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

90-750 PS 2004

DISPENSATION OF FUNDS FROM 

THE SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, 

AND PUBLIC LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, December 4, 2003, in Las Vegas, Nevada

Serial No. 108-79

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

An ́ıbal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex 

officiotripp 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on Thursday, December 4, 2003 ...................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Nevada ........................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Porter, Hon. Jon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada, 

Prepared statement of .................................................................................. 56

Statement of Witnesses: 

Abbey, Robert V., Nevada State Director, Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................................. 43

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45

Carpenter, Hon. John C., Nevada State Assembly, District 33, Elko, 

Nevada ........................................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Decker, Donald J., Managing Member, Century Gold, LLC., Spring Creek, 

Nevada ........................................................................................................... 37

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39

Ellison, Hon. John, Commissioner, Elko County Board of Commissioners, 

Elko, Nevada, Prepared statement of ......................................................... 26

Goicoechea, Hon. Pete J., Nevada State Assembly, District 35, Eureka, 

Nevada ........................................................................................................... 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Johnson, Freeman K., Assistant Director, Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources, State of Nevada .................................................... 19

Nannini, Hon. Mike, Commissioner, Elko County Board of 

Commissioners, Elko, Nevada ...................................................................... 16

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18

Roberts, Dr. William E., Superintendent, Nye County School District, 

Pahrump, Nevada ......................................................................................... 24

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25

Rulffes, Dr. Walt, Deputy Superintendent/CFO, Clark County School 

District, Clark County, Nevada ................................................................... 22

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23

Trippet, Larie, President, Dust Devils Motorcycle Club, and Member, 

Northwest Sierra Front Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, 

Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada ............................................. 33

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35

Additional materials supplied: 

Guinn, Hon. Kenny C., Governor, State of Nevada, Statement submitted 

for the record ................................................................................................. 21

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘THE DISPENSATION OF FUNDS FROM THE SOUTHERN 

NEVADA PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT 

ACT’’

Thursday, December 4, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands 

Committee on Resources 

Las Vegas, Nevada 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in the 

Clark County Commission Chambers, Las Vegas, Nevada, Hon. 

Jim Gibbons presiding. 

Present: Representative Gibbons. 

Mr. GIBBONS. I would like to administer the oath because this is 

something that the Committee requires us to do, an oath before 

you give your testimony. So if you will all stand and raise your 

right hand. We will assume that Mr. Rulffes, when he gets here, 

will also take the oath. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Mr. GIBBONS. Let the record show that each of the Panel 1 witnesses have affirmed to the oath. 

Let me begin just by kind of setting the format and the rules for 

testimony here today. First of all, we are going to have some little 

timing lights because we have a number of witnesses and we want 

the full testimony of all of the witnesses to get in; however, we try 

to limit opening remarks to five minutes. Your full written testimony will be submitted for the record, so you may feel free to summarize what you want to say when you get here. That way, we will 

have some time to ask questions of the witnesses in each of the 

panels as well. 

But the lights you see here, you will have a green light which 

means go. You will have a yellow light which gives you one minute 

to sum up and then a red light that says your five minutes is up. 

Try, try to be within the five minutes just out of courtesy to everybody else. Now, I am not going to cut you off. You may talk until 

I assume that you are going to go close to 10 minutes and then I 

am going to cut you off, OK. I will be generous because my opening 

statement is something more than five minutes. But what we all 

2

have to say here today is critically important. It is important for 

the State of Nevada, it is important for the people of this county 

and the future, I think, of the children in this great state. 

I want to thank all of you, especially all of the witnesses today, 

for attending this important hearing. This is the House Resources 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands and 

the hearing we are having today is the Dispensation of Funds from 

the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. 

Now, I want to commend Senator Richard Bryan—former 

Senator Richard Bryan—and Senator John Ensign for their hard 

work in creating the original Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act legislation. It was a compromise bill, which I supported, and one which clearly put in place a mechanism to help address the demands on the enormous growth here in Clark County. 

Given my support of this Act, I am here to say that in my opinion 

the time has come to modernize the Southern Nevada Public Lands 

Management Act by amending it to reflect the current demands on 

the infrastructure of our great state. 

I want to consider these facts before we begin. Since 1998, approximately 5600 acres of public land in Clark County have been 

sold under that Act to accommodate the growth needs here in 

Clark County. Now these sales have rewarded the Federal Government with more than $690 million in revenue. Of that 690 million, 

85 percent goes back to the Federal Government for purposes 

which I will be able to discuss shortly; however, 10 percent goes to 

Southern Nevada Water Authority for our water infrastructure 

needs. And finally, the remaining 5 percent—yes, only 5 percent— goes to help fund our educational needs in Nevada. 

Now before we begin discussing the educational needs of our 

State, such as the needs for new schools, higher salaries for our 

teachers so we can recruit and hire the best and brightest, and new 

textbooks for our schoolchildren, let us look at what 85 percent of 

the $690 million is being used for. The revenues gained by the 

Federal Government under this Act are used to purchase more 

land in Nevada across the State. They are used to support wildlife 

and to care for existing public lands, parks and trails located exclusively here in Clark County. 

Now since 1998 the Federal Government has sold off, as I said 

earlier, 5600 acres. Unfortunately, in the same time frame the 

Federal Government has crisscrossed Nevada acquiring 156 square 

miles of Nevada. That is about 105,000 acres of land. That means 

that they have got a net gain of about 100,000 acres for the government. 

Ladies and gentlemen, that brings me to my first question, one 

which I am going to submit to you, and that is, what is the benefit 

to Nevada having more and more of its land owned and regulated 

by the Federal Government? Representing every county in Nevada 

keeps me busy. Traveling throughout the State, I have the opportunity, and actually the pleasure, to hear from a lot of Nevadans. 

Since first being elected to Congress in 1996, no single issue has 

generated more interest, more commentary and more passion from 

those that I meet than the enormous stake the Federal Government in our state has. Right now the Federal Government controls 

nearly 87 percent of Nevada. I am often asked by my colleagues in 

3

Washington, well what kind of a neighbor is the Federal Government, and I am forced to tell them, the Federal Government is not 

our neighbor, it owns the neighborhood that we live in. It is the 

landlord surrounding all of us. 

Now I understand and appreciate the fact that the original legislation placed emphasis on the Federal Government using the revenues from these sales to acquire environmentally sensitive lands in 

Clark County. And it did emphasize that the acquisitions did occur 

predominately in Clark County. 

Well this leads me to the next question that we all must be asking. Why should we assume that the Federal Government can do 

a better job than the gentlemen sitting here in front of us or the 

people in the State or the State of Nevada in caring for its own 

lands? I do not argue that we have some environmentally sensitive 

lands throughout the State of Nevada. 

Environmental groups visit my office quite regularly. They are 

always equipped with proposals and maps depicting areas they 

deem to be sensitive areas. I oftentimes have to disagree with their 

proposals, because unlike many of these groups, I spend a lot of 

time with my family hiking, camping, hunting and enjoying the 

natural wonders of the State. And sometimes I want to protect 

more of Nevada land than the environmental groups do. But that 

certainly does not lead me to think that we ought to hand control 

of those lands over to the Federal Government for what we are told 

is protection. I guess the difference between me and some of these 

environmental groups is, I just have far greater confidence, far 

greater respect for local control and the ability of the people and 

the State of Nevada to take care of its own land. As a lifelong resident, I refuse to subscribe to the premise that Federal ownership 

constitutes better care for our state lands. 

Now I am sure that the folks who reside in California will say 

they believe Lake Arrowhead was worthy of protection, but under 

Lake Arrowhead’s ‘‘Federal protection,’’ locals were not allowed to 

thin surrounding forest lands and the underbrush and the Federal 

Government refused to do it, could not do, would not do it. And 

tragically we saw what happened—91,000 acres of fire severely environmentally impacted—or destroyed—were destroyed by fire. Excuse me. And severe environmental impact on air quality, water 

quality and wildlife. Homes were destroyed, property destroyed, 

lives were destroyed, all at the cost of more than $42 million. And 

a few years back, a Federal managed controlled burn in New Mexico got out of hand ending up burning some 48,000 acres of the 

Santa Fe National Forest causing nearly $1 billion in damage. 

Now, I believe that our local BLM under Bob Abbey—and he is 

here and he will testify today—do an outstanding job with the people and the resources they have. But I think the amount of territory that they have under their portfolio today is so extensive that 

they are limited by the number of people and the amount of resources to properly care for it. And given my serious concerns over 

the amount of land the Federal Government continues to acquire 

in Nevada, I will be proposing an amendment to this Southern 

Nevada Public Lands Management Act that will modify the allocations of dollars received from future land sales in Clark County. 

4

Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come to begin placing a 

higher emphasis on Nevada needs and a bit less on the desires of 

the Federal Government. The amendment I will be introducing 

next year will do two things. First, it will seek to adjust the 85 percent allocation that the Federal Government currently receives 

down to 55 percent. Again, these funds are currently used to purchase and acquire significantly greater allotments of land in 

Nevada than the Federal Government is actually selling off. 

Now if you will look at this bill—just another piece of trivia. 

About 4400 acres were acquired in Clark County, 5600 acres were 

sold off in Clark County, 100,000 acres were acquired outside of 

Clark County. So there is a bit of a difference here in how the 

money is being allocated. All I want to ask is that in the future 

land acquisitions take place in Clark County as required under this 

Act. This Act as written and carried out today, the money is used 

for upkeep and maintenance of existing public lands as currently 

kept in Clark County to address and meet their needs and the public land demands here in Clark County. 

So I guess the question is, why use the money to purchase more 

lands around the State without giving the Federal Government a 

revenue stream to maintain the lands newly acquired from the 

monies generated by this Act? The 30 percent that is taken from 

the Federal Government’s coffers will instead go to Nevada’s most 

pressing need, and that is educating our children. 

Consider these numbers. Under the Southern Nevada Public 

Land Act today, the State of Nevada has received about $29 million 

toward our education needs over the last four years. That money 

goes into a restricted trust account that is not allowed to be 

touched except for the interest earned on that money. So it is protected and used only sparingly. 

If the original formula that I have proposed would have been in this Act, the State education would have received well over $240 

million. So each year we would have been getting instead of 

$4 million, somewhere in the neighborhood of about $32 million a 

year, which would make a significant difference every year in the 

education of our kids, especially when you start looking at the infrastructure needs. I think this is significant funding for our 

schools and educators. Think of it this way, if the government is 

selling small parcels of land in Clark County, then going out and 

acquiring enormous chunks of land in our rural counties, what does 

that do to our rural counties? Some of these rural counties already 

have 90 to 98 percent federally owned and managed, and when you 

take the very little taxable private property they have off the taxpayer rolls, how will you then pay for their schools? How will you 

then pay for their teachers and their textbooks and the education 

of their children like you pay for here in southern Nevada? 

Now I doubt anyone can argue that enabling the Federal Government to purchase more land in Nevada when they already have 90 

percent of our state is more important than the education of our 

children. Under my proposal, Federal land managers will still have 

hundreds of millions of dollars to do the important environmental 

upkeep and oversight in Nevada. It is my hope that the Federal 

Government can then prioritize the use of their stake from the 

Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act and utilize it by 

5

maintaining our existing public lands in Nevada rather than acquiring more. Since 1998 under this Act the Federal Government 

has experienced a net gain, as I said earlier, of about 156 square 

miles of Nevada lands. To put that into perspective, that is about 

the same size as the Las Vegas Valley here. You can understand 

that taking that much out of taxpayer rolls in some of these smaller counties is a tremendous burden on these small counties. 

Clearly—and I mean this—clearly we need to revisit this legislation so we can do better to address Nevada’s growing needs. I will 

leave to each of the witnesses, who I thank for taking their time 

from their busy schedule to be here today, this simple question for 

you. How does increasing Federal ownership of Nevada lands help 

Nevada’s schoolchildren and their educational needs? And if you 

believe that the education of our children is not as important as 

supplying water to these communities and if you believe education 

of our children is not as important as protecting the environment, 

I would like you to tell me why you think so. 

We have a growing State, we have growing problems which include families with children who are seeking the best education 

possible. We have added 27,000 additional children this year who 

were not here last year. We have built 65 new schools here in 

Clark County alone since the enactment of this legislation, and the 

Federal Government is taking control of more land and reducing 

the taxpayers’ capability of paying for those schools and that education. 

So I submit to this Committee and to all Nevadans that educating our children should be our first priority rather than allowing 

the Federal Government to further control this state we love and 

we all call home. 

I will conclude by saying under my proposal we can still accomplish our capital improvements. We can still accomplish funding 

our parks, our trails and protecting natural areas that we deem so 

important. We can still accomplish our conservation initiatives. We 

can still accomplish the acquisitions of land under the BurtonSantini Act and we can still accomplish our multi-species habitat 

conservation plans. Each of those efforts and their funding would 

not be affected if we simply concluded that $207 million used for 

acquisition of more lands can be significantly reduced and put into 

education. This is not a choice, ladies and gentlemen, between educating our children or protecting the environment and beauty of 

Nevada. We can, and we should, do both. 

With that, I will end my statement.

Statement of The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Nevada 

Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for attending this important congressional 

hearing today to discuss the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act of 

1998—both where we have come since its enactment, and where we want to go. 

First, I would like to commend former Senator Richard Bryan and Senator John 

Ensign for their hard work in creating this legislation. It was a compromise bill—

which I supported—and one that clearly put in place a mechanism to help address 

the demands of our enormous growth here in Clark County. 

Given my support of this Act, I am here to say that, in my opinion, the time has 

come to modernize the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act by amending it to reflect the current demands of our great State. 

Consider these facts: 

6

Since 1998, approximately 5,600 acres of public lands in Clark County have been 

sold under the SNPLMA to accommodate our growth needs. 

These sales have awarded the federal government with more than $690 million 

in revenue. 

Of that $690 million, 85 percent goes back to the federal government for purposes 

I’ll discuss shortly. 

Another 10 percent goes to the Southern Nevada Water Authority for our water 

infrastructure needs. And finally, the remaining 5 percent—ONLY FIVE PERCENT—goes to help fund our education needs in Nevada. 

Now, before discussing the education needs of our State, such as the need for new 

schools, higher salaries for our teachers, so we can recruit and hire the best and 

brightest, and new textbooks for our schoolchildren, let’s look at what the 85 percent 

of the $690 million is being used for. 

The revenues gained by the federal government under this Act are used to purchase more of Nevada’s land across the State, support wildlife, and to care for existing public lands, parks and trails located exclusively in Clark County. 

Again, since 1998, the federal government has sold off approximately 5,600 acres 

of land. 

Unfortunately, however, in that same time frame, the federal government has 

crisscrossed Nevada and acquired 105,000 ACRES of land—a net gain of more than 

100,000 acres for the federal government. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, this brings me to the first question for this Committee and 

the residents of Nevada to consider: What is the benefit to Nevadans in having more 

and more and more of our land owned and managed by the federal government? 

Now, representing every county in Nevada keeps me busy traveling throughout 

this great State so that I can hear from my fellow Nevadans. 

Since first being elected to Congress in 1996, no single issue has generated more 

interest, commentary and passion from those I meet with than the enormous stake 

the federal government has on our State. 

Right now, the federal government manages nearly 87 percent of Nevada. 

I’m often questioned by my colleagues in Congress as to what kind of neighbor 

the federal government is with Nevadans. 

I tell them that the federal government is not our neighbor—the federal government owns THE NEIGHBORHOOD!!! 

Now I understand and appreciate the fact that the original legislation placed emphasis on the federal government using the revenue from these sales to acquire ‘‘environmentally sensitive’’ lands. 

The legislation also emphasized that these acquisitions should occur predominately in Clark County. 

Well, that leads me to the next question: Why should we assume that the federal 

government does a better job caring for Nevada’s lands than Nevadans? 

I don’t argue that we have some environmentally sensitive lands throughout this 

State. Environmental groups visit my office quite regularly, equipped with maps depicting areas they deem to be sensitive lands. 

I often disagree with their maps because unlike many of these groups, I spend 

time on the ground in Nevada. I drive throughout our State—I hike, camp, hunt 

and take my kids out to enjoy the natural wonders of this State. 

Sometimes, I want to protect more of our Nevada land than the environmental 

groups do! But that certainly doesn’t lead me to think that we ought to hand control 

of those lands over to the federal government for what we are told is ‘‘protection.’’

I guess the difference between me and some of these so-called environmentalists 

is that I have more respect for local control and for the ability of Nevada to take 

care of its own land. 

As a life-long resident of Nevada, I refuse to subscribe to the premise that federal 

ownership constitutes better care for our State’s lands. 

I’m sure the folks who reside in California will say that they believe Lake Arrowhead was worthy of protection. But under Lake Arrowhead’s ‘‘Federal’’ protection—

locals were not allowed to thin surrounding forestland and underbrush—and the 

federal government refused to do it. And, tragically, we saw what happened. 

Over 91,000 acres destroyed by fire, severe environmental impact on air quality, 

water quality and wildlife—homes destroyed, property destroyed and lives destroyed—all at a cost of more that $42 MILLION!!! 

A few years back, a federally managed controlled burn in New Mexico got out of 

control, ended up burning some 48,000 acres of the Santa Fe National Forest, causing nearly $1 BILLION in damage! 

Now, I believe our local BLM under Bob Abbey often does the best they can, given 

their resources and manpower. But our resources—Nevada’s resources—which inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:31 May 28, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\90750.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
7

clude our citizens and our land—do not need that much oversight by the federal 

government. 

And given my serious concerns over the amount of land the federal government 

continues to acquire in Nevada, I will be proposing an amendment to the SNPLMA 

that will modify the allocations of dollars received from future lands sales in Clark 

County. 

The time has come to begin placing a higher emphasis on Nevada’s needs, and 

a bit less on the federal government’s desires. 

The amendment I will be introducing early next year will do two things. First, 

it will seek to adjust the 85 percent revenue allocation that the federal government 

currently receives to 55 percent. 

Again, these funds are currently used to purchase and acquire significantly greater allotments of land in Nevada than the federal government is actually selling off. 

Second, I will ask that ALL future land acquisition take place solely in Clark 

County. 

Again, as the Act is written and carried out to this day, the monies used for upkeep and maintenance of existing public lands is currently kept in Clark County to 

address their public lands’ needs. 

So why use the money to purchase more land around the State—without giving 

the federal government a revenue stream to maintain the lands newly acquired from 

the monies generated by this Act? 

The 30 percent that is taken from the federal government’s coffers will instead 

go to help fund Nevada’s most pressing need—our education system. 

Consider these numbers: 

Under the SNPLMA today, the State of Nevada has received approximately $30 

million towards our education needs over the last four years. 

If the original formula reflected the changes I hope to make in this Act, our State 

education would have received well over $240 MILLION! 

Folks, this is significant funding for our schools and educators. 

Think of it this way: The federal government is selling small parcels of land in 

Clark County, then going out and acquiring enormous chunks of land in our rural 

counties. 

Some of these rural counties are already 90 to 98 percent federally owned and 

managed. 

When you take the very little taxable property they have left off the property tax 

rolls, how will you then pay for THEIR schools, THEIR teacher salaries, and THEIR 

textbooks? 

