Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - NEVADA LANDS</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




	NEVADA LANDS

	=======================================================================

	HEARING

	before the

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

	of the

	COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	on

	H.R. 449

	A Bill To provide for an orderly disposal of certain Federal lands in
	Clark County, Nevada, and to provide for the acquisition of
	environmentally sensitive lands in the State of Nevada

	__________

	MARCH 13, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC

	__________

	Serial No. 105-5

	__________

	Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources


	<snowflake>


	U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
	40-299 CC WASHINGTON : 1997



	COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

	DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
	W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
	JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
	JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
	ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
	JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
	JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
	JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
	WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
	KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
	RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
	BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
	HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
	LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
	GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
	WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
	Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
	WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
	JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
	JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
	ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
	CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
	KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
	JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
	RICK HILL, Montana Islands
	BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado NICK LAMPSON, Texas
	JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
	MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

	Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
	Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
	Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
	John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
	------

	Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands

	JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
	ELTON, GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
	JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
	JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
	WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
	RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
	HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
	LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
	GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
	WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
	Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
	JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
	JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
	ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
	RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
	JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
	RON KIND, Wisconsin
	Allen Freemyer, Counsel
	Steve Hodapp, Professional Staff
	Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel


	C O N T E N T S

	----------
	Page

	Hearing held March 13, 1997...................................... 1

	Text of H.R. 449................................................. 42

	Statements of Members:
	Bryan, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from Nevada.............. 4
	Duncan, Hon. John, a U.S. Representative from Tennessee...... 6
	Ensign, Hon. John, a U.S. Representative from Nevada......... 1
	Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a U.S. Delegate from American Samoa.. 6
	Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah....... 2
	Reid, Hon. Harry, a U.S. Senator from Nevada................. 3
	.............................................................

	Statements of witnesses:
	Hobbs, Steve, Nevada State Director, The Nature Conservancy.. 29
	Prepared statement....................................... 39
	Malone, Lance, Clark County (Nevada) Commissioner............ 25
	Prepared statement....................................... 34
	Millenbach, Mat, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management.. 12
	Prepared statement....................................... 32
	Wimmer, Richard, Deputy General Manager, Southern Nevada
	Water Authority............................................ 27
	Prepared statement....................................... 38
	.............................................................



	DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS IN CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, AND TO
	PROVIDE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS IN THE
	STATE OF NEVADA

	----------


	THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1997

	House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
	Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
	Washington, DC.
	The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
	room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Ensign
	presiding.

	STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
	NEVADA

	Mr. Ensign. The Subcommittee will come to order. I would
	like to welcome my colleagues from the State of Nevada and the
	rest of the people who are going to be testifying today.
	The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands will
	commence this meeting. Chairman Hansen has a conflict this
	morning and has graciously asked me to chair the Subcommittee.
	Although he isn't here, I would like to extend my gratitude to
	him on behalf of the people of Nevada for his work in passing
	this bill. We came extremely close last year to sending this
	legislation to the President, and with his efforts I am very
	optimistic that we will ultimately be successful this year. He
	has submitted a statement and has asked that it be included as
	part of the record. And without objection, it will be so
	ordered.
	Likewise, I understand that Nevada Governor Bob Miller has
	submitted a statement for the record. And I appreciate his
	continued support on this legislation. And it should be
	included in the record without objection.
	This morning we are going to hear testimony on my
	legislation, H.R. 449, the Southern Nevada Public Land
	Management Act of 1997. I would like to welcome all who are
	going to testify today in taking time out of their busy
	schedule, especially those who have come from our home State.
	It is always a pleasure to see familiar faces from the State of
	Nevada on the east coast. And, Mat, also, it is good to see and
	have you here, now that you are a big television star.
	We have come a long way since this bill's conception.
	Senator Bryan and I have worked very closely with our
	respective local Public Lands Task Forces to craft legislation
	to address a variety of interests and concerns. After extensive
	negotiation, we have the support of local environmentalists,
	developers, recreationalists, the Clark County Commission,
	Governor Miller, local utility provides, and the
	Administration. I understand that there are some very minute
	issues that still need some tinkering, which I am sure Mr.
	Millenbach will explain, but I am extremely optimistic that we
	can reach an agreement that accommodates everyone involved.
	As some may know, or may not know, Las Vegas, Nevada, is
	the fastest growing metropolitan city in the country. In
	addition, 87 percent of the State of Nevada is federally owned.
	This dueling combination puts enormous pressure on local
	elected officials, BLM officials, and, most importantly, the
	current residents who are forced to shoulder the price tag of
	this development. H.R. 449 provides the essential mechanisms
	to:
	(1) allow this growth to occur in an orderly fashion by
	allowing local officials a seat at the table;
	(2) ensure this growth occurs without neglecting the
	environment by funneling revenue for acquisition of
	environmentally sensitive lands and to our existing Federal
	facilities, such as Lake Tahoe, Red Rock and Lake Mead;
	(3) provides money to offset a $1.7 billion water delivery
	system for Las Vegas;
	And finally, H.R. 449 helps future generations by providing
	some revenue for education.
	Although the BLM has made dramatic improvements to the way
	they handle the land exchange process, as evidenced by the way
	the recent and current exchanges appear to have been handled,
	however, the process doesn't work to give the fairest value of
	the land in a fast-growing area like Las Vegas. Therefore, an
	open, fair market auction process will best serve the American
	people by ensuring the most revenue to purchase and improve our
	favorite environmental areas.
	I believe very strongly that the Ensign/Bryan bill will be
	model legislation for other cities as they experience increased
	rates of growth. I am looking forward to hearing the comments
	of our two panels of witnesses and other members of the
	Subcommittee and look forward to working with my colleagues on
	its expeditious passage.
	[Statement of Hon. Jim Hansen follows:]

	Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, a U.S. Representative from Utah; and
	Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands

	H.R. 449, the legislation before the Subcommittee today, is
	a critical component in providing for the orderly disposal of
	federal lands in Clark County, Nevada. It builds on the
	existing Santini-Burton Act and enhances the best elements of
	that Act.
	As the witnesses and Mr. Ensign will testify, the Las Vegas
	valley has experienced unprecedented growth over the past
	decade. Driven by sustained employment growth, Clark County is
	among the fastest growing area in the United States. It is my
	understanding that in 1994 alone, local government issued
	25,570 residential building permits.
	As Clark County is surrounded be federal land, the
	phenomenal growth in the Las Vegas area has triggered the
	greatest demand for public land exchanges and other realty
	transactions in the BLM's history. In the last decade, the BLM
	has privatized approximately 17,380 acres of land in Clark
	County. The privatization of these federal lands has an
	enormous impact upon Clark County and the other units of local
	government.
	As someone who got his start in politics as a city
	councilman, I understand the needs and concerns of local
	government. It does not take much thought to understand the
	many impacts caused by privatization of federal lands in such
	large amounts. The primary impacts include the need for
	installation of new infrastructure, alteration of natural
	growth patterns, increased pressure on shrinking water
	supplies, and additional demands placed upon all public service
	providers.
	Additionally, the need for local governments to plan for
	growth is paramount. Without a mechanism to provide for the
	orderly disposal of federal lands in this valley, we will
	continue to face what amounts to a crisis. I applaud
	Congressman Ensign and the many people involved with the
	creation of this legislation. This bill will allow for the
	disposal of excess federal lands in a planned and careful
	manner.
	At this time, I would also like to acknowledge the efforts
	of the Bureau of Land Management. I am amazed at the many
	compliments given to the local BLM in Las Vegas for their fine
	work. I realize that Mr. Millenbach and the BLM in Washington
	have concerns with portions of this bill, but I appreciate
	their willingness to try and work them out in a spirit of
	comity. We came very close to enacting this legislation last
	Congress and I am hopeful we will succeed during the 105th
	Congress.
	I want to thank each of our distinguished witnesses today
	for their testimony and look forward to hearing from each of
	them.

	Mr. Ensign. Again, I would like to welcome my two
	colleagues from the State of Nevada, our senior senator,
	Senator Harry Reid, and our junior senator, Dick Bryan. Let us
	start. Go ahead and start with our senior senator, Senator
	Reid.

	STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
	NEVADA

	Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
	committee, Las Vegas is part of Clark County. And as has been
	mentioned already, this county has seen phenomenal growth over
	the past couple of decades, especially the last ten years. And
	the last several years it has been the fastest growing county
	in the nation. This influx of new residents has put great
	pressure on the infrastructure of the entire region, and also
	the recreational assets we have.
	While no one thing can solve all the problems associated
	with this burgeoning growth, we can take steps to control it.
	This legislation makes important steps in this direction by
	providing for the orderly disposal of public lands in Southern
	Nevada, providing for the acquisition of environmentally
	sensitive lands in the State and providing a mechanism for
	local governments to offset the costs associated with
	development of these disposed Federal lands.
	The distribution of the proceeds from Federal land sales
	will give the Federal Government 85 percent for the acquisition
	of environmentally sensitive lands in Nevada. The State will
	use their five percent share for general educational programs,
	while the remaining ten percent will benefit the Las Vegas
	Valley water treatment programs, water infrastructure
	development, parks, and trails.
	As we approach the 21st Century, we have to be cognizant of
	our future generations and the legacy that we will leave. Any
	growth that occurs in a community must have coordinated
	planning. And this legislation, will greatly assist with this
	process, providing for more local government involvement. It
	allows State, county and city governments to manage costs
	associated with the development of these lands by adding to the
	State's education fund, as well as assisting with future
	development of Southern Nevada water systems and even the
	airport infrastructure. It will also assist us in determining
	and preserving the wild and scenic places for future
	generations, which are of value not just to the residents of
	Clark County but all taxpayers in all parts of our country.
	This bill has the bipartisan support of Nevada's
	Congressional delegation. It enjoys broad-based support in
	Clark County and support throughout the State of Nevada. This
	bill has a long history and can trace its genesis back to
	Congressman Jim Santini, the author of the Burton-Santini Act.
	We have spent now about $100 million of money from the Burton-
	Santini fund to buy, principally in the Lake Tahoe area,
	environmentally sensitive land. Former Congressman Jim Bilbray
	continued this legislative process when he established the
	public land forum which was the basis for this legislation that
	we have. After he left, we stepped in and developed this
	legislation. So it is from these efforts and those of the four
	members of the Congressional delegation here that this bill
	before us has evolved in the fashion that it has.
	I encourage this committee to move this legislation forward
	as quickly as possible. We have recently received the assurance
	from Chairman Frank Murkowski in the Senate that he will work
	with us to move this legislation in the Senate in an
	expeditious manner. We have also been in contact with the
	Administration, and Senator Bryan and I feel we have their
	support and assurance that this legislation will move through
	the Senate quickly with their help. Thank you.
	Mr. Ensign. Senator Bryan.

	STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BRYAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
	OF NEVADA

