘‘net 

proceeds’’ means the return of the net proceeds from the sale of the land to the BLM 

for use in the State of Nevada. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to comment and respond to these questions. 

Sincerely, 

STEPHEN G. WELLS, 

President.

Æ