Now, I doubt anyone can argue that enabling the federal government to purchase 

more land in Nevada—when they already have nearly 90 percent of our State—is 

more important than our children’s education. 

Under my proposal, federal land managers will still have hundreds of millions of 

dollars to do important environmental upkeep and oversight in Nevada. 

It is my hope that the federal government can then prioritize the use of their take 

from the SNPLMA, and utilize it by maintaining our existing public lands in 

Nevada, rather than acquiring more. 

Since 1998, under this Act, the federal government has experienced a net gain of 

approximately 100,000 acres of Nevada’s land. That’s one hell of a deal for the BLM, 

don’t you think? 

Clearly—CLEARLY we need to revisit this legislation so that we can better address Nevada’s growing needs. 

And I’ll leave each of the witnesses—who I thank for taking time from their busy 

schedules to be here today—with this simple question: How does increased federal 

ownership of Nevada help Nevada’s schoolchildren and their education needs? 

We have a growing State. We have a growing population, which includes families 

with children—who are seeking the best education possible for their children. 

We have 27,000 kids in school this year who were not here last year. We have 

65 new schools in Clark County alone since enactment of the SNPLMA. 

And the federal government is taking control of more and more of our land. 

I submit to this Committee—and to all Nevadans—that educating our children 

should be our FIRST priority—- rather than allowing the federal government to 

take further control of this state we love—and that we call home. 

I’ll conclude by saying that under my proposal, we can still accomplish our capital 

improvements. We can still accomplish funding our parks, trails and natural areas. 

We can still accomplish our conservation initiatives. We can still accomplish the acquisitions under Burton-Santini. And, we can still accomplish our multi-species 

habitat conservations plans. 

8

Each of those efforts and their funding would not be affected if we simply conclude that the $207 MILLION used for acquisitions of Nevada’s land since 1998 can 

be significantly reduced. 

This is not a choice between educating our children or protecting Nevada’s environment and natural beauty. We can and should do both. 

Mr. GIBBONS.Let me also remind that all witnesses here today 

will be asked to provide written testimony and all witnesses who 

want to submit written testimony may do so for this Committee. 

It will remain open for approximately 10 days, within which you 

can submit any written testimony for those of you that are not 

speaking orally here today. 

We also are going to ask questions to each of you, and we will 

at the end of each panel, probably because of the testimony that 

will be generated here today, have additional questions that we 

will submit to you in writing and ask that you get back to us within the 10-day period as well. So those will be in addition to the oral 

questions that you may get asked here today. 

Let me say and introduce the first panel for everybody. We have 

with us an extra person who is not listed on your rolls, and that 

is Commissioner John Ellison from Elko County. He is here as a 

witness. He is going to submit his testimony for the record, but we 

will ask questions of John and the other members from Elko. We 

have also the Honorable John C. Carpenter, Nevada State Assembly, District 33, from Elko County. We have Mr. Pete Goicoechea, 

Nevada State Assembly from District 35, that is Eureka, Nevada, 

and a whole lot of other places in Nevada. We have the Honorable 

Mike Nannini, who is a County Commissioner from Elko, Nevada, 

as well. We have Mr. Freeman Johnson, Assistant Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources from the State of 

Nevada. We have Dr. Walt Rulffes. He is the Deputy Superintendent/CFO from Clark County School District; and we have Dr. 

William Roberts, Superintendent, Nye County School District from 

Pahrump, Nevada. 

What I will do is start on my left, your right, and work our way 

down the line. So we will start with Mr. Carpenter. John, the floor 

is yours. Welcome. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN C. CARPENTER, 

NEVADA STATE ASSEMBLY, DISTRICT 33, ELKO, NEVADA 

Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John 

Carpenter, I am a member of the Nevada State Legislature having 

served for 17 years. My Assembly District covers all of Elko County 

and the northern part of Humboldt County. I was also a member 

of the Elko County Commission for 14 years and served as Chairman for four years. 

I am here today to discuss an important and contentious issue 

for rural Nevada. We all know that with the huge amount of money 

being generated by the sale of BLM land in southern Nevada and 

the subsequent purchase of private land in Elko and Humboldt 

Counties we are facing a huge dilemma. Loss of mining, loss of 

livestock production, loss of tax base, loss of economic value, loss 

of proper husbandry on lands purchased and loss of our rural culture and way of life are just a few of the reasons we believe the 

9

Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act needs to be 

amended. 

The latest poll distributed by the Elko Daily Free Press in April 

2003 shows overwhelming opposition to the Federal Government 

purchasing more land. Two of the questions were especially telling. 

One question was, should the government be buying or selling land 

in Nevada? Eleven percent were in favor of the Federal Government buying land but 89 percent said the government should be 

selling its land. Another question was, should local governments 

support or oppose the Federal Government in purchasing more 

land in Nevada? Eighty-seven percent said that local government 

should oppose the Federal Government land purchase. Only 13 percent said that local government should support the land purchases. 

Along with my testimony I offer Senate Joint Resolution 2 of the 

last session of the Nevada Legislature which passed both houses of 

the Legislature by unanimous vote. SJR2 asks for the Southern 

Nevada Public Lands Management Act to be amended to use some 

of the monies for water development on public lands, which goes 

right along for the resolution from the Nevada cattlemen which 

asks for the amendment of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act to allow for a more constructive use of funds generated to include maintenance of purchased properties and by improving lands already in the public domain. 

Some would say local government should not interfere when a 

person wants to sell their land to the government. I submit to you 

the local government has every right to interfere when their tax 

base is reduced, productivity of the land is diminished and the 

Federal Government is able to exert more control over the citizens 

of the county. 

The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act as now 

being administered makes for a speculator’s paradise. Speculators 

are purchasing property at market value, or a little over, and then 

trying to sell it to the government for a ridiculous sum. Amending 

the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act to provide for 

use of money for improvement and rehabilitation of existing lands, 

using a greater percentage for existing infrastructure in Clark 

County and using at least 50 percent for public schools in Nevada 

will eliminate speculation, stabilize rural counties, improve Clark 

County and help our schoolchildren. None should be used to purchase more private land. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify. I will be happy to answer 

any questions. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. 

We will turn now to Assemblyman Goicoechea. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carpenter follows:]

Statement of John C. Carpenter, Assemblyman,

District 33 Nevada State Legislature 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

My name is John Carpenter. I am a member of the Nevada State Legislature, 

having served for 17 years. My Assembly District covers all of Elko County and the 

northern part of Humboldt County. I was also a member of the Elko County Commission for 14 years and served as Chairman for four years. 

I am here today to discuss an important and contentious issue for rural Nevada. 

We all know that with the huge amount of money being generated by the sale of 

BLM land in southern Nevada, and the subsequent purchase of private land in Elko 

10

and Humboldt Counties, we are facing a huge dilemma. Loss of mining, loss of livestock production, loss of tax base, loss of economic value, loss of proper husbandry 

on lands purchased, and loss of our rural culture and way of life are just a few of 

the reasons we believe the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act needs 

to be amended. 

The latest poll distributed by the Elko Daily Free Press in April 2003 shows overwhelming opposition to the federal government purchasing more land. Two of the 

questions were especially telling: 

One question was, ‘‘Should the government be buying or selling land in 

Nevada?’’ 11 percent were in favor of the federal government buying land, 

but 89 percent said the government should be selling its land. 

Another question was, ‘‘Should local government support or oppose the 

federal government in purchasing more land in Nevada?’’ 87 percent said 

that the local government should oppose federal government land purchases. Only 13 percent said the local government should support the land 

purchases. 

Along with my testimony, I offer Senate Joint Resolution 2 of the last session of 

the Nevada Legislature which passed both houses of the Legislature by a unanimous vote. S.J.R. 2 asks for the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act 

(SNPLMA) to be amended so as to use some of the monies for water development 

on public lands, which goes right along with the resolution from the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association which asks for the amendment of SNPLMA to allow for more constructive use of funds generated to include maintenance of purchased properties and 

by improving lands already in the public domain. 

Some would say local government should not interfere when a person wants to 

sell their land to the government. I submit to you the local government has every 

right to interfere when their tax base is reduced, productivity of the land is diminished, and the federal government is able to exert more control over the citizens of 

the county. 

SNPLMA as now being administered makes for a speculators’ paradise. Speculators are purchasing property at market value or a little over and then trying to 

sell it to the government for a ridiculous sum. 

Amending the SNPLMA to provide for use of money for improvement and rehabilitation of existing lands, using a greater percentage for existing infrastructure in 

Clark County, and using at least 50 percent for public schools in Nevada will eliminate speculation, stabilize rural counties, improve Clark County, and help our 

schoolchildren. None should be used to purchase private land. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify and I will be happy to answer any questions. 

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2—COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION—Urging the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture and Congress to take certain actions concerning expenditures 

of money for restoration of and water developments on the public lands in Nevada. 

WHEREAS, In recent years, wildfires have caused extensive damage to the public 

lands of this state by destroying thousands of acres of public lands used for economic, wildlife and recreational purposes, and have increased the threat of infestation of exotic annual grasses and noxious weeds which may, if not contro1led, cause 

further degradation of the lands, deterioration of wildlife habitat, erosion, and diminished water quality; and 

WHEREAS, Responsible management and preservation of the public lands of this 

state require restoration of the public lands through various means, including, without 1imitation, reseeding, planting indigenous grasses and shrubs, combating exotic 

annual grasses and noxious weeds and reducing the encroachment or density of certain plants for purposes of fire suppression; and 

WHEREAS, Because of a lack of adequate water developments on the public lands 

of this State, wildlife and livestock on those public lands have been forced to concentrate near the limited number of water developments thus jeopardizing the ecological health of the public lands; and 

WHEREAS, Responsible management and preservation of the public lands of this 

state require increasing the number of water developments on the public lands of 

this state so that the wildlife and livestock on those public lands will be properly 

dispersed; and 

WHEREAS, Proper management and preservation of the public lands and waters 

of this state are critical as these lands support a wide variety of vital activities that 

are integral to the economic success and enjoyment of the natural resources of this 

State, including ranching, mining and recreation, and are a unique and important 

11

historical, cultural, and environmental resource that must be maintained and preserved for the use and appreciation of current and future Nevadans; and 

WHEREAS, The continued economic success of this State, existence of wildlife diversity in this state and enjoyment derived from the natural resources of this state 

depend on the maintenance of healthy ecosystems within the public lands and waters of this State; and 

WHEREAS, The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Pub. L. 

105-263, 112 Stat. 2343, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to expend a portion 

of the proceeds of the sale or exchange of certain public lands in Clark County for 

conservation initiatives on certain public lands in Clark County; and 

WHEREAS, It would greatly benefit and protect the ecosystems on the public 

lands In Clark County if the Secretary of the Interior expended the money authorized for such conservation initiatives to pay for restoration of and water developments on certain public lands in Clark County; and 

WHEREAS, The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, 43 U.S.C. 2301 et 

seq., which addresses the sale or exchange of public lands in areas other than certain public lands in Clark County, requires the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture to use the proceeds of such sales or exchanges for certain 

purposes, but the Act does not specifically designate any money for restoration of 

and water developments on the public lands in the areas in which the sales or exchanges occurred; and 

WHEREAS, It would greatly benefit and protect the ecosystems on the public 

lands in the areas of this state where public lands are sold or exchanged pursuant 

to the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, 43 U.S.C. 2301 et seq., if the Act 

authorized the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to expend 

a portion of the proceeds obtained from such sales or exchanges for restoration of 

and water developments on the public lands in those areas; now, therefore, be it 

RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

JOINTLY, That the members of the Nevada Legislature hereby urge the Secretary 

of the Interior to expend the money authorized pursuant to the Southern Nevada 

Public Land Management Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-263, 112 Stat. 2343, for conservation initiatives on certain public lands in Clark County to pay for restoration of and 

water developments on such public lands in Clark County; and be it further 

RESOLVED, That the members of the Nevada Legislature hereby urge Congress 

to amend the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, 43 U.S.C. 2301 et seq. to 

authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to expend 

money obtained pursuant to the Act to pay for restoration of and water developments on the public lands in the areas of Nevada where public lands are sold or 

exchanged pursuant to the Act; and be it further 

RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Senate prepare and transmit a copy of this 

resolution to the Vice President of the United States as the presiding officer of the 

United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Secretary 

of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Director of the Bureau of Land 

Management, and each member of the Nevada Congressional Delegation; and be it 

further 

RESOLVED, That this resolution becomes effective upon passage. 

Resolution 3

Private Land and Environmental Management 

NEVADA CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION

NEVADA WOOLGROWERS ASSOCIATION

JOINT CONVENTION

RENO, NEVADA

NOVEMBER 21, 2003

WHEREAS, The Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) has, 

through the sale of public lands in the Las Vegas Valley, the ability to generate an 

enormous amount of money; and 

WHEREAS, Proposals for the use of that money for the purchase of private lands 

in Northern Nevada have included parcels priced at many times market value; and 

WHEREAS, Such pricing and resulting sales even greatly discounted will have a 

inflationary and destabilizing effect upon all private land in Nevada; and 

12

WHEREAS, Because SNPLMA monies can be used for acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands, rather than for restoration, private parcels in need of crucial restoration are not practically eligible for consideration under the Act; and 

WHEREAS, the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association and Nevada WoolGrowers Association support a no net loss of private land policy, 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association and the 

Nevada WoolGrowers Association urge for the amendment of the SNPLMA in order 

to alleviate the destabilizing effects of the current Act, by paying fair market value 

for acquired lands. 

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association and WoolGrowers Association urge for the amendment of the SNPLMA to 

allow for more constructive use of funds generated to include the maintenance of 

purchased properties and by improving lands already in the public domain.

Directed to: 

Nevada’s Congressional Delegation 

The SNPLMA Working Group 

The SNPLMA Governing Board 

Governor Guinn 

Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) 

All County Commissioners 

RAC 

[An attachment to Mr. Carpenter’s statement follows:]

13


90750.001
14

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETE J. GOICOECHEA, 

NEVADA STATE ASSEMBLY, DISTRICT 35, EUREKA, NEVADA 

Mr. GOICOECHEA. Good morning, Chairman Gibbons, and I will 

address the balance of the members of the Committee as they will 

be reading this record. For the record, I am Assemblyman Pete 

Goicoechea. I was a county commissioner for Eureka County for 16 

years, now serving in the Legislature representing Assembly District 35, which is all or part of seven counties in northern Nevada. 

The concerns you hear this morning are very real. The amount 

of money being generated by the Southern Nevada Land Management Act makes everyone in northern Nevada, or anywhere in 

Nevada, a willing seller. County officials end up opposing constituents on something that is very sacred in rural Nevada, and that 

is private property rights. But these county officials are only trying 

to maintain their tax base. PET payments, payment equal to taxes, 

PILT payments, payment in lieu of taxes, are not the answer, although that makes county government whole, it does nothing to 

capture those dollars that are normally generated by the private 

sector. We have had some analysis done. Those private sector dollars usually go through a community three to seven times, especially if they are ag dollars, I think it is around seven times. Those 

dollars are the lifeblood of these rural communities. 

We urge you to amend the Southern Nevada Land Management 

Act. Establish a geographic area comprised of Clark County and 

areas of adjacent counties that are clearly benefiting from their 

proximity to the Las Vegas Valley. Some examples would be 

Pahrump. We are going to have Tooley Springs, Coyote Springs. 

These definitely should be incorporated into this geographic area 

that would be in place for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands. 

With 87 percent of Nevada under Federal land management 

agencies, it makes no sense to burden the American taxpayer with 

the cost of managing more lands as these lands are acquired under 

the Southern Nevada Land Management Act. Why not instead use 

these funds to enhance the lands already under public land management? We have riparian areas, uplands, pinyon juniper encroachment where the thinning is of great benefit. In Lincoln County we have got a real problem and southern White Pine County, 

which I also represent. We have wildland/urban interface. The protection of those areas are consuming a vast amount of money. Let 

us use some of the money out of the Southern Nevada Land Management Act to address those issues. We can contract ARC, cultural, real estate transactions that would in fact benefit the BLM 

as a whole. Let us use the money from the sale of public lands to 

enhance public lands, not erode rural tax bases and rural economies. 

Acquisitions outside of this established geographic area should be 

handled on a case-by-case basis legislatively as they have been in 

the past. It does not matter if we are talking about the Jarbidge 

Cemetery, the Maiden Grave; again, that is handled on a case-bycase through Congress. So I ask you, please, let us amend the Act 

and exclude the areas in northern Nevada that truly are being impacted by these land acquisitions. 

Thank you. Any questions? 

15

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Assemblyman Goicoechea. 

We turn now to Commissioner Mike Nannini from Elko County. 

Mike, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goicoechea follows:

Statement of The Honorable Pete Goicoechea, Assemblyman,

35th District, State of Nevada 

Chairman Radanovich, Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation 

to speak before you today. 

I represent one of Nevada’s largest and most rural Assembly Districts. Assembly 

District 35 encompasses much of rural northern Nevada, including Eureka, Pershing and White Pine Counties and portions of Churchill, Humboldt, Lander and 

Washoe Counties. The rural character of this Assembly District says much about 

my perspective on public lands management in general and the Southern Nevada 

Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA or Act) in particular. 

The SNPLMA is clearly a unique and historically important piece of legislative 

work. It benefits the State of Nevada by: 1) supporting Nevada’s education programs; 2) helping ensure a sound economic future for southern Nevada’s communities; and 3) providing a mechanism to balance southern Nevada’s economic needs 

with resource protection and conservation. Unfortunately, the benefits of SNPLMA 

are tempered by where you reside in the State. 

The SNPLMA is a source of great distress to those who live and work in rural 

Nevada. The fundamental bone of contention is that the Act imposes a legislative 

remedy for a localized urban problem that disproportionately impacts residents elsewhere in the State. Within the boundaries of southern Nevada (delineated by the 

October 2002 Amendment), federal lands are privatized for economic development 

while other private lands are transferred to public ownership for preservation and 

conservation. Outside of the SNPLMA boundary only half the equation applies, no 

lands are privatized, while environmentally sensitive (substitute, economically viable) lands are transferred to restrictive public ownership. This inequity has already 

exacerbated economic hardships in rural Nevada by creating a political and administrative situation that struggling local governments can ill afford. Matters are destined to get worse as land acquisitions erode rural tax bases and undermine local 

businesses. Outside a generic requirement for consultation during federal land acquisitions, the SNPLMA fails to acknowledge the needs and authorities of any unit 

of local government or regional governmental entity outside of Clark County. 

From a national perspective, new land acquisitions will further test the capacity 

of American taxpayers to support the growing burden of public lands management. 

Federal land management agencies are already responsible for improving the condition of 87 percent of Nevada’s land area. These agencies remain sadly underfunded 

and understaffed. The cost to the health of our forests, grasslands and watersheds 

is dear. The recent Interior budget impasse is testament to our nation’s limited ability to provide adequate long-term funding for management of existing federal lands, 

let alone new acquisitions. 

Rural Nevadans also fear the SNPLMA’s indirect tie to water. The Act provides 

funding to Southern Nevada Water Authority for developing water transmission infrastructure. In regions of the State targeted by Southern Nevada Water Authority 

for water acquisitions, the SNPLMA is perceived to be a mechanism for accessing 

rural ground water resources. The Act fails to address the local economic and environmental consequences of exporting water from rural areas. 