	Senator Bryan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look
	forward to working with you and Senator Reid and Congressman
	Gibbons and this committee in processing this legislation as we
	did in the previous Congress. Both you, Mr. Chairman, and my
	senior colleague, Senator Reid, have mentioned the growth. That
	is the operative word in Southern Nevada.
	For those on the panel who may not be familiar with
	Southern Nevada, our growth has truly been extraordinary. It
	has been the fastest growing community in the country. 20,000
	new homes alone were built in Las Vegas Valley in the last
	year. And in terms of school and educational needs, it is
	estimated that we will require a new elementary school every 30
	days, every 30 days for the next five years, to keep pace with
	the 12,000 new students who are entering the Clark County
	school system each year. That school system today is among the
	top ten largest school systems in America.
	Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, the legislation
	before us today, in my judgment, is a critical component of
	Southern Nevada's long-term plan to effectively manage the
	growth in the Las Vegas valley. Each time the BLM transfers
	land into private ownership, it has important consequences for
	the local government entity that must provide infrastructure
	and services to that land.
	The Bureau of Land Management controls in excess of 20,000
	acres of land throughout the Las Vegas Valley. Consequently,
	unlike most communities, land use planning decisions are not
	solely made at the local level. The BLM is an important player
	in the local use planning process. This legislation would
	strengthen the partnership between the BLM and local government
	and improve upon the current land use planning process.
	The BLM's primary method of disposing of land in the Las
	Vegas Valley is through land exchanges, and has been the
	subject of much attention over the past year. I happen to share
	the belief that land exchanges serve a valuable public purpose.
	The Federal Government disposes of land it no longer needs in
	exchange for land that is worthy of public ownership. The
	disagreements between the BLM and exchange proponents over
	appraisal methodology and value determinations are often the
	cause of protracted delays in the land exchange process. And
	that process itself has become extremely complex.
	Because of the dynamic nature of the real estate market in
	the Las Vegas Valley, any delay in the exchange process itself
	can cause the appraisals to become outdated before the
	transaction is effectively closed. So as you know, Mr.
	Chairman, the legislation that we have all crafted that is
	before us today would make two significant improvements over
	the current land exchange process. Number one, it would allow
	local land managers to take a more proactive role in Federal
	land disposal decisions. That is the partnership to which I
	alluded earlier in my testimony. And secondly, it would
	institute a competitive bidding process to ensure that the
	disposal of BLM land yields the highest return or true fair
	market value for the American taxpayers.
	There are currently over 25 land exchange proposals pending
	in the BLM's Las Vegas office. Some are clearly in the public
	interest. Others may not be. The vast majority of these
	proposals are intrastate exchanges, meaning the BLM has the
	authority to process them without Congressional action. This
	legislation would open the process to allow anyone who wishes
	to bid on BLM land to do so in a competitive sale, and it would
	eliminate the need to enter into the protracted appraisal
	negotiations over selected BLM lands that so often bogs down
	and becomes a cumbersome part of the exchange process.
	This legislation stands for the same proposition as the
	current land exchange process, namely that the sale of Federal
	lands in the Las Vegas Valley should be used as a means of
	protecting environmentally sensitive land throughout the State
	of Nevada and enhancing the use of public land for recreational
	purposes, as this legislation indicates, primarily in Southern
	Nevada. The legislation also contains important provisions for
	local government. Most importantly, as Senator Reid has pointed
	out, it builds upon the successful framework adopted in 1980
	with the Santini-Burton legislation, which has been very
	important in acquiring environmentally sensitive land in the
	Lake Tahoe Basin.
	I would like to also highlight another important provision
	of this bill which relates to affordable housing. This
	legislation would make affordable housing an authorized use
	under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. There is a
	tremendous need in both Las Vegas and in Reno for land to
	develop affordable housing projects. I am aware that the BLM
	has some concerns with how this provision is currently drafted,
	but it is my hope that a compromise can be reached to meet this
	need, because affordable housing increasingly has become a
	critical concern for many of our fellow Nevadans.
	Mr. Chairman, I believe this legislation will make great
	strides toward improving public land management policy in
	Southern Nevada, and I look forward to working with you and
	your committee in any way that we can to facilitate its
	passage. This is important legislation. And I thank you again
	for giving us the opportunity to appear before you and testify
	today.
	Mr. Ensign. Before we open it up for questions, I would
	like to recognize the members and the ranking member in the
	order in which they appear and other members for opening
	statements. Mr. Faleomavaega.

	STATEMENT OF HON. ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, A U.S. DELEGATE FROM
	AMERICAN SAMOA

	Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly
	would like to commend you for taking the leadership in
	introducing H.R. 449 and in calling Mr. Gibbons.
	I certainly would like to also offer my personal welcome to
	our distinguished senators from the State of Nevada, Senator
	Reid and Senator Bryan, for their fine testimonies before the
	Subcommittee. I look forward to working with the members of the
	Nevada delegation and hopefully that we can resolve some of the
	concerns that have been raised by the Bureau of Land
	Management.
	I believe there was a markup taking place in the last
	Congress before the Subcommittee, but we never proceeded to go
	forward because of some of the concerns raised by the
	Administration. I do hope that we will be able to resolve
	these, what I consider differences that can be resolved. And I
	certainly look forward in working with you, Mr. Chairman, and
	the members of this Subcommittee to see if we can get this
	legislation going.
	Mr. Ensign. Well, thank you. And for those of you who don't
	know Mr. Faleomavaega, I experienced this morning he is quite
	the accomplished ukulele player. And some of you should
	experience that some day.
	Mr. Duncan.

	STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DUNCAN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
	TENNESSEE

	Mr. Duncan. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would agree with you. I
	heard that also. I thought that was great this morning.
	Let me just say I am from Tennessee and I can tell you that
	there are many people in other parts of the country that think
	it is just crazy that the Federal Government owns 87 percent of
	this State. I read recently that the Federal Government now
	owns 30 percent of the land in this country and that State and
	local and quasi-governmental units own another 20 percent. And
	unfortunately, I guess, that has been growing by leaps and
	bounds in recent years. I will tell you when you decrease the
	supplies of private land, in this case, it increases the price.
	And if we keep on--if we had kept on heading in the direction
	that we were headed, I think home ownership would have gotten
	out of reach for a lot of young families in this country.
	So I hope that--frankly, I would like to see us sell a
	great deal of the land in your State and these other federally
	dominated States to private individuals so that lower income
	and middle income people can have a chance to buy a home.
	Senator Bryan mentioned that affordable housing is becoming a
	real problem in and around Las Vegas. I think we should sell
	some of these rural lands also, but I think and hope it
	sounds--this bill sounds like it is a step in the right
	direction. So thank you very much for coming here to show your
	support today. Thank you very much.
	Mr. Ensign. Mr. Gibbons, opening statement.
	Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senators, welcome.
	Again, thank you for your participation here today. There has
	been expressed concern by some of our Federal agents, in
	particular the Secretary of Interior, the BLM, over the role of
	local governments in the decision about the disposal of some of
	these lands. And I would just like to ask whether you feel
	that----
	Mr. Ensign. Mr. Gibbons, before we get into questions we
	are just doing opening statements right now and then we will
	do----
	Mr. Gibbons. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Ensign. That is OK.
	Mr. Gibbons. I was leaping ahead of you.
	Mr. Ensign. That is OK. Ms. Christian-Green, do you have an
	opening statement?
	Ms. Christian-Green. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
	I don't have an opening statement. I would just like to say
	welcome to Senator Reid and Senator Bryan.
	Mr. Ensign. At this time we will open it up for questions.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. I don't have any specific questions for
	the two senators. Your statement is well taken that we should
	proceed. I would like to hear the Administration's point of
	view as to some of the problems that they think they might have
	by moving this piece of legislation. I really would like to
	again thank our two senators for being here this afternoon.
	Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond to
	Congressman Duncan briefly. We really appreciate your attitude
	and support for this legislation, but in Nevada we have over
	the last couple of decades conveyed a lot of land from the
	Federal Government into the private sector. The third largest
	city in Nevada, Henderson, is now a city of about 150,000
	people. And the reason is, because there were two large
	transfers of Federal land to the city of Henderson and then to
	the private sector. And they have been able to build many, many
	homes. It is part of a bedroom community. We recently
	transferred 200,000 acres to Boulder City?
	Senator Bryan. Yes.
	Senator Reid. Again, about 200,000 acres to the city of
	Boulder City, Nevada. Also Carlin, Mesquite, and in other
	places in Nevada, there have been transfers of public land into
	the private sector. And so it is not as if we haven't been
	doing anything. It is just that there is a lot more that needs
	to be done. And we appreciate your observations of some of the
	problems we have.
	Mr. Duncan. Well, Senator Reid, I hope you didn't take what
	I said as criticism, because----
	Senator Reid. I certainly did not.
	Mr. Duncan. I think that is great that you put those lands
	into the private sector and put them on the tax rolls and so
	forth. I think that is wonderful. What concerns me is there is
	still actually far too much of your land that is owned by the
	Federal Government for no good reason.
	Senator Reid. Most people in Nevada agree with you.
	Mr. Duncan. And also the same thing that you've just
	mentioned is not happening nearly enough in other parts of the
	country. So thank you very much.
	Mr. Ensign. Mr. Gibbons.
	Mr. Gibbons. Am I allowed to ask questions now, Mr.
	Chairman?
	Mr. Ensign. Yes. You are recognized to ask questions.
	Mr. Gibbons. I appreciate that and apologize for
	overstepping the bounds of decorum by asking a question in my
	opening statement.
	Senators, as I started out asking there has been some
	concern expressed earlier about the involved local communities,
	both county and city government, with regard to disposal of
	certain lands around this proposal. Can you help this committee
	understand better why that is necessary? You might want to
	touch a little bit on the Santini-Burton process which has a
	similar condition in it. Why in terms of infrastructure do
	these----
	Senator Reid. Senator Bryan.
	Senator Bryan. Yes, if I may, Congressman Gibbons, you are
	familiar with the Santini-Burton legislation. The Santini-
	Burton legislation actually confers a veto power, as you know,
	on local government. As we were processing this legislation in
	the last Congress, a concern was raised by the Secretary of
	Interior and others, and so the language that we crafted
	represents a compromise that we thought was acceptable. And I
	invite your attention to page 6, which defines the selection
	process.
	And just very briefly without reading it, the Secretary and
	the unit of local government whose jurisdiction lands referred