With these concerns in mind I urge the Committee to pursue amendments to the 

SNPLMA as follows: 

1. Limit expenditure of SNPLMA funds for federal land acquisitions to a fixed 

geographical area in southern Nevada; 

2. Identify all units of local government potentially affected by SNPLMA federal 

land acquisitions within the boundary and clearly define their roles under the 

Act; 

3. Provide for a full accounting of future costs and benefits incurred by a) potentially impacted local and regional businesses, b) affected units of local government, and c) federal agencies for all SNPLMA acquisitions; and 

4. Earmark SNPLMA expenditures outside the geographical boundary for enhancing management of existing federal lands and facilities. 

In summary, the SNPLMA was designed to enhance economic and social conditions in urban Clark County. Neither by content nor by name does the Act pretend 

to address the needs of Nevada’s rural communities. If there is a need to dispose 

of federal lands and acquire environmentally sensitive lands in areas outside of 

16

southern Nevada, then I strongly recommend a separate legislative effort that can 

meet the needs of those communities. Many of us have long argued that the 

SNPLMA would generate enough money to buy most of the valuable private lands 

in rural northern Nevada. Given that the Round 4 Auction on November 6th grossed 

over $127 million to bring the SNPLMA coffers to well over half-a-billion dollars, 

there is already enough money on the table to turn all targeted landowners into 

willing sellers, and for enterprising sellers to turn the United States Treasury Special Account their way. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE NANNINI,

COMMISSIONER, ELKO COUNTY, ELKO, NEVADA 

Mr. NANNINI. Chairman Gibbons and members of the Committee, 

my name is Mike Nannini. I am the Vice Chairman of the Elko 

County Board of Commissioners. I have been an Elko county commissioner for 11 years and have served on various local government boards and commissions since the 1970s, including the mayor 

of Wells, Nevada. 

Please accept my thanks for the opportunity to discuss the impacts of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act upon 

Elko County. Five applications from Elko County were approved 

during the round four process. We are aware of at least six potential Act applications for Elko County in the near future. 

Elko County is located in the northeastern corner of Nevada. 

Composed of more than 17,000 square miles or almost 11 million 

acres, Elko County is the fourth largest county in the continental 

United States. Our county’s land mass is larger than some eastern 

states. Seventy-two percent of Elko County is federally managed 

lands. Sixty-two percent is managed by the BLM and about 10 percent is managed by the Forest Service. We enjoy an abundance of 

open spaces and outdoor recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, hiking and camping activities which enhance our quality of life. As in many areas in the western United States, large 

components of Elko County’s economy are directly tied to the use 

of public lands by ranching and mining operations. Generations of 

our citizens have been ranchers and miners. 

In Elko County, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management 

Act causes two strongly held beliefs to be in contention. One, that 

private property owners have a right to sell their property as they 

see fit, and second, that Elko County has enough federally managed lands. The conflict between these two options is evident 

among our citizens and members of our county commission. Elko 

County supports private property rights. We are reluctant to interfere with the sale of private property between willing parties. 

While the Act provides an avenue for public land sales in Clark 

County, its impact is the Federal acquisition of private lands in 

Elko County. With millions of dollars that will be generated by 

public land sales in Clark County, we fear that many of our private 

ranches may be converted to federally managed lands within the 

next decade unless other beneficial uses of this windfall of monies 

are available. 

Section Five of the Act defines lands for acquisitions as environmentally sensitive land that will promote a variety of purposes 

such as preservation, recreation, public access, land management 

or for the public interest. We believe this definition is vague 

enough that it will allow most of Elko County’s private lands to 

17

qualify for the acquisition under the Act. Private property owners 

are lured by an artificial real estate market created by the acquisition provisions of the Act that makes it difficult to ignore the potential of high property appraisals. 

Elko County fears that the Act will cause the erosion of our tax 

base due to the reduction of taxable property. The Federal Payment 

in Lieu of Taxes program attempts to balance this issue. However, 

our most recent PILT payment was 22 cents an acre for federally 

managed lands. PILT funding does not adequately provide funding 

for local government services such as road maintenance, fire protection and law enforcement. If the percentage of private property 

declines in our county, it will force an increased tax rate on our 

citizens for local government services. 

Elko County offers these suggestions that may mitigate the Act’s 

impact on rural Nevada. These suggestions have been developed 

from discussions by the county commissioners, the Elko County 

Public Land Use Advisory Commission and from local public hearings. 

Amend the law so that lands acquired under the Act outside of 

Clark County will be offset by disposal of land value of federally 

managed lands within the same county. Such disposals should be 

on an equal value basis and offered for private and public ownership acquisition. Consideration for sales could include grazing allotments to ranchers, unpatented mining claims, potential mining and 

natural resource areas, recreation for public purpose leases, RP&P, 

property and other lands to consolidate checkerboard parcels or inholdings, with priority given to local government entities on lands 

bordering or within their boundaries. The final resulting goal of no 

net loss of private lands within the affected county should be a 

Federal management commitment. 

To address the problem of reduced taxable property in a county 

through the Act land acquisition, a tax annuity should be established by the seller or a percentage of the sale proceeds should be 

allocated to offset the reduction of local government tax revenues. 

This portion of the sales proceeds could be utilized for lost tax revenues, enhanced economic development activity and other local government services. 

Allow a portion of the proceeds on the Act land sales in Clark 

County to be appropriated toward the general funds of the Federal 

land management agencies within the State of Nevada to maintain 

lands and facilities currently under their management. This could 

include range management improvements, wildfire management, 

conservation, water developments for grazing, recreation or wetland habitat, recreation developments such as trails, parks, camping facilities, interpretive signs, wildlife and critical habitat enhancements and improvements to existing infrastructure and facilities. 

John has already talked about how we feel about water. So I will 

pass that up. 

Increased emphasis should be given to improved access to public 

lands through the acquisition of land easements and consideration 

could be given to increase the current 5 percent paid directly to the 

State of Nevada for use in the general education programs in the 

State. 

18

Again, I wish to express my appreciation for the opportunity to 

discuss the issues related to the impacts of the Southern Nevada 

Public Land Management Act upon Elko County. Perhaps serious 

consideration of these suggested amendments will make the Act equitable for all who are affected by its provisions. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Commissioner. 

We will turn now to Mr. Freeman Johnson who is the Assistant 

Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for 

the State of Nevada. Mr. Johnson, welcome. The floor is yours. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nannini follows:]

Testimony of The Honorable Mike Nannini, Vice-Chair, Elko County Board 

of Commissioners Elko County, Nevada 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

My name is Mike Nannini. I am the Vice-Chair of the Elko County Board of Commissioners. I have been an Elko County Commissioner for eleven years and have 

served on various local government Boards and Commissions since the 1970’s, including the Mayor of Wells, Nevada. 

Please accept my thanks for the opportunity to discuss the impacts of the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) upon Elko County. Five applications from Elko County were approved during the Round 4 process. We are 

aware of at least six potential SNPLMA applications from Elko County in the near 

future. 

Elko County is located in the northeastern corner of Nevada. Composed of more 

than seventeen thousand square miles or almost eleven million acres, Elko County 

is the fourth largest County in the Continental United States. Our County’s land 

mass is larger than some eastern States. Seventy-two percent of Elko County is federally managed lands. Sixty-two percent is managed by the Bureau of Land Management and about 10 percent is managed by the Forest Service. We enjoy an abundance of open spaces and outdoor recreational opportunities, such as hunting, fishing, hiking and camping activities, which enhances our quality of life. As in many 

areas in the Western United States, large components of Elko County’s economy are 

directly tied to the use of public lands by ranching and mining operations. Generations of our citizens have been ranchers and miners. 

In Elko County, the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act causes two 

strongly held beliefs to be in contention. One, that private property owners have a 

right to sell their property as they see fit, and the second, that Elko County has 

enough federally managed lands. The conflict between these two opinions is evident 

among our citizens and members of the County Commission. Elko County supports 

private property rights. We are reluctant to interfere with the sale of private property between willing parties. While SNPLMA provides an avenue for public land 

sales in Clark County, its impact is the federal acquisition of private land in Elko 

County. With the millions of dollars that will be generated by public land sales in 

Clark County, we fear that many of our private ranches may be converted to federally managed lands within the next decade unless other beneficial uses of this windfall of monies are available. 

Section Five (Acquisitions) of the Act defines lands for acquisition as ‘‘environmentally sensitive land’’ that will promote a variety of purposes, such as preservation, recreation, public access, land management, or for the public interest. We believe this definition is vague enough that it will allow most of Elko County’s private 

lands to qualify for acquisition under the Act. Private property owners are lured by 

an artificial real estate market created by the acquisition provisions of SNPLMA 

that makes it difficult to ignore the potential of high property appraisals. 

Elko County fears SNPLMA will cause the erosion of our tax base due to the reduction of taxable property. The Federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program 

attempts to balance this issue. However, our most recent PILT payment was twenty-two cents an acre for federally managed lands. PILT funding does not adequately 

provide funding for local government services, such as road maintenance, fire protection and law enforcement. If the percentage of private property declines in our 

County, it will force an increased tax rate on our citizens for local government services. 

Elko County offers these suggestions that may mitigate the SNPLMA impacts 

upon rural Nevada. These suggestions have been developed from discussions by the 

19

County Commission, the Elko County Public Land Use Advisory Commission and 

from local Public Hearings. • Amend the law so that lands acquired under SNPLMA outside of Clark County 

will be offset by disposal of a like value of federally managed lands within the 

same County. Such disposal should be on an equal value basis and offered for 

private and public (State or local government) ownership acquisition. Consideration for sale could include grazing allotments to ranchers, un-patented mining 

claims, potential mining or natural resource areas, Recreation for Public Purposes Lease (RP&P) property and other lands to consolidate checkerboard parcels or in-holdings, with priority given to local governmental entities on lands 

bordering or within their boundaries. The final resulting goal of ‘‘No Net Loss’’ of private lands within the affected county should be a federal management 

commitment. • To address the problem of reduced taxable property in a County through 

SNPLMA land acquisitions, a tax annuity should be established by the Seller 

or a percentage of the sale proceeds should be allocated to offset the reduction 

of local governmental tax revenues. This portion of sale proceeds could be utilized for lost tax revenues, enhanced economic development activity and other 

local government services. • Allow a portion of the proceeds on SNPLMA land sales in Clark County to be 

appropriated toward the general funds of federal land management agencies 

within the State of Nevada to maintain lands and facilities currently under 

their management. This could include range management improvements; wildfire management; conservation; water developments for grazing, recreation or 

wetland habitat; recreation developments, such as trails, parks, camping facilities, interpretive signs; wildlife and critical habitat enhancements; and improvements to existing infrastructure and facilities. • The Nevada Senate and Assembly approved Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 this 

past Legislative Session which requests SNPLMA funding ‘‘for restoration of 

and water developments on the public lands in the areas of Nevada....’’ Any acquired water rights should not be transferrable inter-basin or inter-county but 

be utilized for wildlife, grazing, recreational or habitat enhancement with any 

unused water rights reverted to the Nevada Division of Water Resources for reallocation within the basin. • Increased emphasis should be given to improved access to public lands through 

the acquisition of land easements. 

• Consideration could be given to increase the current 5 percent paid directly to 

the State of Nevada for use in general education programs in the State. 

Again I wish to express my appreciation for the opportunity to discuss the issues 

related to the impacts of the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act upon 

Elko County. Perhaps serious consideration of these suggested amendments will 

make the Act equitable for all who are affected by its provisions. 

STATEMENT OF FREEMAN K. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT 

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL 

RESOURCES, STATE OF NEVADA 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you Congressman Gibbons and members of 

the Committee. As you stated, my name is Freeman Johnson for 

the record. I am the Assistant Director for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources here in Nevada. It is my pleasure 

to appear before you today to present—

[Microphone difficulty.] 

Mr. GIBBONS. You have just got to love technology. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I will pick up where I left off. I am Freeman Johnson and I am the Assistant Director for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. It is my pleasure to appear before you today to read into the record the testimony of Kenny C. 

Guinn, Governor of the State of Nevada with respect to the issue 

before us today. 

The passage of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management 

Act in 1998 was a landmark for the State of Nevada. As you know, 

Nevada has more Federal land than any other state. Today about 

20

87 percent of Nevada’s land is controlled by the Federal Government. Nevada constantly struggles to cope with the impacts of this 

overwhelming Federal presence. The State is grateful to Congress 

for recognizing our unique status, and for approving the concept 

that excess Federal land can be sold and the proceeds used to benefit the environment of the State. 

This concept was first expressed in the Santini-Burton Act of 

1980 under which land was sold in the Las Vegas Valley with the 

proceedings benefiting Lake Tahoe. The Southern Nevada Act built 

on this success with an innovative and comprehensive program 

that benefits both the Federal agencies and the State. 

The sale of Federal lands in the Las Vegas Valley accommodates 

the needs of our rapidly expanding southern Nevada communities. 

Lands are sold in cooperation with our local governments, which 

help to determine sales schedules through a joint selection process. 

This program has been an outstanding success. 

When lands are sold, funds are generated for many purposes. 

The Southern Nevada Water Authority receives 10 percent of sale 

proceeds to help them supply new residents of the Las Vegas Valley. The State receives 5 percent for our public schools. I note that 

Nevada, like other western states, has benefited for many years 

from the receipt of 5 percent of the proceeds from the sale of all 

Federal lands in the State. Our State Constitution provides that 

the funds from these land sales are deposited in the State Permanent School Fund. The State has pledged that these funds will remain untouched in perpetuity, while the interest is made available 

each year to schools statewide. The success of the land sale program in the Las Vegas Valley has, to date, generated more than 

$23 million in welcome revenue for our Permanent School Fund. 

The Act also makes funds available for many critically important 

natural resource programs. The State and local governments have 

been included in a partnership process to decide how these funds 

are spent each year. We are proud of our record of consensus on 

these funding decisions. Funds are made available to local governments in Clark County for local parks, trails and natural areas. 

Funds are also being expended by Federal agencies for programs 

here in Clark County, including capital improvements, conservation initiatives, and to protect the desert tortoise and other sensitive plant and animal species. 

Funds are available for the acquisition of sensitive lands anywhere in the State. These funds have been especially welcome here 

in Clark County, and also in northwestern Nevada, where a rapidly 

growing urban populations make it critically important to protect 

sensitive lands from development. Funds have also been useful in 

rural Nevada, where the Federal agencies have been working with 

the State and with county governments to identify some sensitive 

parcels that may be suitable for acquisition. 

The State will continue to support the use of these funds to address Nevada’s natural resource needs. Just a few weeks ago, with 

strong state support, Congress acted to appropriate Southern 

Nevada funds to implement the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. 

The State of Nevada is pleased to be included in discussions of 

other potential benefits of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act. There are many resource needs throughout the State. 

21

Our land is being increasingly threatened by wildfire and invasive 

species. There are growing pressures from people seeking open 

space for relaxation and recreation. The public lands continue to 

provide resources for energy, minerals, livestock grazing, hunting 

and fishing and other traditional uses. Small communities throughout rural Nevada are dependent on these resources for their continued existence. We must continue to act decisively to protect our 

fragile landscapes for future generations. 

The State appreciates the opportunity to testify before you today. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Kenny C. Guinn follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Kenny C. Guinn, Governor, State of Nevada 

As you know, Nevada has more federal land than any other state. Today, about 

87 percent of Nevada’s land is controlled by the federal government. Nevada constantly struggles to cope with the impacts of this overwhelming federal presence. 

The State is grateful to Congress for recognizing our unique status, and for approving the concept that excess federal land can be sold, and the proceeds used to 

benefit the environment of the State. 

This concept was first expressed in the Santini-Burton Act of 1980, under which 

land was sold in the Las Vegas Valley, with the proceeds benefiting Lake Tahoe. 

The Southern Nevada Act built on this success, with an innovative and comprehensive program that benefits both the federal agencies and the State. 

The sale of federal lands in the Las Vegas Valley accommodates the needs of our 

rapidly expanding southern Nevada communities. Lands are sold in cooperation 

with our local governments, which help to determine sale schedules through a joint 

selection process. This program has been an outstanding success. 

When lands are sold, funds are generated for many purposes. The Southern 

Nevada Water Authority receives 10 percent of sale proceeds to help them supply 

new residents in the Las Vegas Valley. The State receives 5 percent for our public 

schools. I note that Nevada, like other western states, has benefited for many years 

from the receipt of 5 percent of the proceeds from the sale of all federal lands in 

the State. Our State Constitution provides that funds from these land sales are deposited in the State Permanent School Fund. The State has pledged that these 

funds will remain untouched in perpetuity, while the interest is made available each 

year to schools statewide. The success of the land sale program in the Las Vegas 

Valley has, to date, generated more than $23 million in welcome revenue for our 

Permanent School Fund. 

The Act also makes funds available for many critically important natural resource 

programs. The State and local governments have been included in a partnership 

process to decide how these funds are spent each year. We are proud of our record 

of consensus on these funding decisions: 

• Funds are being made available to local governments in Clark County for local 

parks, trails and natural areas; 

• Funds are also being expended by federal agencies for programs here in Clark 

County, including capital improvements, conservation initiatives, and to protect 

the desert tortoise and other sensitive plant and animal species; and 

• Funds are available for the acquisition of sensitive lands anywhere in the State. 

These funds have been especially welcome here in Clark County, and also in 

northwestern Nevada, where rapidly growing urban populations make it critically important to protect sensitive lands from development. Funds have also 

been useful in rural Nevada, where the federal agencies have been working 

with the State and with county governments to identify some sensitive parcels 

that may be suitable for acquisition. 

The State will continue to support the use of these funds to address Nevada’s natural resource needs. Just a few weeks ago, with strong State support, Congress 

acted to appropriate Southern Nevada funds to implement the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. 

The State of Nevada is pleased to be included in discussions of other potential 

benefits of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act. There are many resource needs throughout the State. Our land is being increasingly threatened by 

wildfire and invasive species. There are growing pressures from people seeking open 

space for relaxation and recreation. The public lands continue to provide resources 

for energy, minerals, livestock grazing, hunting and fishing, and other traditional 

22

uses. Small communities throughout rural Nevada are dependent on these resources 

for their continued existence. We must continue to act decisively to protect our fragile landscapes for future generations. 

The State appreciates the opportunity to testify before you today. 

Mr. GIBBONS. WE WILL TURN NOW TO DR. WALT RULFFES, THE

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT AND CFO OF THE CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL

DISTRICT. DOCTOR, WELCOME, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. 

STATEMENT OF DR. WALT RULFFES, DEPUTY 

SUPERINTENDENT/CFO, CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 

Mr. RULFFES. Thanks very much for the opportunity to be here. 

I also want to thank the staff members from the various agencies 

that helped guide us through this process, which we are not very 

often involved in. So they have all been very gracious and helpful. 

I am from Clark County School District and I am always proud 

to say that I represent 268,000 boys and girls. That kind of puts 

it in context for the reason I like my job so well. 

Our testimony today, Congressman Gibbons, is really very fundamental and based on the simple premise that the agencies that are 

directly impacted by the sale of the public land should be given 

maybe some special priority in the distribution of funds. You have 

already indicated in your opening remarks that the increased population has an impact on various agencies. You have also indicated 

the importance of education. I could not have said it as well, so we 

will let the record stand with that. 

You probably know that we have a school construction bill and 

the taxpayers in Clark County have chosen to impose a tax upon 

themselves to build new schools, but that money is limited exclusively only to the use of new school construction, not to any of the 

support infrastructure that is necessary and required to support 

schools. Where we need help are in areas like in school security 

and student safety, school buses, maintenance facilities and the 

support infrastructure to the schools, because as indicated, the 

school construction program in Clark County is adequately funded 

at least until the year 2008. 

So in conclusion, first of all, we do not want to disturb the 

5 percent process that is done on a statewide basis. We believe 

that should be left intact. But we would urge you and any policymakers to give consideration to sharing some of the State proceeds 

with the local agencies such as the school district that have costs 

that occur as a consequence of the sale of the land, because the sale 

of the land is linked to more population, which is linked to costs 

that we have to incur in this county. Even if it is to the extent that 

it is a dedicated fund only for exclusive use for those purposes that 

do occur because of the growth that resulted from the sale of the 

land. 

With that, again thanks for the opportunity to be here. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Doctor, thank you very much for your testimony. 

We will turn now to Dr. Roberts for your testimony. Dr. Roberts 

is the Nye County School District Superintendent from Pahrump. 

Dr. Roberts, welcome. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Rulffes follows:]

23

Statement of Dr. Walter Rulffes, Deputy Superintendent/CFO,

Clark County School District, Nevada 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony related to the distribution of 

proceeds from the sale of public land in Nevada by the Bureau of Land Management. The Clark County School District urges that consideration be given to increasing the proceeds from the sale of land to benefit educational opportunities for 

students in southern Nevada. 

Background 

The Clark County School District is the sixth largest school district in the nation 

and is home to approximately 70 percent of the K-12 students in Nevada. The District serves approximately 270,000 students in 289 schools throughout the District, 

which covers 7,910 square miles. The Clark County School District may be the fastest-growing school district in the entire nation, increasing by four to six percent per 

year. This fall the District welcomed 12,566 new students. To accommodate that 

growth, 12 new schools were opened. This fast-paced growth has been with us for 

over a decade. Since 1990, 144 new schools have been built, and the student population has nearly tripled. The community is supporting about $1.25 million per day 

on school construction, but operation funding per student is among the lowest in the 

nation. 

The fastest-growing segment of the District’s population is English Language 

Learner (ELL) students. The Clark County School District is now a minority-majority district, with approximately 46 percent of the population Caucasian, 32 percent 

Hispanic, and 14 percent African American. The District, along with the rest of the 

country, embraces the requirements of No Child Left Behind and faces many challenges as we prepare our 46,000 ELL students to meet the rigorous testing standards that will help ensure their success in life. 

The District’s fast-paced construction is financed by a voter-approved, ten-year 

capital program, the fifth voter-approved building program since 1986. However, expenditures are limited to school construction and equipment. Funding for essential 

student, staff and patron support functions, such as safety and security, food service, maintenance, technology, central services, etc., must be taken from operational 

revenues, thus diverting instructional dollars from classroom activities. 

The current per-pupil funding for Clark County School District is approximately 

$5,600. This compares to a national per-pupil funding average in excess of $7,000. 

The total funding gap on a district-wide basis is approximately $400 million per 

year. This gap in funding results in fewer educational opportunities for students in 

Clark County.Against this background, Clark County School District is desperately 

seeking needed funding sources for non-recurring expenditures to address essential 

educational and school support services and non-school capital projects. Examples 

are not limited to, but include: 

1. New textbook adoptions and related instructional equipment; 

2. Capital improvements in technology areas, such as computers in remediation 

centers, expanded library systems, and updated enterprise systems; 

3. Accountability reporting to the community, parents and government agencies; 

4. Reduce student dropouts with after-school and Saturday opportunities for students to catch up and graduate; 

5. Campus security improvements for student and staff safety; 

6. Staff training academies; 

7. Funding for facilities that will house all-day kindergarten programs. (Currently, the District’s half-day kindergartners attend school for two hours, 40 

minutes per day.); and 

8. Updated safe and efficient housing for central educational service personnel. 

Under the current formula for distribution of land sale proceeds, a portion is allocated to a legislatively established state fund from which annual interest earnings 

(approximately $4.0 million annually) are allocated to the State’s Distributive School 

Account (DSA). While this allocation is helpful to the Clark County School District, 

the District could greatly benefit from an increase in the formula, which would direct earnings from local land sales directly to southern Nevada’s students. 

The District supports continuation of the existing allocation, but requests that any 

increased allocation go to the direct benefit of the local school district(s). 

We are deeply appreciative of your support in this matter, as well as your ongoing 

interest in improving educational opportunities for the students of southern Nevada. 

We are mindful of the community’s concern that students from Nevada have full 

educational opportunities to not only meet academic standards to graduate, but also 

to be competitive in future job opportunities, objectives we know you share. We are 

readily available to respond to questions or to provide further information. 

24

Thank you for this opportunity to provide input on an important topic. 

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM ROBERTS, SUPERINTENDENT, 

NYE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PAHRUMP, NEVADA 

Mr. ROBERTS. Congressman Gibbons, members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation & Public Lands, thank 

you for allowing me, Rob Roberts, Superintendent of Nye County 

School District, Nye County, Nevada, the opportunity to provide 

testimony concerning the dispensation of funds from the Southern 

Nevada Public Land Management Act. The Nye County School District requests increasing the percentage of profits being distributed 

to the Nevada Department of Education from the sale of land to 

benefit the educational opportunities of the students in Nye County, Nevada. 

The Nye County School District is the largest geographical school 

district in the continental United States. It encompasses 18,400 

square miles with 17 schools serving over 5,400 students. We employ over 700 certified and classified staff and operate some 74 

buses which drive over one million miles a year. Over 98 percent 

of our tax base is owned by the Federal Government, thus denying 

us the opportunity of an adequate tax base to support the education of our children. Nye County is the home of the Nellis Air 

Force Bombing Range, some 3,000 square miles, yet we see no compensation. We are the Low Level Nuclear Storage Site for the 

United States. Nye County has been subjected to over 1,000 nuclear tests, rendering that land unfit for human existence. And 

with the Yucca Mountain project on the verge of licensing for high 

level storage of nuclear waste for the entire nation, the students of 

Nye County still see little to no Federal compensation for their education. 

The Nye County School District is a diverse community with one 

commonality, being economically disadvantaged. Some 56 percent 

of Nye County schools are Title I and 49.5 percent of our students 

qualify for free or reduced lunch. Nye County classroom computers 

are averaging five years of use and older. Many of our classrooms 

are in modulars. Several schools offer no air conditioning and are 

not ADA accessible. Funding for essential services are woefully inadequate. Nye County School District per-pupil funding is approximately $5560. With a national average of approximately $7000 you 

can see nearly an $8 million funding gap. With these funds we 

could offer the education our students deserve and the Federal No 

Child Left Behind legislation demands. It is worth noting that in 

the Washington, D.C. area the per-pupil funding is approximately 

$11,000. 

Nye County School District desperately needs monies for their 

essential educational support and school capital projects. 

New buses. Currently our average route bus is approximately 25 

years old. We would like to update our text books. We would like 

to update the technology in the classrooms so that computers, 

Internet and video connections are available in every school. We 

have schools with one-room teachers—one building in Duckwater to 

a middle school with 1,000 students in Pahrump Valley. 

25

After school programs including Saturdays and Sundays—I am 

sorry, Saturdays and in summer schools. School safety improvements, air conditioning and ADA assistance for several of our 

schools. Staff professional development training and the ability to 

staff teachers in remote locations. Special education teachers, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, school psychologists and 

medical staff. Currently we have one school nurse in Nye County. 

We have been trying for over a year to hire one for the north. No 

takers. 

Presently approximately 5 percent of the profits from land sales 

makes its way to education in Nevada. While that is helpful, increasing the local land sales profit distributed to school districts in 

rural Nevada would greatly improve our ability to assist students 

impacted by local land sales and Federal ownership and impact of 

their land. 

The Nye County School District supports continuation of an allocation process and the increase of the percentage going directly to 

the students of Nye County and southern Nevada school districts. 

I would have to say all Nevada school districts. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide information concerning 

Nye County and the rural school districts. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Dr. Roberts. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Roberts follows:]

Statement of Dr. William E. Roberts, Superintendent,

Nye County School District in Nevada 

Members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands: 

Thank you for allowing me, Rob Roberts, Superintendent of Nye County School 

District, Nye County Nevada, the opportunity to provide testimony concerning the 

dispensation of funds from the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. 

The Nye County School District requests increasing the percentage of profits being 

distributed to the Nevada Department of Education from the sale of land to benefit 

the educational opportunities of students in Nye County. 

Background 

The Nye County School District is the largest geographical school district in the 

lower 48 states. It encompasses 18,400 square miles with 17 schools serving over 

5, 400 students. We employ over 700 certified and classified staff, and operate 74 

busses which drive over 1,000,000 miles a year. Over 98 percent of our tax base is 

owned by the Federal Government thus denying us the opportunity of an adequate 

tax base to support the education of our children. Nye County is home to the Nellis 

Air Force Bombing Range, some 3,000 square miles, yet we see no compensation. 

We are the Low Level nuclear Storage Site for the United States. Nye County has 

been subjected to over 1,000 Nuclear Tests, rendering that land unfit for human existence. And with the Yucca Mountain Project on the verge of licensing for high-level 

storage of nuclear waste for the entire nation, the students of Nye County still see 

little to no Federal compensation for their education. 

The Nye County School District is a diverse community with one commonality, 

being economically disadvantaged. Some 56 percent of Nye County Schools are Title 

I, 49.5 percent of our students qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch. Nye County 

classroom computers are averaging five years of use. Many of our classrooms are 

in modulars, several schools offer no air conditioning and are not ADA accessible. 

Funding for essential services are woefully inadequate. NCSD per-pupil funding is 

approximately 5,560 dollars, with a national average of approximately 7,000 you can 

see a $7,776,000 per year funding gap. With these funds we could offer the education our students deserve and federal No Child Left Behind legislation demands. 

Nye County School District desperately needs monies for essential educational 

support and school Capital Projects: 

1. New School Busses—Currently average route bus is twenty-five years old; 

2. Updated Textbooks; 

3. Technology in every classroom and Internet, Video connection to every school; 

4. After-school programs including Saturdays and Summer School; 

26

5. School Safety improvements; 

6. Air-conditioning and ADA assistance for several schools; 

7. Staff Professional Development Training; and 

8. The ability to staff teachers in remote location, i.e. Special Education, OT, PT, 

School Psychologists and medical staff. 

Presently approximately 5 percent of profits from land sales makes its way to 

education in Nevada, while that is helpful, increasing the local land sales profit distributed to school districts in rural Nevada would greatly improve our ability to assist the students impacted by local land sales and federal ownership and impact of 

their land. 

The Nye County School District supports continuation of the allocation process 

and an increase of the percentage going directly to the students of Nye County and 

other southern Nevada school districts. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide information concerning education in Nye 

County and Southern Nevada. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me say to each of our witnesses here today, 

you have raised some very significant issues here. I think it is clear 

to myself, it is clear to, I am sure, many people in the audience 

that there is an enormous disparity between urban parts of our 

state and urban school districts and rural parts of our state and 

rural school districts, and this disparity gets even greater based on 

the fact that we lose taxpayer bases in rural parts of our county. 

We gain taxpayer base, private property, in Clark County. I mean 

what I heard Dr. Rulffes say was that, you know, we needed just 

help with some of the operating costs. We have a taxpayer base 

that pays for a lot of our educational needs and our schools here 

in Clark County. That is not the testimony that I just heard from 

Dr. Roberts. It is just quite the opposite. 

So the point of this hearing today is to figure out how we adjust 

the equality to make sure that the education of some child in 

Pahrump or in Duckwater, Nevada, has the same quality as a child 

being educated here in Las Vegas. I think clearly that the Clark 

County school superintendent would agree with the Nye County 

school superintendent that those children are just as important, 

just as valuable and deserve just the same opportunities as our 

urban schools do. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellison follows:]

Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable John Ellison, 

Chairman, Elko County Commissioners, Elko County, Nevada 

My biggest concern of the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act is the 

economic impact felt by the loss of productive lands and those whose lives are supported by them. 

I agree with my fellow Elko County Commissioners on the ad valorem tax, but 

there is a broader concern of a trickle-down effect with the loss of important members of our county ‘‘community’’ and a vital part of our economy. I believe we lose 

so much more when we lose fuel and retail sales taxes from those residents who 

are lost when Elko County ranching lands are gone. 

Keeping in mind an important purpose of SNPLMA is in protecting environmentally sensitive lands, one must also take into account the positive effects ranching has on our public lands including that of fire suppression. 

In addition, I do believe in Congressman Gibbons support of using these funds for 

our school system. 

I will be in attendance to support Assemblyman John Carpenter and Elko County 

Commissioner Mike Nannini during their testimonies and will be available to answer questions, but do not intend on testifying myself. 

Thank you. 

27

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me start off over here and ask Commissioner 

Ellison who has submitted his testimony for the record. John, what 

is the average PILT payment to Elko County for public lands in 

Elko County per acre? If you have got an estimated acre amount. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, I think it averaged out about two cents an 

acre and this year it was increased to $1.2 million, I think, was it 

not, Mike? 

Mr. NANNINI. Mr. Chairman, it averaged out to about 22 cents 

an acre. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, that does not include the Forest Service. That 

is just strictly BLM. 

Mr. GIBBONS. So Elko County is receiving about 22 cents an acre 

for all of the Federal lands in terms of taxes or PILT, payment in 

lieu of taxes? 

Mr. NANNINI. It is about $1.5 million. They have boosted it up 

to about $1.5 million a year. 

Mr. ELLISON. And I think the last—this is the first increase we 

have had in two years, is that correct, Mike? 

Mr. NANNINI. [Nodding head affirmatively.] 

Mr. ELLISON. It still does not cover the—

Mr. GIBBONS. That is what my next question is. What are the deficiencies in county operation because you lack private property 

taxpayer base even though you do get a PILT payment? What are 

the deficiencies? 

Mr. ELLISON. We have done reduction in staff throughout the 

county because of the gold prices in our area, which is our largest 

industry right now, with the PILT—even with the PILT and the ad 

valorem coming in, with the shortfall we had this year. So we did 

have reduction in staff and services through Elko County. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Carpenter, let me ask you a question, because 

Commissioner Nannini brought it up. The no-net-loss of private 

land concept. That is a concept that I am sure—according to your 

poll—many of the people in Elko County and in rural areas would 

support. Would you support a legislative proposal that included a 

no-net-loss of private lands in Elko or other rural counties in 

Nevada? 

Mr. CARPENTER. Well thank you, sir. I certainly think that that 

is something that needs to be looked at. We have had a little experience with that in Elko County. A few years ago there was some 

speculators that came up there and they wanted to buy a large 

chunk of land in Elko County. So I went to the county commissioners, and Senator Norm Glazier, you know, also. We went to the 

county commissioners and said, you know, if these people buy this 

ranch it is going to take a large chunk out of our economy. So the 

county commissioners told the developer, the speculator, that—and 

he was going to trade that land down here in Clark County. So the 

county commissioners told him that before you can get title to the 

land in Elko County, you are going to have to buy another ranch 

in Clark County and do what we called a reverse exchange. So we 

have had some experience with that. It did work in that case. I 

guess what we would really like to see is that we have a Southern 

Nevada Lands Act for northern Nevada so they could just sell some 

of the land off up there. But certainly the no-net-loss is a better 

28

deal than what is happening now. We just feel that we need to get 

more land into private ownership so that we increase that tax base. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me ask one final question, Mr. Carpenter. Over 

the time period say of the last four years—three years, since the 

Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act has come into 

place, how much land has the Federal Government sold for private 

purposes in Elko County? 

Mr. CARPENTER. I would not know the exact amount, but I think 

that it would be very little. I think that probably they—and I do 

not know the figures for sure. But I think that it is very little that 

they have sold. Even though the BLM says that they have classified land for disposal, we have a very hard time finding out where 

these lands are and what the procedure to buy them is. So the 

BLM has not been too much up front in the lands that they say 

that are there for disposal. It is really hard for people to get a handle on it. 

Mr. GIBBONS. We will have Mr. Abbey here and perhaps he can 

help us with that question as well. 

Mr. Goicoechea, maybe you have got an answer to that question 

from your standpoint. I also want to ask you about the impact of 

groundwater and water rights and the acquisition of private lands 

and how that impacts how you see water rights in your rural district, which obviously seven counties is a huge area out of the central part of the State. 

Mr. GOICOECHEA. Thank you again, Congressman Gibbons. Eureka County—you talk about the no-net-loss, Eureka County has a 

component of their master plan that requires that there be no net 

loss to the county. Unfortunately what you end up with, are you 

talking acre for acre, net loss or are you talking comparable values 

where maybe one acre is worth 100 of what you get back in exchange. It is very difficult to work through. So I think the net loss 

provision is very difficult. 

I think, again, as Mr. Carpenter stated, when you talk about 

land disposals in northern Nevada there are several that are ongoing, some of them very large. I think the BLM is doing a good job 

of—or is trying to work through it. But again, they are so sorely 

underfunded. When we talk about PILT, again, we have to realize 

that PILT was only paid at 55 percent, I would like to remind the 

Congress. So we need those PILT dollars, too, in these local governments. 

I am just going across all the questions that you raised to the 

other people. Clearly, I think it just fortifies the fact that we do 

need more money in the Bureau’s hands and to access private land 

sales in northern—public land sales to the private sector in northern Nevada. We have to make money available to do the cultural—

the real estate. If you started a transaction today, it will be five 

years before you get a 40-acre parcel purchased. It is not the fault 

of the BLM, it is just the fact that there is no money and staff 

available to get it done. 

On the water rights side, of course, it is another issue. In my district it is—at least portions of my district are concerned about even 

the 10 percent of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management 

Act money that goes to Southern Nevada Water Authority. Technically that money—in some sectors it is felt that that money is 

29

being used—or could be used to move to northern Nevada and to 

supply—I think the Act allows for the building of transmission 

lines. Again, some people in northern Nevada are very concerned 

that maybe we will have money coming out of the Southern 

Nevada Public Land Management Act that would facilitate water 

rights being moved from northern Nevada to southern Nevada. Any 

time you sell private property you sell the water with it. We are 

a beneficial use state, if you cannot use it, you lose it. If you sell 

the property the water is gone. So again, at the point that you acquire a piece of private land and it goes public then the water goes 

with it. That water is the lifeblood of rural Nevada, northern 

Nevada, all of Nevada. And we do recognize that southern Nevada 

will need some additional water. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. 

Mr. Nannini, let me ask you a question because you mentioned 

when I asked Mr. Ellison the value that you receive under PILT 

averages about 22 cents per acre. Would you rather have more privately owned land to be taxed or would you rather have PILT payments on more public lands into the county? Which would you prefer? 