	to in this section are located shall jointly select lands to be
	offered for sale or exchange under this section. It was our
	hope, Congressman, that that would be acceptable in this
	Congress. I know there have been some concerns raised. We do
	want to empower local governments to be a part of this
	decisionmaking process. This is an essential part of the long-
	term planning.
	In your Congressional district in the outskirts of the
	metropolitan Las Vegas area, as you know, enormous growth has
	occurred. And every decision that is made affects those local
	entities, whether it is the city of Las Vegas or the County of
	Clark, the city of Henderson, or the city of North Las Vegas.
	Those have tremendous impacts, so we want that to be a process
	in which the local government entity is fully involved. And
	that is a very, very important part of this legislation. So I
	hope that we can assuage any concerns that they have.
	I might just add parenthetically, I am not aware--and the
	legislation, I think, we enacted in 1980. I am not aware that
	there has ever been a problem in terms of the local government
	interface with the Federal Government on the Santini-Burton
	legislation.
	Senator Reid. Congressman Gibbons, I would just add to that
	the problem is very evident, what has happened in the last ten
	to 15 years. The Federal Government picks a piece of land that
	they are going to put into the private sector and then local
	government has to construct the infrastructure to that
	property. And it has been very, very debilitating to especially
	Clark County, even buying the rights-of-way to put in
	utilities. And that is one of the key parts of this
	legislation.
	We hope that even legislation is not necessary. We have
	been meeting with the Secretary and we believe that he has the
	power to do that administratively, the Bureau has the power to
	do that administratively and it is not necessary in this
	legislation. But in case it is not done by the time we get this
	legislation passed, it is in this legislation, which will
	relieve a tremendous burden to the county and its subdivision,
	the water district, et cetera. So that if there is a piece of
	land put into the private sector, the local government is in
	effect cut some slack.
	Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, one final question, if I may, to
	the Senators. Thank you very much for that light response.
	What is the status currently on the Senate side of this
	bill? Is it up for a hearing? Is it going to be marked up? If
	you could just help us know the timeframe.
	Senator Reid. We wrote a letter to Chairman Murkowski and
	said we would very much like him to move this legislation as
	quickly as possible. And he graciously responded in spite of
	all the battles we are having with nuclear waste. He responded
	by saying that he believed in the legislation. In the letter he
	set forth reasons why. And he said that he would move upon this
	just as quickly as possible. So we feel very good about this.
	We also, in direct answer to your question that perhaps I
	didn't answer as clearly as I should--and you will hear the
	testimony from the Administration. We feel very good about the
	Administration. We believe that they also think this is
	necessary. As you know, there has been some land exchanges that
	have gone forward that have created bad publicity. And as a
	result of that, I think, the Secretary would also like to get
	this resolved. There are a few exchanges, as you know, in the
	pipeline now. And as Congressman Ensign indicated, it appears
	that all the I's are being dotted and the t's crossed on those.
	We need to move away from that and get a more deliberate
	process. I am confident the Secretary believes that also.
	Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Ensign. Any other questions?
	Mr. Faleomavaega. I do have a couple of questions to the
	two senators. Is this land exchange a problem only in Las Vegas
	in Clark County or is the State of Nevada encountering this
	whole State----
	Senator Reid. Congressman, the problem is that the most
	valuable land is in the Las Vegas Valley, or Las Vegas
	metropolitan area. So that is basically where the problem lies.
	People want the land in Southern Nevada. They don't want it
	other places. So that has created the problem.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. What I am curious about is that--is there
	also a potential for further settlement in other areas of the
	State?
	Senator Reid. Well, not to the degree as in the south. We
	have, approximately, 90 percent of the people that live in the
	metropolitan Reno and Las Vegas areas. People don't realize
	that Nevada is the most urban State in the union, more urban
	than New Jersey and New York and Texas. And we are very proud
	of the industry we have in rural Nevada. We produce huge
	amounts of gold, 7 million ounces last year. But even though it
	creates a lot of jobs, in comparison to the heavily populated
	areas of Reno and Las Vegas, there is not much in the way of
	demand for land.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. My sense of curiosity is raised in the
	fact that Las Vegas was developed by--I think it was an
	entrepreneur, if I am correct in my history. It was out in the
	desert of nowhere.
	Senator Reid. Well, the entrepreneur was Brigham Young.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Oh, I thought it was a Jewish fellow that
	started the first casino and developed it. For whatever it was
	historically in terms of Las Vegas in the earlier settlements,
	I stand corrected, Senator. But what I am curious about is that
	it seems to me that we take our western States in a piecemeal
	fashion. And I am trying to develop a sense of why we didn't
	just give half of what is federally owned by the Federal
	Government to the State of Nevada and let them take care of it?
	Senator Reid. Well, there are many who feel that way. There
	are others who feel that we need a real orderly process to do
	that. This legislation is a step in that direction. Just to put