Mr. NANNINI. Larger PILT payments for sure, and that is a common-sense deal, I think. But just to add a little bit on your question. You know, presently the BLM has 90,000 acres that they 

would like to sell in rural Nevada, you might say, northeastern 

Nevada. There is just no way under their system, or under the Federal system, that they can put that land back into the economy. 

There is just no way they can do it. I have worked with several of 

the ranchers and some of the miners. An easy way to do it was to 

allow the ranchers to buy their allotments so that this threat of losing their AUMs is continually over their head. The yearly operation 

of their ranches is—it is always a threat on how many cows, how 

many AUMs they can run on those allotments. If we would just let 

those ranchers buy their allotments and let these mines buy the 

property, even at an assessed value. If there is gold on those lands, 

put the price up so they can buy it. The way it is now, and the way 

we were raised as politicians or as elected officials, is the mining 

industry has to buy a ranch or a piece of sensitive property and 

then trade, you know, and that is no different than what we are 

doing here in southern Nevada. But if these folks could be allowed 

to continue to exist and continue to build on their family ranches 

and to continue mining in rural Nevada that would help all of us. 

Mr. GIBBONS. So what you are saying is, right now there is a 

quasi extortionary process between a mine trying to get a permit 

and a requirement that they go out and purchase a ranch in order 

to get the permit to operate the mine? 

Mr. NANNINI. That is correct. If they find gold on a piece of BLM 

property—I will pick on the BLM right now—or Forest Service 

property, they have to go out and buy a piece of environmentally 

sensitive ground and then trade it back for that property. You 

know, that has been ongoing. We have lived with that. We have 

dealt with that. But now with this money from the Southern 

Nevada deal it is going to wipe us out. And why not let these 

ranching families and these mining families go out and pay marVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:31 May 28, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\90750.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
30

ket—they are willing to pay market value. They paid that market 

value for their ranches. They paid two or three million dollars for 

a ranch. You know, they have paid several million dollars for trading land to get the gold. Why can we not do that on a direct deal 

and allow these folks to exist? That is all we are asking as Elko 

County commissioners. 

Mr. ELLISON. Some of these areas are so far off—

Mr. GIBBONS. You have to speak into the microphone. 

Mr. ELLISON. I am sorry, Jim. 

Some of the areas that BLM listed for disposal was in very remote areas so it is kind of hard. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Let me turn over to Mr. Johnson for a second. You indicated in 

your testimony that you felt, and the State felt that 10 percent of 

the funds used to supply new residents with water is an adequate 

sum. Do you feel that 5 percent is an adequate sum for the educational needs for the kids of Nevada? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I would have to defer responding 

to that. The 10 percent is the Governor’s testimony, and I do not 

feel qualified to—

Mr. GIBBONS. I am not asking you for a specific number of dollars, just your opinion. I mean you are here testifying on behalf of 

the Governor representing the State and you can give your opinion, 

whether you think 5 percent is adequate. If you think 10 percent 

is adequate for the water needs of Clark County, do you think 

5 percent is adequate for the needs of the kids of Nevada? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, I do not. 

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. Because you said you did not want to disrupt 

the 5 percent that is already existing. I mean this plan that we are 

talking about under our proposal would increase that to 35 percent. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is understood. 

Mr. GIBBONS. It would not disrupt the 5 percent. It would just 

add a top to that, 30 more percent of the proceeds, which does not 

quite go to where the bill was originally when it was designed. Senator Ensign and former Senator Bryan had 50 percent of the proceeds used to go back to the education of the kids of the State; however, that was beaten back by some environmental groups and it 

threatened the passage of the Act to the point where the compromise was well, we will give you 5 percent for the kids. I just 

think that by selling land down here in Clark County and the 

added burdens that you hear, either Dr. Rulffes or Dr. Roberts talk 

about, that infrastructure seems to be as equally as important as 

the water infrastructure is, which is now twice as important as 

education seems to be. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Congressman, personally I would agree that 

5 percent is a minimum, but any more than that is certainly necessary, and it is indicated by what has happened thus far with respect to the funding that is being made available to the school operations and to the children’s educational opportunities here within 

the State. 

Mr. GIBBONS. I am not trying to put you on the spot, Mr. Johnson. I just want to get a comment into the record where the State 

sits on this issue. 

31

Let me also ask a question—now this is going to be a little more 

subjective. Do you think, or does the Governor believe that the 

Federal Government is doing a better job of managing the lands in 

this state than the State? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I can answer that in two manners, Congressman. 

Personally, I do not, and I would have to presume that the Governor shares that opinion or that I am in line with his opinion that 

the Federal Government is not doing a better job of managing the 

lands in Nevada than Nevadans could do such as you have indicated in your opening remarks. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. 

Let me turn real quick like over here to Dr. Rulffes. I had a 

question that I wanted to ask. I need to get this right because the 

need for security, safety, buses, construction that you testified to is 

critically important, yet we are always exploring ways to get resources specifically in the proposal that I have submitted. Clark 

County now seems to be on the record opposing additional revenues 

from this, and I just wanted to either clarify that for the record or 

maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Is Clark County in 

support of getting additional revenues or are they opposed to getting additional revenues under this bill? 

Mr. RULFFES. In support. May I go on for just another minute 

or so? 

Mr. GIBBONS. Yes. 

Mr. RULFFES. As a former superintendent of a rural and small 

school district, I have stood up many, many times and defended the 

needs of rural school districts. I would never want it to be suggested that we would want anything other than more money for 

rural schools. But to segue into the increased tax base that you 

mentioned to me, most of the increased tax base under the funding 

formula of this state goes to an offset so that the State portion is 

reduced to the school districts, all school districts. So only a small 

part of the increase in the tax base benefits directly the local school 

district, and that, too, is computed into the per-pupil cost. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Well then it is an awful lot of differential when you 

take that tax base away from a rural county that takes the same 

revenue source. It then gets more state revenues if state revenues 

are available, but your county—Clark County is growing at such a 

tremendous rate that it—I do not believe the State of Nevada has 

ever reduced its funding share to Clark County in the last five 

years. 

Mr. RULFFES. It reduces it by the increase in the amount of sales 

tax and property tax. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Proportionately. But that amount still grows at an 

enormous rate because of the growth rate in Clark County, does it 

not? 

Mr. RULFFES. It grows but our per-pupil does not grow. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Yeah. 

Mr. RULFFES. And so we are kind of in the same boat as the 

other school districts. And again, all of the school districts have inadequate funding to deal with the kind of support functions that 

I mentioned in my testimony. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Well let me just ask just for the record clarification 

one more time. Does Clark County support the proposal of going 

32

from 5 percent to 35 percent in the proceeds of the sale for education? 

Mr. RULFFES. We support an increase to go to education. I do not 

believe we are qualified enough in the activity to say what the percentage should be in the terms of balancing it out, but we clearly 

support more of the dollars going to education— Mr. GIBBONS. Fair enough. 

Mr. RULFFES. —in whatever format. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. Roberts, we actually invited some of the 

Pahrump Valley schoolchildren to attend this hearing today, but 

they could not afford the bus trip over. Your school district could 

not afford the bus trip over here to Las Vegas, and that is 60 miles, 

is it? 

Mr. ROBERTS. No, it was not budgeted. 

Mr. GIBBONS. So your school district—when it comes to seeing 

Federal Government operation on a direct—is impacted dramatically by a lack of funding to allow these children to get the experience that they might have being able to sit out here in the audience, as these adults are, to see what happens at a Federal hearing. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well last year Nye County took a 2.8 million— Mr. GIBBONS. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. ROBERTS. It is. 

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. I am sorry. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Nye County took a $2.8 million budget reduction. 

We actually lost 22 teacher positions and 20 staff positions. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Did you have an increase in the number of children? 

Mr. ROBERTS. We did not last year. This year we did have an increase. We actually buy—we buy Clark County’s used buses. When 

they get to the point they no longer want them, they are kind 

enough to sell them to us, and we appreciate it. 

Mr. GIBBONS. I am sure you appreciate that, but it makes you 

feel like a stepchild, does it not? You are getting the used clothes 

or the used school buses handed down to you. 

Mr. ROBERTS. It is very difficult to recruit people to live in areas 

where there is no hospital, where the closest store, gasoline station 

or restaurant is over an hour away. It is a 5-hour drive from 

Duckwater to Pahrump, on and on. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me say that I have had the great pleasure of 

being in Duckwater for the annual commencement, the graduation 

from the Duckwater school there. This was a couple of years ago. 

I was the keynote speaker, and they had one student graduating 

that day. There were 80 parents in the audience for that one student, which tells me that there is a great deal of involvement of 

parents in that school area around Duckwater, Nevada. I was very 

pleased to be able to celebrate the graduation of that one student 

from Duckwater School, which is a traditional one-room, one-teacher kindergarten through eighth grade or ninth grade. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Also handles lunch, recess, medical emergencies 

and occasionally drives the bus. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Well it was an amazing experience to be there for 

that. So I congratulate you and Nye County on the work they are 

doing as well with very limited resources. 

33

Before I excuse this panel, I want to propose two questions to all 

of you to submit in writing to us. The question is, do you have more 

faith in how Nevada lands are cared for under Federal control or 

under State, county and local control? That is one question. The 

second question is, do you believe additional Federal ownership of 

Nevada lands constitutes a better educational environment for our 

children? Very simple, open-ended questions that I would love to 

have you submit back to us in writing. 

I do not know if I have any more questions here. So at this point 

in time, what I would like to do is excuse the first panel. I want 

to thank you for taking time to come here. As I said, your full and 

complete written testimony will be submitted for the record. With 

that, we want to excuse the first panel and call up the second panel 

of witnesses today. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. 

Now the second panel is going to be Mr. Larie Trippet, President, 

Dust Devils Motorcycle Club and a Member of the Northwest Sierra Front Great Basin Resource Advisory Council for the Bureau 

of Land Management in Reno, and Mr. Donald Decker, Management Member, Century Gold, Limited Liability Corporation, Spring 

Creek, Nevada. It is pretty easy, just two gentlemen here today on 

this panel. That means you get more focus and more attention. Before you do sit down, I am sorry, I have to swear you in as I did 

the last. So if you will please rise and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me introduce each of you again. 

Mr. Larie Trippet, as I said, you are President of the Dust Devils 

Motorcycle Club, you are a member of the Northwest Sierra Front 

Great Basin Resource Advisory Council here in Nevada. With that, 

Mr. Trippet, welcome, the floor is yours. We look forward to your 

testimony. 

And again, if you need an explanation about the lights, it is limited to five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LARIE TRIPPET, PRESIDENT, DUST DEVILS 

MOTORCYCLE CLUB AND MEMBER, NORTHWEST SIERRA 

FRONT GREAT BASIN RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCIL, 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, RENO, NEVADA 

Mr. TRIPPET. Thank you very much, Congressman Gibbons. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. It is an honor and a privilege to 

be here. 

I have been an active motorcycle rider since about 1970 and was 

politically active in southern California with the issues of land use 

down there and I have been active in northern Nevada as well. My 

role on the Resource Advisory Council is as a highway vehicle advocate. 

I am pleased to hear that you are considering some alternatives 

to the dispensation of the funds from the Southern Nevada Public 

Lands Management Act. Because I am here mainly talking about 

recreation, I certainly am not opposed to spending more money on 

education. I do not want that to come across at all. In fact, in 

thinking, certainly recreation, the base of the word is to recreate 

that certainly should be part of an education of our children. The 

use of the land, the respect for the land, the stewardship for the 

land. So I believe that recreation is certainly a component of the 

34

education of our children but certainly not the formal structured 

education that they get in the schools. 

I think a positive and proactive use of the funds would be for effective management of recreation, and although my background is 

highway vehicle recreation, I do want to speak to all recreation. I 

think that is fair. 

Demand for recreation in Nevada is increasing. In northern 

Nevada, we see a tremendous increase of off-highway vehicle use 

at the Sand Mountain Recreation Area. A majority of those visitors 

are from California. So what we see is an impact on the economy, 

a positive impact on the economy, of these tourists coming into 

Nevada to recreate. Certainly with the urban pressures in Clark 

County and Las Vegas, I would suspect that many of those residents, with their families, would choose to leave Clark County and 

go to rural Nevada to recreate, whether it be hunting, fishing, hiking, off-highway vehicles, whatever the case may be. 

We also see increasing demand for recreation in Peavine Mountain outside of Reno and the Pine Nut Mountains outside of Carson 

City. All these areas are getting impacted by the increase in recreation and certainly could use additional funding for effective management of recreation. 

The key overriding issue is access to public lands and I want to 

make a point that management of land for recreation is not closure 

and restriction. It is my belief that we need a fair amount of land 

for multiple uses, to design, engineer, build and maintain quality 

trails, to provide signage, mapping, education, to provide reasonable law enforcement. In order to provide the recreation and to do 

it effectively takes money. 

As I have mentioned, recreation supports the economy. The visitors come into Nevada, they are buying gasoline, they are buying 

supplies, they are taking use of the economy. It provides a diversification for the State over and above the gaming attraction and 

as you have probably noticed, the Nevada Commission on Tourism 

is marketing Nevada as the wild place, the wild place to recreate. 

In our Resource Advisory Council we have wondered how the BLM 

and the Forest Service will manage this influx of tourism that the 

Nevada Commission on Tourism is inviting. We have had some 

panel discussions on that. So I am here to argue for a little bit of 

funding to support recreation in Nevada. 

I also wanted to talk about the consequences of the Southern 

Nevada Public Lands Management Act, but they have already been 

mentioned, so very briefly, one of the first things our Resource Advisory Council mentioned when round one of the acquisitions came 

up was that there was no money for improvements. The Federal 

agency might be able to buy land, but if there was a need for a 

parking lot, need for signage, need for a toilet, need for a picnic 

area, there was no money for improvements to make it more publicly accessible or usable. And there was no money for ongoing 

maintenance and management of the land. So those are two deficiencies that we noticed. And I am not speaking for the RAC, I am 

speaking for me and the conversations that I have had with some 

of those people on the RAC. 

We have also already talked about the percentage of Federal 

land in Nevada. Some of my contacts on the Resource Advisory 

35

Council have also expressed the no net loss concept and I thoroughly support that idea. 

That is the end of my oral testimony. Thank you very much for 

the opportunity, I appreciate it. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Trippet. 

We will turn now to Mr. Donald Decker. Mr. Decker, welcome, 

the floor is yours. We look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trippet follows:]

Statement of Larie Trippet (Larimore O. Trippet II), President, Dust Devils 

Motorcycle Club, Member, Bureau of Land Management’s Northwest 

Sierra Front Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, Reno, Nevada 

I would like to thank the members of this Committee for allowing me the opportunity to submit testimony on this topic. 

As I understand the purpose of this hearing, the Subcommittee is considering 

amendments to the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA), 

which will allow for alternative uses of the money raised from the sale of federal 

land in Clark County, Nevada. Currently, the Act provides for the purchase of ‘‘environmentally sensitive’’ land outside of Clark County, but within Nevada. The land 

sales in Clark County have exceeded expectations with respect to revenue generated, while purchases of land have been more difficult to achieve. 

I applaud Congress’s willingness to look at this issue. 

I first want to comment on some discussions I have had at RAC meetings. I do 

not speak on behalf of the RAC, nor for the BLM in Nevada, but simply relate some 

feelings and opinions discussed by some of the RAC members. 

Three years ago, our RAC was involved in commenting on potential sites for purchase with SNPLMA funds. It was the first such ‘‘round’’ of purchases. Several of 

us asked about money to make improvements or to manage and maintain the land 

once purchased. An example of improvements might be like this: Some land was 

purchased along the Carson River to provide public access and prevent major development. Improvements might be considered for better parking, signage, picnic facilities, toilet facilities, etc. These all might be appropriate improvements to better 

manage the land that was acquired. SNPLMA does not provide for this. It should! 

Similarly, we asked about funding for ongoing management of the acquired land. 

SNPLMA does not provide for this. It should! 

What SNPLMA does is provide for acquisition of land with no money to properly 

‘‘set it up’’ for use or to properly manage it over the long run. This is a terrible oversight! This is true regardless of the purpose of the acquired land: protected, recreation or other. 

Other comments from some RAC members focus on the percentage of the State 

of Nevada that is under federal control. Nevada has the highest percentage of federal ownership than any other state. When I joined the RAC three years ago, I 

agreed with the sentiment that there should be NO NET GAIN in federal land ownership in Nevada and that, preferably, that percentage would actually decrease. 

However, the consequence of the SNPLMA is that the percentage of federal land 

ownership in Nevada is/will grow. From my understanding of the success in selling 

parcels in Clark County, the BLM is taking in huge amounts of money for a small 

number of acres. If that same money were used to buy land outside of Clark County, 

the number of acres would be HUGE. In my opinion, this is a very NEGATIVE consequence of SNPLMA. 

Of course, one of the effects of private lands being acquired by BLM/USFS is the 

reduction in tax revenue to the counties and State. Nevada is already struggling 

with the following: 

• the low price of gold has caused the mining towns economies to suffer; 

• environmental regulations have further squeezed the mining businesses and 

communities; 

• endangered species issues and environmental regulations have hurt the ranchers and livestock production; and 

• Congressionally designated lands (in particular the High Rock Black Rock Emigrant Trail Conservation Area) has precluded potential alternative energy development and reduced grazing opportunities. 

To acquire and set aside more land would continue to harm Nevada’s economy. 

With these two points in mind, I strongly encourage Congress to find alternative 

uses (other than acquiring land) for the proceeds of land sales in Clark County. 

What might be some alternative uses? 

36

My interest and background are centered around recreation. Although my specific 

background and interest is in motorized recreation, I believe my comments apply 

to all forms of recreation. By including all forms of recreation, I want to ensure that 

the resources (land) are shared by all. Most areas should be kept as ‘‘multiple use,’’

thereby allowing ALL forms of recreation (motorized and non-motorized). This does 

not preclude some areas designated for exclusive use for some forms of recreation. 

Hikers and equestrians already get exclusive access to Wilderness areas. 

Why recreation? It brings visitors from other states to Nevada to recreate. Nevada 

has some outstanding resources for all sorts of recreation and access to wide open 

spaces and solitude. Allowing SNPLMA funds to benefit statewide recreation on federal land would be a great economic benefit to Nevada and provide for appropriate 

management of activities to promote resource stewardship and land use ethics. 

I am involved with land use issues at the Sand Mountain Recreation Area 

(SMRA) in Northern Nevada. This is about 4,000 acres set aside for OHV (and 

other) recreation. However, concerns about a blue butterfly, and it’s host plant, the 

Kearney Buckwheat, along with fears over the heavy hand of the Endangered 

Species Act, have caused the BLM to restrict travel in this area. It is well-known 

that about 80-85 percent of the visitors to SMRA are from out of state, California. 

These visitors provide an economic benefit to the surrounding communities of 

Fallon, Carson City and Reno. 

The number of annual visitors to SMRA has increased every year since it was established. This is due to the population growth in Nevada along with the constant 

closures of land to OHV recreation in California. The demand for OHV recreation 

continues to grow. Use of SNPLMA funds can help meet that demand and help minimize the impact to public lands. 

With additional funding from SNPLMA, trails could be planned, engineered and 

constructed to provide for a better recreational experience while providing protection 

for the butterfly. Existing trails that would get used extensively could be maintained through the purchase of appropriate equipment and manpower to do the 

work. 

Once again, let me reiterate that I support all forms of recreation. I use OHV examples because I most familiar with that. 

Another area that could benefit from additional funding is Peavine Mountain outside Reno, Nevada. The Washoe County Backcountry Coalition is a diverse group 

of interested parties working together to ensure access to Peavine Mountain, which 

is part USFS and part BLM. They have been very successful in gaining support 

from the City of Reno, Washoe County, as well as several developers. Were it not 

for their efforts, access points to public land would have been blocked by development. 

Additional funding could be used for: 

• effectively designating and signing areas for multiple use or specific use; 

• maintain roads and trails; and 

• plan, design, engineer and build new or alternative trails. 

Although I generally oppose the acquisition of more land by federal agencies, 

Peavine Mountain is an example where it does make sense. There are inholdings 

of private land that, if acquired, would provide recreational opportunities, open 

space, and habitat protection. 

The Nevada Commission on Tourism is already marketing Nevada as a wild place 

for all sorts of recreation possibilities. Since so much of Nevada is federal land, it 

is the federal agencies that will have to manage this influx of wild recreational tourism. Clearly additional funding from SNPLMA activities could help provide for effective management of these activities. I personally think this is a pretty good marketing campaign for tourism. It should bring needed revenues outside of the draw 

of the gaming industry. However, the federal agencies need the resources (money) 

to properly manage it. CLOSING THE LAND, PREVENTING ACCESS, RESTRICTING USAGE IS NOT THE ANSWER! Proper planning and management to meet the 

demand is the best approach...and that takes money. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony as you consider 

amendments to SNPLMA. I hope that some funding can be directed toward recreation to meet the increasing demand and to ensure the resources are well managed 

by the federal agencies. 

37

STATEMENT OF DONALD DECKER, MANAGING MEMBER,

CENTURY GOLD, LLC, SPRING CREEK, NEVADA 

Mr. DECKER. Thank you, Congressman Gibbons. I appreciate 

very much the opportunity to be here and to testify on this very 

important public land management legislation. 

I have chosen to live and operate a business in Nevada for over 

30 years. I have a Master of Science in geology from the Mackay 

School of Mines in Reno and presently operate the second largest 

privately held mineral exploration firm in northern Nevada. I also 

serve on the Elko County Public Land Use Advisory Commission, 

which is designated by the county commissioners. I have been involved in public land issues all of my life. 

Nevada has been severely impacted by a multitude of piecemeal 

land management legislation decisions over the last 150 years. Several of these actions in recent years have addressed broadening the 

private land base in southern Nevada, which has sustained the economic growth in southern Nevada for many years. The Southern 

Nevada Public Land Management Act offers a unique opportunity 

to address many public land management issues at one time, if we 

avoid the piecemeal approach of the past. 

Southern Nevada Land Management Act provides a method to 

convert public land to private land base within the State. This is 

working very well for Clark County and southern Nevada. Through 

this Act, the private land and water base that is required for any 

economic growth engine, is being increased in southern Nevada, 

while being decreased in the remainder of the State. This needs to 

be corrected. 

There is a discussion about the acquisition process of using the 

monies from the Act and I certainly support the principle of private 

property rights. We just have to realize though that the acquisitions made by the monies from the Southern Nevada Land Act are 

not a free market transaction. It may be argued that they are, but 

they are not necessarily a willing seller/willing buyer. I actually 

personally have offered to buy some of the parcels that have been 

offered in round four and they were not available to me at the 

same price as were offered by the Federal Government. 

I basically have three recommendations for consideration: 

One is to convert existing public lands in all areas of the State 

to private lands. Presently over 87 percent of Nevada is public 

land, which restricts the economic activity. We can say that the 

PILT payments would compensate for that, and they do, but to a 

very limited extent, but they do not offer the opportunity for any 

other activity besides just a token payment from the Federal Government. 

The Nevada Association of Counties, NACO, has a policy of no 

net loss of private land acreage in all of the counties, in order to 

protect the tax base. The Southern Nevada Land Act should make 

provisions for disposal of public lands to private lands of equal 

acreage or value within any particular county where private land 

acquisitions are made. There is no pressing need to increase the 

control of public lands in the Federal agencies within the State. 

These agencies are continually lacking funding to carry out their 

designated managerial roles. To increase their land holdings would 

only stretch the limited resources they presently have. 

38

The subject of the lands in Elko County that are available for 

sale has been brought up. I have seen a map, there are approximately 100,000 acres, which is designated as for sale. At the 

present time, I believe there is around 1,000 acres which is actually 

designated as being for sale, but those are only designated by the 

BLM, they are not on a nomination process such as we have here 

in the Southern Nevada Land Act where I can nominate a parcel 

of land for sale. So the process is very limited in Elko County as 

far as the sale of those parcels. And the ones that are, I think it 

is around 1,000 acres total that is available presently in Elko 

County. And that is several parcels so they are very limited, very 

small parcels. 

Second, I would encourage the economic activity by privatization. 

All the tremendous economic activity in the last 50 years in 

Nevada has been encouraged and made possible by private land 

base. Warehousing, gaming, mining are all dependent upon the 

availability of private land. Private land and the availability of 

water are the driving forces of economic viability and diversification. 

We just need to stop the piecemeal legislation. An excellent example of the cooperative land management legislation is the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act and other legislation over the last 25 

years, which provided for designation of specific scenic and wildlife 

resources as well as the designation of specific areas for economic 

development. All the people of Alaska were given the opportunity 

to use the resources, they have for years, and the varied legislation 

in Alaska since the early 1970s has proven to be a very workable 

vehicle to address the varied resources available. This format to 

apply to the Southern Nevada Land Act would be something to consider. 

Also, through the disposition of land to the State of Alaska, they 

have set up what is called a permanent fund. The term of a permanent fund was brought up for educational funding here. And the 

State of Alaska has a permanent fund from revenues derived from 

the State lands—it is not a Federal permanent fund but a state 

permanent fund—which apparently works very well. 

The lack of addressing some of this piecemeal legislation, the wilderness study areas is an excellent example of that. We have about 

200,000 acres of that in Elko County and maybe half of that has 

been agreed to be yeah, that could have wilderness value, but the 

other 100,000 acres is just in limbo and has been for 20 years. So 

we just need to address it. 

The third area is recreational opportunities. The conversion of 

public lands to recreational uses at the same time, setting aside 

multiple use concepts for the land is a dangerous route to take. 

Several of the legislative acts in the last 50 years have provided 

private lands for southern Nevada while protecting specific parcels 

for recreation in the Tahoe Basin. I believe this is primarily the 

Burton-Santini Act and the designation of recreation in environmentally sensitive areas has in effect limited the public access to 

the lands for any use. A massive transfer of money to the Tahoe 

Basin has not led to a proportional increase in the availability of 

or access to the public land and the public lake. 

39

We have the example of Arrowhead Lake in California was 

brought up, which is an excellent example of that, which had led 

to the same exact thing in Tahoe Basin, which is a tinderbox ready 

to turn. 

We have a case in Elko County, which is Franklin Lake, which 

was a Federal/state purchase of a ranch about 12 or 15 years ago, 

which part of that was designated to be increased access to the 

Ruby Mountains. It has not come about. The Federal Government 

says they need more access into the Ruby Mountains but yet they 

have had this designated for that many years and no action has 

been taken on it. 

The concept has been used to actually limit the access to specific 

areas. Recent legislation approving the increase of user fees for National recreation areas indicates a lack of funding for these facilities. These agencies are continually limited by funding restrictions 

and the lack of updating the recreational facilities that they are to 

serve. More private land-based recreation is a good alternative, and 

the use of Southern Nevada Land Act to enhance the recreational 

opportunities would be a great alternative. 

We all need to look at using Southern Nevada Land Act as a 

win-win solution to challenging land use issues in the next few 

years. Please do not let it continue to benefit only one small portion 

of the State while expropriating the economic resources of the other 

portions of the State. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Decker follows:]

Statement of Donald J. Decker, Managing Member,

Century Gold LLC, Spring Creek, Nevada 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this very important public land management legislation. I have chosen to live in and operate a business in Nevada for 

over 30 years. I have a Master of Science in geology from the Mackay School of 

Mines in Reno, and presently operate the second largest privately held mineral exploration firm in northern Nevada. I also serve on the Elko County Public Land Use 

Advisory Commission. I have been involved in public land issues all of my life. 

Nevada has been severely impacted by a multitude of piecemeal land management legislative decisions over the last 150 years. Several of these actions in recent 

years have addressed broadening the private land base in Southern Nevada, which 

has sustained the economic growth in that area for many years. The Southern 

Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) offers a unique opportunity to address many public land management issues at one time, if we avoid the piecemeal 

approach of the past. 

SNPLMA provides a method to convert public lands to the private land base within the State. This is working very well for Clark County, and Southern Nevada. 

Through this act, the private land and water base that is required for any economic 

growth engine is being increased in Southern Nevada, while being decreased in the 

remainder of the State. This needs to be corrected in order to sustain the quality 

of life in all areas of the State. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION: 

1. CONVERT EXISTING PUBLIC LANDS IN ALL AREAS OF THE STATE TO 

PRIVATE LANDS 

Presently over 85 percent of Nevada is public lands, which restricts the economic 

activity. The Nevada Association of Counties ( NACO ) has a policy of no net loss 

of private land acreage in all of the counties in order to protect the tax base. 

SNPLMA should make provisions for disposal of public lands to private lands of 

equal acreage or value within any particular county where private land acquisitions 

are made. 

There is no pressing need to increase the control of the public lands by the federal 

agencies within the State of Nevada. These agencies are continually lacking funding 

40

to carry out their designated managerial roles. To increase their land holdings 

would only stretch the limited resources further. 

2. ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BY PRIVATIZATION 

All of the tremendous economic activity in the last 50 years in Nevada has been 

encouraged and made possible by the private land base. Warehousing, gaming, and 

mining are all dependent upon the availability of private lands. Private land and 

the availability of water are the driving forces for economic viability and diversification. 

An excellent example of cooperative land management legislation is the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act and other legislation that has provided for designation of specific scenic and wildlife resources as well as designation of specific areas 

for economic development. The native people in Alaska were given the opportunity 

to use the resources they have on their lands to provide a more sustainable lifestyle. 

The varied legislation in Alaska since the early 1970’s has proven to be a very workable vehicle to address the varied resources available. This format to apply the 

SNPLMA would be very beneficial. 

3. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 

The conversion of public lands to ‘‘recreational uses’’ at the same time, setting 

aside ‘‘multiple use’’ concepts for the land, is a dangerous route to take. Several of 

the Legislative acts in the last 50 years have provided private lands for Southern 

Nevada, while protecting specific parcels for recreation in the Tahoe Basin. The designation of ‘‘recreation,’’ or ‘‘environmentally sensitive’’ areas, has, in effect, limited 

the public access to the lands for any use. The massive transfer of money to the 

Tahoe Basin has not led to a proportional increase in the availability of, and access 

to, the public access to the lake. 

This concept has been used to actually limit the access to specific areas. Recent 

legislation approved the increase of user fees for National recreational areas and indicate the lack of funding for these facilities. These agencies are continually limited 

by funding restrictions, and the lack of updating of the recreational facilities they 

are to serve. More private land-based recreation is a good alternative, and the use 

of SNPLMA to enhance the recreational opportunities would be a great alternative. 

We all need to look at using SNPLMA for a Win-Win solution to challenging landuse issues in the next few years. Please do not let it continue to benefit only one 

small portion of the State, while expropriating the economic resources of other portions of the State. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Decker. 

I was particularly struck by the part where you said that you 

have a Master’s Degree in geology from Mackay School of Mines. 

Mr. DECKER. Good school. 

Mr. GIBBONS. I guess we cannot all be perfect, since I share that 

commonality with you. 

Mr. DECKER. Right. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me just ask you a brief question. What I gathered from your testimony was that you said that acquisition of private land to put into public holdings oftentimes results in less access or denied access or no greater access to the public land. Especially you were talking about the Franklin Lake acquisition up in 

Elko County. Is that what you were saying that not always does 

acquisition by the government result in greater access? 

Mr. DECKER. I believe that is true. I think Franklin Lake is a 

classic example of that, where the access was apparently to go forward. 

Another case is the Pequot Mountains where the 70,000 acres 

was traded out a few years ago, but there is no increase in the access, it is just the same as it was. Actually the road system to access most of the public lands, the Forest Service is a great example, 

are the county roads which are maintained by the county to provide access to that. So it does limit the access. 

41

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Trippet, let me ask you, you have been around 

recreational vehicles, off-road, motorcycle riding for a little more 

than three decades. In your experience over those three decades, 

have you found the Federal land management agencies to be more 

or less recreation friendly than they were 10 years ago? 

Mr. TRIPPET. Well, with respect to motorized recreation, the Federal agencies are much less friendly. One of the comments that I 

make at our Resource Advisory Council—because we have many 

points of view on that Council—is that over the past 30 years, the 

lands available to motorized recreation have shrunk and shrunk 

and shrunk. And my goal is to try to stop that shrinkage. And I 

do not want to deny the need for some wilderness areas, I do not 

want to deny some areas for exclusive use for hikers or equestrians, but we need some areas for some other recreation. So in a 

broad general statement, I would say the Federal agencies are less 

friendly to off-highway vehicle motorized use now than they were 

before. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Is it just that they are concerned about the quality 

of the environment where a lot of off-road recreation takes place or 

are they refusing to provide alternatives? In other words, do they 

just want to restrict down your operating area to more and more 

smaller areas until they get to a zero point or do they say we are 

going to take 100 acres out of you here, you cannot operate here 

but we are going to let you operate on 100 acres over here? Is that 

what you experience? 

Mr. TRIPPET. The concept of no net loss that we apply here to 

Federal land in Nevada I also try to apply to off-highway vehicle 

recreation and I try to say that if the Federal agencies want to restrict us in one area or close another area, I say give us a different 

area to go to. Sometimes it is a function of the quality or the terrain in question. For example, Sand Mountain Recreation Area is 

a mountain of sand that ATVs and dune buggies like to ride on. 

To close or restrict part of that area, there really is not another 

similar area to open up. So that is a challenge. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, I can see that if you restrict an area, you 

force the same number of people that were operating in a large 

area into a smaller operating arena, which does even more damage 

or wear and tear on the land by forcing that same number of people into a smaller and smaller arena. 

Mr. TRIPPET. Yeah, it concentrates the impact, absolutely. Some 

of that impact could be handled with appropriate management. 

There are tractors and devices that can smooth out the trails and 

to maintain the trails such that the impact is minimized. But 

again, that takes money. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Decker, I wanted to step back to your testimony for a moment. Even though this hearing is about increasing 

the percentage of proceeds going to education, you mentioned something in your testimony that I just wanted to kind of go over and 

get onto the record, because you indicated that in the acquisitions 

or the sale of private property in northeast Nevada, that even 

though this was a ‘‘willing seller/willing buyer’’ to the Federal Government, if you walked in and were willing to buy the property, 

you were not allowed to make the offer or to buy the property. Can 

42

you explain that a little more? This is a foreign concept to me. Why 

did that take place? 

Mr. DECKER. Well, I may have been too late in the process, I am 

not sure. But I did ask the ranch if they had some other land available at that price, which was above, probably above market price, 

I think Realtors in the area could address that better, but I am not 

totally sure except maybe—the particular parcels I was interested 

in were in the top of the Santa Rosa range between Winnemucca 

and McDermott, along the drainages, and the Nevada First Corporation was selling them, but I do not believe it is a willing seller/

willing buyer transaction. It is not at all a free market transaction. 

And I know the argument comes up that we cannot restrict the private property rights of a person, but if you really are supporting 

that private property rights, then it should be a willing seller/willing buyer, free market transaction. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me ask one final question, Mr. Decker, and 

that is the difference between what benefits would accrue to a 

county from mineral resources on private land versus mining mineral resources on Federal lands? Do you have an idea or a concept 

that you could share with us? 

Mr. DECKER. Well, I think the primary benefit to the county from 

the mining is obviously through the Net Proceeds in Mines tax 

which was a process which was put in place by the mining industry 

in the early 1980s, which is a tax on your net proceeds which goes 

to the State back to the counties. And I am sorry, I do not have 

the figures per acre in the county with me. I will get those. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Would you? For the record, that would be great. 

Mr. DECKER. I guess it would be probably about 5 percent of two 

billion dollars for the last couple of years that would go back to the 

State, but that is overall in the State. 

Other than that, of course there is tax revenue on the buildings 

and the land, ad valorem tax on the land. But many of the mining 

companies have moved and transitioned from public land to private 

land in the last 10 years, just because—part of that is the permitting process is easier on the private land and you have more control over what you are doing. 

I would estimate in at least Elko and Eureka Counties that probably 60 or 70 percent of the mining activity, economic mining activity, is probably on private lands and part of that has obviously 

been through the process of patenting mining claims which has—

did proceed, but it is under moratorium now. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Yes. So I guess the real issue is that there is a defined benefit for a county to have an operation on private land 

based on property tax basis versus an operation on public land 

which does not generate a tax base other than the net proceeds of 

mines royalty to the State which comes back to the county. 

Mr. DECKER. Right, I think so. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, gentlemen, I do not have any more questions 

for you at this point in time. I did want to again ask those same 

two questions, which I know you heard from the previous testimony about the confidence in whether land is better managed by 

the Federal Government or the State, county and local agencies. 

And the second question is does the State benefit, do the children 

43

of this state benefit in terms of education by having more public 

land and less private land, or vice versa? 

So if you could just sort of summarize your answer to those two 

statements and provide it back to me with the other information, 

Mr. Decker, that you were going to provide, I would appreciate that 

as well. 

I want to thank both of you for coming down to Las Vegas and 

taking time out of your busy schedule to help us better understand 

our job and what we are doing here. Your testimony has been very 

valuable, very helpful to the Committee as well. With that, we will 

excuse the second panel with a great deal of thanks. 

And we will call up the third and final panel, which is Bob 

Abbey, who is the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, the 

State of Nevada. Bob, it is always pleasure to have you here testifying with us. As you can see, you are all by yourself, that makes 

you the star of the show. While you are standing there, let me 

swear you in. Would you raise your right hand. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. GIBBONS. Let the record reflect that the witness answered in 

the affirmative. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY. STATE DIRECTOR,

NEVADA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Mr. ABBEY. For the record, my name is Bob Abbey, I am the 

State Director for the Bureau of Land Management here in 

Nevada. 

Once again, Congressman Gibbons, it is my pleasure to appear 

before one of your field hearings, in this case to discuss the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act of 1998. 

Nevada’s Congressional Delegation is commended for its vision 

and innovation in developing this law. This legislation allows the 

Bureau of Land Management to sell public lands in the Las Vegas 

Valley to meet the demands for community expansion and economic development, and to use these proceeds from these sales to 

address critical environmental and education needs in Clark County as well as other areas of the State. This legislation has been successful in bringing various groups together to address resourcing 

and growth issues in Nevada. 

Since you have already provided some basic background on the 

legislation, I will just kind of limit my comments along those lines, 

but as you pointed out, this legislation promotes competitive land 

sales that allow the public to have an opportunity to acquire public 

lands through competitive market auctions. 