	all the land up to bid would not help us, as Congressman Duncan
	thinks it would--it would not allow the land to go to the
	moderate and low income people. It would go the highest bidder
	and all the pretty places would be taken. This legislation is
	really a step, I think, in the direction which you would like
	to go and what I have heard from the committee. It would really
	allow us to move forward, and auction land. And we would be
	able to, with the proceeds from that money, buy environmentally
	sensitive land in the Lake Tahoe area and other areas around
	the State of Nevada which are vitally important to bring into
	the public sector even though they are small in acreage.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. So I suppose that 20 years from now we
	won't have to go through this exercise again. This is what I am
	concerned about.
	Senator Reid. Well, hopefully this legislation 20 years
	from now will still be in effect and we will be operating in
	the same manner.
	Senator Bryan. If I might just amplify the response, this
	is an extension of the concept of the Santini-Burton
	legislation that was enacted in 1980. And then, as now,
	although to a lesser extent, the metropolitan Las Vegas area
	was experiencing growth. And so there were parcels of BLM land
	that were in the immediately impacted growth area that it was
	decided that they ought to be disposed of. And those proceeds
	were used to acquire environmentally sensitive lands up at Lake
	Tahoe. So that is kind of the background of this in terms of
	how this concept evolved.
	Now, of course, in the intervening period of years, the
	growth has been even more substantial. To put this in some
	context, in 1980 the State of Nevada's total population was
	800,000. Today the entire State's population is slightly twice
	that, a million six. But of the 1,600,000, the metropolitan Las
	Vegas area has more than a million people. So, I mean, that is
	really, as Senator Reid pointed out, that is really where this
	growth and where the demand is occurring and where the impacts
	that were expressed earlier about being able to provide
	affordable housing. It is in the urban areas where the real
	growth is occurring and we are having the difficulty. So this
	will facilitate that process, we hope.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. I am pleading ignorance here. I am just
	curious. We conducted several atmospheric tests of our nuclear
	testing program in Nevada. How many surrounding towns in that
	area where we conducted these tests--is it further south of Las
	Vegas?
	Senator Reid. Congressman, we conducted about almost a
	thousand nuclear tests at the Nevada test site. Most of them
	were underground. There were some that were atmospheric. And
	there are some towns that are close by, but not real close. Las
	Vegas is about 90 to 100 miles away from the nearest test that
	took place. What would you say, Beatty is about 40 miles?
	Senator Bryan. Yes, but these atmospheric tests also
	impacted those communities along the eastern part of Nevada and
	in western Utah. These are the regions which benefitted from
	the down-winder legislation Congress enacted several years ago.
	Senator Reid. With the above-ground tests.
	Senator Bryan. With the above ground during the atmospheric
	testing days. And that would probably be out in our part of the
	country, probably, Mesquite, Moapa Valley, that area, that
	would be----
	Senator Reid. Lincoln County.
	Senator Bryan. Lincoln County.
	Senator Reid. St. George.
	Senator Bryan. Pioche, Panaca, Alamo.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. I am sorry. I didn't mean to detract from
	the line of questions, Mr. Chairman, but I am very, very
	concerned about this in terms of the 1000 tests that were
	conducted underground in Nevada. There have been no geological
	surveys in terms of the aquifers being affected, some water
	streams or any of that. You see, Senator, we conducted about 66
	nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands in the early '50's, and
	despite world protests we continued testing until we found out
	that there was strontium 90 found in the milk products coming
	out of Minnesota and Wisconsin. And that was the only reason
	why we stopped our atmospheric testing program, supposedly for
	scientific purposes. But, of course, being controlled by the
	military there is more coming out of this whole thing.
	And I am just very curious how safe are the residents of
	Nevada of this mess that we have created there as far as
	nuclear testing is concerned.
	Senator Reid. There has been extensive tests conducted. It
	surprises most people, but a very small percentage of the 1350
	square miles that is the test site--that is only about two
	percent of it is contaminated. Again, a very small area of the
	test site is contaminated. Once they stopped the above-ground
	nuclear tests, they were extremely careful. And out of the
	hundreds and hundreds of tests they had, I think they have only
	had venting at two or three tests over those years. And there
	have been ongoing and are presently studies as to what effect
	the underground tests have had with the aquifers. At this
	stage, they haven't determined any effect.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. So to your best opinion, Senator, the
	expansion and the land exchange with BLM in Clark County and
	Las Vegas, that the good residents of Nevada are going to be
	safe and healthy for the next 100 years as far as the nuclear
	dump site that----
	Senator Reid. As long as they keep nuclear waste out of
	Nevada, we will be in great shape.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman.
	Mr. Ensign. I would like to thank both my colleagues from
	the Senate, and especially Senator Reid for your last comment.
	I think that it was very well timed, and the rest of the House
	and the Senate should pay very close attention to that comment.
	I would like to call the next panel up, Mat Millenbach,
	Deputy Director for the Bureau of Land Management. We welcome
	your testimony, and proceed as you will.