I provided this Committee with a handout that highlights the 

various categories of expenditures that have been authorized under 

this Act and the dollar amounts approved to date in each of those 

categories. You have also already pointed out that 5 percent of all 

the revenues generated from the sale of these lands go to the State 

general education fund for the education of Nevada’s schoolchildren. Ten percent goes to the Southern Nevada Water Authority to fund the infrastructure needed to help support the development resulting from land sales. And the remaining 85 percent is 

deposited into a special account and is available to be spent in six 

categories, which you have already identified. 

44

Since enactment of this legislation in 1998, the Bureau of Land Management and our partners have generated more than $690 million by selling a little more than 5600 acres of public land at 15 

public auctions, including nine oral auctions and six online auctions. The amount of revenues that have been generated certainly 

has far exceeded our original projections when the law first passed. 

Local government entities in Clark County determine both the 

sequence and timing of the lands that we offer for sale. Clark 

County and the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and Henderson agree on what parcels they would like to have us offer at these 

sales and then advise the Bureau of Land Management of their decisions and we try to accommodate their wishes. 

I wanted to spend a brief moment giving an overview of the full 

spectrum of the lands disposal program for the Bureau of Land 

Management here in Nevada. In addition to the lands that have 

been designated for disposal in the Southern Nevada Public Lands 

Management Act, the BLM has identified, as you heard from previous witnesses, approximately one million additional acres of land 

throughout the State, under other authorities, that are also available for disposal. These are lands that are designated for disposal 

into private ownership through a very public planning process that 

provides for community expansion and economic development. Recent disposal actions include the sale of approximately 7700 acres 

to the city of Mesquite under the Mesquite Lands Act. And we are 

working with that same city on conveyance of an additional 4500 

acres of land near their airport. 

The BLM is offering for sale 13,500 acres under the Lincoln 

County Lands Act of 2000. Over the next several years, we also 

plan to offer for sale approximately 21,000 acres of land in 13 

Nevada counties outside of Clark County. 

In addition to providing much needed revenues to the State education fund, the Bureau of Land Management has conveyed land 

to communities throughout Nevada for schools and other facilities 

through the Recreation and Public Purpose Act. This legislation allows state and local governments and qualified nonprofit organizations to acquire public lands for schools, fire houses, municipal and 

law enforcement facilities, hospitals, churches, parks as well as 

fairgrounds. Over the past 15 years, the Bureau of Land Management has conveyed approximately 7500 acres in 105 areas throughout Nevada under the Recreation and Public Purpose Act. A significant number of R&PP transfers exist in Clark County which has 

the highest number of recreation and public purposes transfers, bureau wide, as throughout the nation. 

Additionally, the Clark County Public Lands and Natural Resources Act of 2002 directed the BLM to convey public lands to the 

city of Las Vegas for the development of low income housing, to establish a research and technology center at the University of 

Nevada at Las Vegas, to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for a shooting range and to the city of Henderson to expand 

the Nevada State College. 

Under the specific laws that have been supported, and in many 

cases authored by the Nevada delegation, the Bureau of Land Management is presently taking actions to dispose of approximately 

100,000 acres of public land into private ownership to accommodate 

45

community growth and economic development. The partnership 

among Federal, state and local governments has been a good one 

and the public has truly benefited from the actions that have been 

taken today to implement the provisions of the Southern Nevada 

Public Lands Management Act as well as some of the other specific 

legislation. 

We believe that the lands which have been identified for acquisition through the first four rounds of the implementation of the 

Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act will enhance the 

public’s realty portfolio and provide an overall enhancement of 

their quality of life. 

Congressman Gibbons, again, we appreciate the opportunity to 

be here and I am willing to answer any questions that you might 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbey follows:]

Statement of Robert V. Abbey, Nevada State Director,

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s field hearing to discuss 

the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act of 1998 (SNPLMA). Nevada’s 

Congressional Delegation is to be commended for its vision and innovation in developing this law. SNPLMA allows the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to sell public lands in the Las Vegas Valley to meet the demands for community expansion 

and economic development, and to use the proceeds from these sales to address critical environmental and educational needs in Clark County and other areas of 

Nevada. Decisions on land sales and acquisitions authorized by SNPLMA in concert 

with other applicable laws, and funding for special resource projects authorized 

under SNPLMA, involve critical input and coordination with local governments and 

related local entities. SNPLMA has been successful in bringing various groups together to address resource and growth issues in Clark County and elsewhere in the 

State. 

Background 

SNPLMA promotes competitive lands sales that allow local interests to have an 

opportunity to acquire public lands through competitive market auctions. Because 

SNPLMA provides local governments the opportunity to participate in the selection 

of lands, and gives them the first right of refusal of lands to be used for public purposes, they are supportive of the Act. 

The allocation of SNPLMA proceeds from the sales of public lands subject to 

SNPLMA is specifically outlined in the law. Five percent of the funds go to the State 

General Education Fund for the education of Nevada’s schoolchildren; ten percent 

goes to the Southern Nevada Water Authority to fund the infrastructure needed to 

support the development resulting from land sales under the Act; and the remaining 

85 percent is deposited into a special account and available to be spent on the following activities: 

• to acquire environmentally sensitive lands in the State, with an emphasis in 

Clark County; 

• to support wildlife habitat initiatives through the Clark County Multiple 

Species Habitat Conservation Plan; 

• to fund capital improvement projects at designated Federal recreation areas in 

Clark County; 

• to develop parks, trails, and natural areas in Clark County; 

• to implement conservation initiatives in Clark County; and 

• to restore Lake Tahoe. 

Since enactment of SNPLMA in 1998, the BLM has generated more than $690 

million by selling 5,635.56 acres of public land at 15 public auctions, including 9 

oral auctions and 6 on-line auctions. The funds raised thus far have provided the 

Nevada General Education Fund with nearly $29 million; the Southern Nevada 

Water Authority with nearly $53 million for new infrastructure; and over $473 million has been deposited into the special account for the purposes noted above. These 

disbursements do not include funds generated from recent land sales. 

46

Land Sales 

Presently, approximately 49,000 acres of public land are within the disposal 

boundary designated by SNPLMA as amended by the Clark County Public Land 

and Natural Resources Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-282). The Clark County Act 

added approximately 22,000 acres of public land to the disposal boundary area. The 

BLM is currently developing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to comply 

with the National Environmental Policy Act requirements for disposing of the additional lands. It is expected that this EIS will be completed in September 2004. 

Local government entities in Clark County determine with BLM approval the sequence and timing of lands offered for sale through a process provided for in 

SNPLMA called ‘‘joint selection.’’ Clark County and the cities of Las Vegas, North 

Las Vegas, and Henderson agree on what parcels they would like to have offered 

for sale and advise the BLM of their decisions. The BLM believes that it is 

appropriate for local governments to drive the timing and amount of land that is 

placed on the market because local officials must determine if the infrastructure, 

zoning, and other requirements are in place to accommodate the development that 

will result once the lands are conveyed into private ownership. 

BLM contracts with the General Services Administration (GSA) to hold live auctions every six months. Last month the BLM sold an additional 733.75 acres of public land for $127.1 million. Parcels not sold at the live auction may be offered for 

sale on the Internet by GSA, or they may be offered at future live auctions. 

In addition to the land designated for disposal in the Las Vegas Valley under 

SNPLMA, the BLM has identified nearly 1 million additional acres of land throughout the State under other authorities that are also available for disposal. These are 

lands that are designated for disposal into private ownership through a public planning process that provides for community expansion and economic development in 

other areas of Nevada. To date, the BLM has sold 7,700 acres to the City of Mesquite under the Mesquite Land Act of 1986, and we are working with the City on 

the conveyance of an additional 4,500 acres of land. The BLM is offering for sale 

13,500 acres under the Lincoln County Land Act of 2000. Over the next several 

years, the BLM also plans to offer for sale approximately 21,200 acres of land in 

13 Nevada counties outside of Clark County. 

The Department of the Interior recently reorganized its land-appraisal function 

and consolidated the Department’s various appraisal functions within a newly developed Department office. This reform will provide unbiased land appraisals consistent with the public interest by increasing appraiser independence, making certain that appraisals meet recognized professional standards, and advancing conservation goals. 

Expenditures from the Special Account 

Since implementation of SNPLMA in 1998, the Secretary has approved over $630 

million in expenditures from the special account. Of that total, $207 million has 

been approved for acquisitions of environmentally sensitive lands, $153 million for 

capital improvements, $155 million for parks, trails and natural areas, $36 million 

for conservation initiatives, $44 million for Burton-Santini acquisitions, and $20 million for multi-species habitat conservation plans. 

On October 28, 2003, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, approved the fourth round of expenditures from the special 

account totaling nearly $376 million. In this most recent round, nearly $104 million 

is earmarked for development of 28 park, trail and natural area projects in partnership with local governments in Clark County, $118 million for capital improvements 

and $101 million for land acquisitions. Seventy-four percent of those expenditures 

will be made in Clark County. 

Some examples of on-going efforts and past successes that were funded using the 

special account include the following: 

Parks, Trails, and Natural Areas—To date, the special account has provided for 

over $155 million to park, trail, and natural area projects in Clark County. Funds 

are used to partner with local governments in Clark County to meet the increasing 

demand for outdoor recreation, protect significant resources, and link urban areas 

with public lands as part of a regional trail system. With the special account funds, 

Clark County purchased more than 750 acres of private lands that were inholdings 

within the proposed area for the Clark County Wetlands Park (Park). The County 

Departments of Comprehensive Planning and Parks and Recreation started the 

Park project in 1999. The Park encompasses about eight square miles along a sevenmile stretch of the Las Vegas Wash in the southeastern corner of the Las Vegas 

Valley. In addition to providing exceptional recreation opportunities for visitors, 

park improvements are helping to control erosion of the Las Vegas Wash, increase 

47

wildlife and plant diversity, and benefit Lake Mead by controlling erosion and sediment loading. 

Conservation Initiatives—Conservation initiatives are a new funding category 

under SNPLMA authorized by an amendment included in the Clark County Public 

Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002. Funds are used for the planning, implementation, and monitoring of projects that promote conservation on Federal lands 

through education and other means. Since passage of this law, over $36 million 

have been approved for expenditures benefitting Clark County in this category of 

activities. One of the first projects to be implemented was an educational outreach 

program for off-highway vehicle riders. Through a public awareness campaign, riders are being encouraged to stay on roads and trails to control dust and to protect 

sensitive areas and listed species such as the desert tortoise. Another conservation 

initiative recently approved is funding for the clean up of unauthorized desert 

dumping sites. 

Federal Recreation Areas in Clark County—The special account is also used to address capital improvement needs in Federally-managed areas within Clark County 

that receive high annual visitation. These areas include the BLM’s Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, the National Park Service’s Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area, the Forest Service’s Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, 

and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Desert National Wildlife Refuge. Nearly $153 

million from the special account has been approved to address capital improvements 

in these areas. BLM is using the special account to build an environmental education facility at Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area to be operated in 

cooperation with Clark County Public Schools. The special account is also being 

used to fund a new visitor center for the Forest Service in the Spring Mountains 

National Recreation Area; archaeological excavation work by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service at the Desert National Wildlife Refuge; and the building of boat launch 

ramps and upgrades of campgrounds by the National Park Service at the Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area. This resource work and new facilities will enable 

Federal agencies to provide better visitor services for those who come to enjoy these 

exceptional recreation areas. 

Lake Tahoe Conservation—Within the SNPLMA land disposal boundary a smaller 

boundary also exists around land designated for disposal in the Burton-Santini Act 

of 1980. The proceeds from the sale of these lands are specifically designated for 

the purchase of land around Lake Tahoe. Since the enactment of SNPLMA, nearly 

$44 million has been made available for the purchase of land at Lake Tahoe. Additionally, the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of the Interior Appropriations Act (Public 

Law 108-108) contains an amendment to SNPLMA that authorizes $300 million to 

be spent over the next eight years for project work to restore and preserve Lake 

Tahoe’s water clarity. 

Acquisition of Environmentally-Sensitive Land—SNPLMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to expend revenue in the special account for the acquisition 

of environmentally-sensitive lands in Nevada with priority given to lands within 

Clark County. To date, four rounds of acquisitions have been completed. The nomination process is currently open for the fifth round of acquisitions. The BLM facilitates a nomination and selection process designed to provide for public input and 

to identify and prioritize land available from willing sellers. Acquisitions focus on 

supporting the recovery of threatened or endangered species, protection of riparian 

areas and associated species in the Virgin River, Muddy River, Lake Mead and 

Meadow Valley Wash, and enhancement of recreational opportunities. 

About one quarter of the fourth round of expenditures recently approved by the 

Secretary of the Interior are earmarked for the purchase of environmentally-sensitive lands or interests in lands throughout Nevada. While the Secretary of the Interior approved a considerable amount of land for purchase, she also directed the 

BLM to continue an aggressive land disposal program consistent with BLM land use 

plans. 

Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plans—With significant growth and development occurring in Clark County, providing for the conservation of sensitive species 

is critical. SNPLMA has provided more that $20 million in funding for development 

of the Clark County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. One of the projects 

recently approved by the Secretary of the Interior is the development of a strategy 

for conservation along the Virgin River to protect several Federally-listed fish 

species while allowing for property development and community growth. 

Land for Education and Community Services 

In addition to providing SNPLMA funds to the Nevada General Education Fund 

from the sale of land, BLM has conveyed land to communities in Nevada for schools 

and other facilities through the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP). 

48

Through this Act, state and local governments, and qualified nonprofit organizations, are authorized use of the public lands for schools, fire houses, municipal and 

law enforcement facilities, hospitals, churches, parks, campgrounds, landfills, and 

fairgrounds. Over the past 15 years, the BLM has conveyed approximately 7,530 

acres in 105 areas throughout Nevada under the R&PP Act. A significant number 

of R&PP transfers exist in Clark County, which has the highest number of R&PP 

transfers BLM-wide. 

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

directed BLM to convey public land to the City of Las Vegas for the development 

of low-income housing; to establish a research and technology center at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas; to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for a 

shooting range; and to the City of Henderson to expand the Nevada State College. 

Conclusion 

Under the various laws enacted to benefit Nevada, BLM is conveying almost 

100,000 acres of public lands into private ownership to accommodate community 

growth and economic development in Clark County and elsewhere in Nevada. The 

BLM is pleased to join with State and local government partners to implement 

SNPLMA and to help address pressing needs in the State. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss SNPLMA 

and other land disposal actions in Nevada. I will be happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Director Abbey, thank you again. And first, I want 

to thank you for your service to the employees and to the people 

of this nation for what you do and the State of Nevada especially. 

I want to thank you because from someone who deals almost daily, 

day in and day out, with your staff and your employees, I think we 

have been more productive because of your leadership, and I want 

to thank you for that. I hope that that relationship will continue 

into the future as well. 

I have a question to put you on the spot right away, because you 

are one of my favorite witnesses that always comes to my Resource 

hearings. With regard to this proposal to increase the amount of 

proceeds that come out of the sale of public lands to go from five 

to say 35 percent for education, do you support that, or not? 

Mr. ABBEY. I support, and the Secretary of Interior supports, the 

opportunity to work with the Nevada delegation and members of 

Congress to amend the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act to allow other uses for the funds that are being generated. Whether those uses would include an increase to the education school fund for Nevada or for additional funds that could be 

used to implement what we refer to as the Great Basin Restoration 

Initiative, to address some of our natural resource needs that we 

have in this State, to reduce the threats of catastrophic wildland 

fire, to address noxious weed, to provide additional management in 

some of these new areas where the public are discovering on a 

daily basis. We would certainly welcome the opportunity to work 

with the members of Congress on a possible amendment. 

Mr. GIBBONS. You have been in this job long enough that that 

was the most beautifully obscure, bureaucratic answer that I have 

heard from you in a long time. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GIBBONS. That was great. 

Mr. ABBEY. You have given me plenty of practice lately. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, let me ask— Mr. ABBEY. Congressman Gibbons, if I could, in response to your 

direct question. School systems in Nevada as well as school sysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:31 May 28, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\90750.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
49

tems throughout this nation are in dire need of additional funds. 

My daughter is a second grade school teacher in the State of Mississippi, she has been doing so for, this is her third year. And I am 

routinely reminded of the needs that the education systems have 

for additional funds. I am constantly amazed how much money, individual money, that our teachers are forced to use to buy school 

supplies and to provide other learning materials to the students because the school systems cannot afford that. 

So yes, do I believe that the school systems in Nevada need additional funds? I do. Do I believe school systems throughout this nation do need additional funds? I do. 

Whether or not the revenues from the Southern Nevada Public 

Lands Management Act is the best source for those funds, I think 

is up to further discussion. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, let me also add that unlike Mississippi, 

Nevada has 87 percent of its land owned by the Federal Government, some counties are 98 percent owned by the Federal Government, one of them is 98.7 percent owned by the Federal Government which makes it far more difficult than any other state to deal 

with the revenue resource requirements, with the growth requirements that this state has. It is unique, Nevada is unique among 

all 50 states in terms of this ratio of private to public land being 

so disparate, its ratio of growth with the population demands that 

are coming in here, the impact of the urbanization—no other state 

is as urban as the State of Nevada. So the issue here is how do 

we with such a small taxpayer base, unlike Mississippi, unlike any 

other state, generate the revenues needed to be able to afford the 

education that is required by the Federal Government under the 

No Child Left Behind Act, without finding unique ways as we grow. 

It is one thing to be able to buy private property that is on the taxpayer rolls, to be able to build a school on. It is another thing to 

be able to buy private property just to put it in the government’s 

coffers, which do not generate PILT, and you heard many of the 

witnesses here earlier talk about the fact that we get 22 cents per 

acre under PILT, on average. I do not know many school districts 

that can afford to build a school unless they have got millions of 

acres because it takes about three to six million dollars to build an 

elementary school today, that can afford to do that. Because we 

combine so many people in a small area, we never really end up 

generating the revenues from payment in lieu of taxes that would 

have been generated from a private tax base, private property tax 

base anyway. 

Let me ask a question that you heard either Assemblyman Carpenter or Commissioner Nannini talk about. It seems to be a speculator’s paradise out there in northern Nevada, running out, buying some of these properties in advance. When you have identified 

them as being sensitive, they will go out and buy these properties, 

and according to either Assemblyman Carpenter or Commissioner 

Nannini, these properties are being purchased at or near fair market value and then turned around and sold to the Federal Government at an elevated price. Is that your experience? Are you seeing 

that? What is happening out there on the ground? 

Mr. ABBEY. Congressman Gibbons, let me—and I will address 

that. I am not seeing a lot of that, we are seeing some of that. 

50

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. 

Mr. ABBEY. I will also say that while the Secretary of Interior has approved a little over $200 million under the first four rounds 

of expenditures for Southern Nevada Public Lands Management 

Act for land acquisitions in the State of Nevada, that to date, only 

2200 or so acres have been acquired in those four-year periods. 

There have been projects that have been identified that encompass 

thousands of acres, $200 million has been approved by the Secretary for acquiring those properties, but in implementing the first 

four rounds, we have actually only acquired a little over 2200 

acres. Now there are a lot of reasons for that too. 

Acquisitions and disposals are not easy tasks, by any means. We 

want to make sure that the American public is protected for any 

lands and resources that might come into Federal ownership, or in 

this case, public ownership. So there is an awful lot of clearance 

work that is done. We get into situations sometimes with surveys, 

hazardous materials, and then appraisals. We have worked 

through several of these issues to get to the point of doing an appraisal to determine what is—what we can offer under a fair market value transaction, only at that point in time to have the private 

landowner decide they do not want to participate. So we have had 

several of our projects that were identified in rounds one through 

three, when we get to the point of making an offer, the landowner 

decides it is not what they want. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me go back to an issue that we talked about 

earlier because I want to talk about the inequity between urban 

counties and rural counties. It seems to me—and I do not know if 

you would agree with this, but we sell public land in Clark County 

that becomes very valuable, we are talking hundreds of thousands 

of dollars per acre for development, and then we take the money 

and purchase a ranch in Elko County, take it off the taxpayer rolls 

because of its desirability, by your agency or the Forest Service, 

and it seems to me that we are creating prosperity in Clark County 

at the expense of the rural counties by doing this. Does that seem 

equitable or fair? 

Mr. ABBEY. We recognize that we have a responsibility to rural 

Nevada to ensure that we have a balanced lands program, that at 

the same times lands are being nominated and identified for possible acquisition by the Federal Government, the Bureau of Land 

Management through our land use planning processes and the authorities that are already vested to us by Congress, that we need 

to ensure that appropriate public lands that have been identified 

for disposal are thereby disposed of. Therefore, in some sense, 

whether you call it a no net gain or whether you call it a fair and 

equitable approach, we certainly have a responsibility to make sure 

that rural Nevada does not suffer because of this legislation. 

Mr. GIBBONS. What I do not want to do is create a two tier system—Clark County against rural counties and rural counties 

against Clark County. That is absolutely something that I think we 

should never get into. 

Mr. ABBEY. I agree. 

Mr. GIBBONS. And I do not want to ever see our state feeling that 

we are enriching one area at the expense of another. This is why 

this whole issue is so important to us, because the education of a 

51

child in Elko County, who is dependent on far less land, taxable 

land, available each year, is just as important as the education of 

a child in Clark County. Having to represent those rural areas 

along with a lot of Clark County puts me right in the middle of 

that dispute. 

Let me ask a question, how much money currently sits in the 

Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act today? 

Mr. ABBEY. We have over a couple of hundred million dollars. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Do you have a closer figure? 

Mr. ABBEY. I can give you—

Mr. GIBBONS. So it is over 200 and some million. 

Mr. ABBEY. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. 

Mr. ABBEY. Now again, there has been a need identified for all 

the monies that have been approved for expenditures. Over $100 

million have been identified to local governments here in Clark 

County for parks, trails and natural areas. Nowhere else in the Nation does local governments have access to such monies as what 

local government here in Clark County has for parks, trails and 

natural areas. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Do you think if we took 35 percent for education, 

increased it from five to 35 percent, that we would impact the ability of the Bureau of Land Management, under Southern Nevada 

Public Lands Management Act, to provide for parks and trails and 

the maintenance of those areas in Clark County? 

Mr. ABBEY. I think it would limit the availability of funds to address the needs that have been identified to us. For example, even 

though we have not completed round five nominations, I have—

Mr. GIBBONS. But that is acquisitions. I am talking about 

O&M—

Mr. ABBEY. That is for all projects. 

Mr. GIBBONS. That includes acquisitions and O&M. 

Mr. ABBEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Let us just take the acquisitions out for a minute. 

Mr. ABBEY. OK. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Do you have enough money to do the O&M today? 

Mr. ABBEY. For parks, trails and natural areas? 

Mr. GIBBONS. Yes. 

Mr. ABBEY. Based upon a draft list of proposals that I have seen 

from local government, from Clark County, I would say no. 

Mr. GIBBONS. So you still want to spend the extra money on buying more land even though you cannot manage the operation and 

maintenance of the existing lands, parks, trails you have today. 

Mr. ABBEY. Congressman Gibbons, I was referring back to parks, 

trails and natural areas that would be managed by local government, not necessarily acquisitions of more lands by the Federal 

Government. There is a wish list, and I use that term loosely, that 

have been completed and provided to me from local governments 

in Clark County for round five, which means we have not approved 

any expenditures for round five, in excess of $600 million for parks, 

trails and natural areas in this county alone. We are not going to 

generate that much money during this next year. 

52

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, next year. But over the life of the Southern 

Nevada Public Lands Management Act, I am sure that since we 

have already generated $670 million? 

Mr. ABBEY. Thereabouts. Over the first four years. 

Mr. GIBBONS. That those revenues would adequately cover the 

operation and maintenance of the parks, trails and public land 

wish list that you have got now. 

Mr. ABBEY. Those monies would be available for development of 

parks, trails and natural areas, they are not available for maintenance and operations of those. 

Mr. GIBBONS. And what is your estimated income expectation 

from the balance of the sale of lands in Clark County? 

Mr. ABBEY. For the balance of the lands? 

Mr. GIBBONS. Yeah, that have not been sold yet. 

Mr. ABBEY. In excess of a billion dollars. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Billion. 

Mr. ABBEY. That is if we are not stopped by lawsuits or other 

possible actions. 

Mr. GIBBONS. I guess what I am trying to do is get a sense of 

the equity here, understanding that we only allocate 5 percent for 

education. 

Mr. ABBEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBONS. We have got all this public land currently in your 

portfolio and inventory that have all of these requirements that you 

want to do, I mean they are needs and they are niceties and some 

of them—you know, it would be nice to gold-plate every faucet, but 

we cannot do that. I mean we have to prioritize and spend some 

things that, you know, that we think are reasonably necessary. 

Mr. ABBEY. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBONS. So we will not be able to do everything. If we 

stopped today, stopped buying land today—I agree with you in your 

statement that a lot of the monies that we have in this account 

could be used to rehabilitate burned areas of the State, to be able 

to go back in and do the maintenance, do the management and the 

operation of the current existing portfolio versus adding to that requirement without a steady stream of revenues that would, therefore, make those lands no better managed than they are today, and 

in some cases not as well managed as they are today under private 

ownership. 

I guess I struggle with the concept of going out and buying more 

land to put into Federal ownership without the ability, as you have 

indicated even in Clark County, to do the necessary O&M on these 

parcels that you have got identified. There is a breakdown, and 

maybe it is just me that I do not understand it, but my goal is to 

see how we can use the monies both to protect the land and acquire 

the land that is critically needed, absolutely must have for protection of sensitivity and wildlife habitat versus nice to do, wants and 

desires, and the education of the kids in this state as well, because 

when we sell public land here, we add more kids, 27,000 last year 

to the school system, 65 new schools are now on the list. And we 

are only giving 5 percent, we have only allocated 5 percent of the 

dollars to education. But yet we can think that providing them 

water at 10 percent is more important than giving them an education. 

53

So I have got some real equities that I want to deal with here 

and I just wanted the public to understand this, that my proposal 

in this is increasing the education fund from 5 percent to 35 percent would mean $70 million out of the proposed amount that we 

have already spent, versus $29 million that is going to education. 

So what I am doing is just adding a little more to the education 

while still preserving you 55 percent of the proceeds to do the 

things that you really are doing today. 

Mr. ABBEY. I understand that. 

Mr. GIBBONS. And that is what I gathered from Dr. Rulffes and 

Dr. Roberts as critical needs from some of our rural counties as 

well as our urban counties who are impacted by this whole process 

of selling a few acres here in Clark County, very valuable, very expensive, buying very large, very expensive ranches in rural counties. I am just trying to balance out some of the things we do in 

the Federal Government, you and I work for the same government. 

Mr. ABBEY. You bet. 

Mr. GIBBONS. And everybody has to benefit from what we do or 

they suffer from what we do. And we are just trying to bring the 

education of our kids into a higher priority. 

With that, let me see what else I might want to talk about. What 

is the department’s priority right now when it comes between the 

operation and management of trails, parks, et cetera or the acquisition of new land? What is the priority? 

Mr. ABBEY. The priority within the Department of Interior and 

the Bureau being an entity within the Department of Interior, is 

to maintain what we already have and to provide the services that 

the public demands and expects and deserves. The acquisition of 

additional properties is a plus and certainly the Secretary as well 

as all of us who benefit from the acquisition of additional lands in 

the State of Nevada are also concerned about our ability to provide 

the appropriate management of any additional lands that may 

come into the public portfolio. 

At the present time, we do not have access to these revenues 

that are generated from land sales in Southern Nevada. So all 

management funds, with the exception of Clark County, our Federal lands in Clark County, all management funds would have to 

come through the appropriations process. 

Mr. GIBBONS. So when you buy property in Elko or Eureka, you 

do not have the management fund stream coming to you to manage 

those lands, but you do in Clark County where you acquire private 

lands for sensitive natures because we have Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, which then creates that revenue 

stream for O&M for the lands down here in Clark County. 

Mr. ABBEY. That is true. 

Mr. GIBBONS. So would you support then a Northern Nevada 

Public Lands Management Act where we used the monies to do the 

same or similar activities in northern—well, let us just say everywhere outside of Clark County? 

Mr. ABBEY. Due to your leadership and many others in Congress, 

the Congress did approve the Federal Land Facilitation Act, which 

included the BOCA authority, I think a couple of years ago. That 

in itself provides us the authority to dispose of lands that have 

been identified in our existing land use plans as available for disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:31 May 28, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\90750.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
54

posal with up to I think it is 80 percent of the funds being returned 

back to the State where that land is sold. So we already have some 

authorities that exist today to allow us to dispose of properties and 

to recoup some of the revenues to pay for the cost of those properties. 

We were using that authority to dispose of the property in Douglas County that we offered for sale and actually sold. The consummation of that transaction is on hold pending the outcome of 

a lawsuit that Carson City filed against the Bureau of Land Management. We were quite interested in selling that property because 

it would bring sufficient revenue into our account that would allow 

us to provide greater emphasis in rural Nevada to sell lands that 

we had identified for disposal. You have heard testimony from folks 

from Elko County, we have identified about 800 acres for sale this 

year and we are working on another 1200 acres in Elko County 

alone for sale in the very near future. We were going to use the 

monies that were generated from that land sale in Douglas County 

to offer those lands as well as other lands in rural Nevada for sale. 

Now there is not a lot of market for some of the lands that have 

been identified for disposal. Some of them, as you heard, are in remote areas and probably the only one that might have an interest 

in acquiring those lands might be the grazing permittee. 

Now when we go through the process of disposing of land, we 

again have to do the clearances, the cultural clearances, the threatened and endangered species clearances, the survey checks, the appraisal, it is a very expensive process. Some of the lands that we 

have identified in these remote areas would cost us more to dispose 

of than the revenues that would be coming in from the sale. Nevertheless, we understand the responsibility we have for a balanced 

lands program and we are willing to make that commitment to go 

forward and to take greater actions and place greater emphasis on 

disposals, if we had a source of revenues that we could use to sell 

those properties. 

Mr. GIBBONS. The amount of land that you sold in Douglas County, how many acres was that? 

Mr. ABBEY. Congressman, I do not know the exact figure, but I 

can certainly get that to you. I think it was something in the neighborhood of 1200 acres or so, but I would have to get that back to 

you. 

Mr. GIBBONS. All right. Let me ask just a final question. I want 

to get your thoughts, when you heard Mr. Decker talk about earlier 

the permitting complications in the mining industry on public 

lands and the requirement oftentimes that a permittee, in order to 

be able to get a permit issued, is asked to go out and buy a ranch 

or something else, just to get a permit. You heard him testify to 

that. 

Mr. ABBEY. I did. 

Mr. GIBBONS. What would be your recommendations in situations like that? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, I would have to say that I do not believe that 

that is the case. Certainly under the 1872 mining law, anyone can 

go out and stake a claim on public lands that have not been withdrawn from the mining law. And therefore, if they have a discovered mineral, then they have the right to mine that property and 

55

it does not require any kind of land exchange with the Bureau of 

Land Management or any other requirements that we would place 

on that individual. What they would do if they have a discovered 

mineral is provide us with a mining plan of operation which would 

describe the operation that they would undertake to mine that 

mineral resource. At that point in time, we would do an environmental impact statement and issue a decision, you know, approving 

the mine or making modifications or, in very rare instances, denying the mining plan of operation. 

So again, I did hear the testimony, I do not believe that is the 

case. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, I just would like to add that I have heard 

from several mining companies—now whether it is the Forest Service and not the BLM, but they were required, in order to obtain a 

permit—the final phase was that they had to go out and buy a portion of land, offer that trade to the Federal Government in exchange for part of the permitting process. 

Mr. ABBEY. The only thing that I could think of— Mr. GIBBONS. I do not know why they would say that if it were 

not a reality that they had experienced. 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, there are a couple of examples of where companies have purchased ranches. Again, it is primarily for water 

issues. Either they need additional water rights for mining purposes of they need a place for dewatering purposes. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Sure. 

Mr. ABBEY. And I certainly am well aware of some of the mining 

companies going out and buying fairly large ranches and then 

using those lands and resources for dewatering purposes. 

The only other exception that I could think of would be where 

there may be some offsite mitigation requirements due to threatened and endangered species habitat or whatever the case may be, 

or cultural resources, where there could be, through the decision 

process, a requirement for offsite mitigation. That in itself might 

lead to acquisition of a property by a mining company, but I do not 

know of too many specifics along those lines. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Is there a requirement in the permitting process 

under 1872 mining law to do offsite mitigation? 

Mr. ABBEY. There is not. In fact, we try to mitigate onsite. Offsite mitigation is the exception rather than the norm. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Perhaps that is what we have. 

Mr. ABBEY. The way we would deal with that is through a—

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me ask just one—I said one final question and 

I keep asking more questions—you are oftentimes, in the sale of 

these lands that you identified, blocked by litigation, people who 

are opposed to the Federal Government selling the land for one 

reason or another, are blocked and that land sale gets either 

stopped—well, it does get stopped until a resolution of the lawsuit 

and oftentimes is prevented from ever occurring because of the 

delay, it means that the value and the requirement for why it is 

there disappears. 

If I were an individual, an entity, nonprofit organization, anything, could I come in and file a lawsuit against you for buying a 

piece of land? 

Mr. ABBEY. I think anybody can sue people for any reason. 

56

Mr. GIBBONS. And would that stop you? 

Mr. ABBEY. We would defend our actions in court. We would believe that we have the authority and the right to acquire properties 

that we believe would benefit the American public. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Sure. But it can go both ways. We can stop you 

from buying and you can be stopped from selling by the institution 

of litigation, which happens. 

Mr. ABBEY. Which happens. We would probably pursue the acquisition even though a lawsuit has been filed, unless the Judge 

issued a restraining order. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Do you do the same with a sale? 

Mr. ABBEY. We have. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Is it your policy to proceed forward with a sale absent an injunction from a Federal court? 

Mr. ABBEY. Yes, it is. In fact, every land sale that we have proposed to date under the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act has been litigated. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Every one of them. 

Mr. ABBEY. And we have gone forward with the sale. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Abbey, you have, as usual, impressed all of us 

with your wit and wisdom, and certainly help us better understand 

this and we appreciate the time you have taken to become one of 

our regulars before this Committee. 

I want to thank you, I want to thank all the witnesses today. 

That is the end of my remarks and the end of this hearing. We are 

actually a little bit over in terms of utilization of this building. Today’s hearing will remain open for 10 days, as I indicated. 

I want to welcome all of the citizens here to submit written comments on this issue. You can submit them to the Committee and 

they will be incorporated into the record. 

I would like to thank our clerk over here, who is Casey Hammond, with the Committee on Resources, and Casey, can you raise 

your hand? Thank you. If you have a question about the Committee’s activities or address, get in touch with Casey over here and 

he will give you the information you need to get your comment in 

to the Committee, and the addresses to us. 

And I want to welcome again your comments to our district offices as well here in Elko County for the Second Congressional District—I should have said Clark County—or Elko or Reno as well. 

And finally, before I bring the gavel down, let me thank again 

Mark Robertson as well as Steven Long for our Pledge of Allegiance and the invocation that was given at the beginning. 

With that, there are no further questions, this Committee hearing is ended. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Porter follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Jon Porter, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Nevada 

Good morning. I would like to thank Congressman Gibbons for holding this field 

hearing in Las Vegas today on the dispensation of funds from the Southern Nevada 

Public Lands Management Act, and for his diligence and hard work for the people 

57

of Nevada. It is an honor to serve as his colleague in the House of Representatives, 

and I appreciate the tremendous work he has done regarding public lands in our 

great state. I would also like to thank Chairman Radanovich and the distinguished 

members of the House Resources Committee for coming to Southern Nevada to examine this important issue. I look forward to hearing comments from the many notable public officials and citizens that have come today to offer their input. It is 

wonderful to have so many people gathered here today working for Nevada. 

As you know, in 1998 Congress enacted the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA). While I was not yet a member of Congress when this law 

was enacted, I have witnessed the immense benefits this legislation has provided 

to Southern Nevada. As of October 31, 2003, almost $700 million has been generated from BLM land sales. Recently, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton announced the approval of nearly $385 million for projects in Southern Nevada. Recommendations including $104 million for the development of 28 park, trail, and natural area development projects in Clark County, $36 million for conservation initiatives, $16 million for continued development of the Clark County Multiple Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan, $118 million for 39 capitol improvement projects at 

Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NCA), Red Rock Canyon NCA, Spring Mountain NCA, and the Desert National Wildlife Refuge, and $111 million for 53 acquisitions of environmentally sensitive lands in Nevada to provide recreation opportunities, protect endangered species habitats, and protect important cultural values. 

The incredible growth that has taken place in Clark County has raised unique 

issues regarding our public lands and the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. The growth of Clark County has been significant, and is a tribute to the 

leadership of our elected and Administration officials, the hard work and dedication 

of local developers, and the economic success of the Las Vegas region. 

Since the passage of the SNPLMA, we have been able to ensure the organized, 

strategic and orchestrated growth of our southern Nevada community, while still 

maintaining and preserving many of Nevada’s environmental treasures and resources. This growth, while positive, has created and placed new and increased pressures on our existing precious resources, such as infrastructure, education and 

water. Since my 20 years in public office, I have seized opportunities to better manage this growth and the responsibilities and liabilities it brings. I believe growth 

should pay for growth. As we undergo the process of reviewing this legislation and 

looking for opportunities to improve upon the original Act of 1998, I would support 

a provision to allow more of the proceeds from the sale of public lands to go to state 

and local governments to help meet the growing needs of our community as a result 

of the privatization of our federal lands in southern Nevada. I am interested in 

hearing the opinions offered today and am open to examining this legislation in 

order to improve the benefits it offers to the citizens of Nevada. 

I look forward to following the example set by the other leaders of our great state 

by continuing to protect our public lands and preserve our natural resources while 

maintaining Nevada’s long tradition of economic growth. I look forward to continuing to work closely with Congressman Gibbons, Chairman Radanovich, my fellow members of Nevada’s Congressional Delegation, members of the House 

Resources Committee, and distinguished community officials and leaders to examine 

this important legislation.

Æ