	STATEMENT OF MAT MILLENBACH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
	MANAGEMENT

	Mr. Millenbach. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It was good
	seeing you on TV last night, too.
	Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 449, the
	Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1997, regarding
	land disposal in the Las Vegas Valley. The Department of the
	Interior supports the concept behind this bill. We believe that
	through continuing discussions with the bill's authors in the
	House and the Senate, a final bill can be produced that would
	receive the Administration's full endorsement.
	I would like to summarize my statement and enter my entire
	statement for the record.
	H.R. 449 and its companion Senate bill, S.94, specifically
	effect several thousand acres of public land in the Las Vegas
	Valley, which are managed by the BLM. In recent years, the Las
	Vegas Valley has become the fastest growing metropolitan region
	in the country, and development has been influenced by the
	presence of public lands in this area and vice versa. This bill
	seeks to resolve the future of these public lands by requiring
	BLM to sell, exchange or transfer public lands in the Las Vegas
	Valley.
	The intent of H.R. 449 is to capture the best qualities of
	the BLM's land exchange goals, the Santini-Burton Act, and the
	partnerships that have been developed with local government.
	This bill provides for the disposal by sale or exchange of
	certain federally owned BLM-managed lands within a limited area
	of the Las Vegas Valley. Fifteen percent of the proceeds of
	these land disposals would be distributed to local entities.
	The balance of the funds would be used for the benefit of
	natural resource management within Nevada for Federal land
	acquisition, capital improvements, development of a multi-
	species habitat conservation plan in Clark County, and the
	development of recreation in natural areas within Clark County.
	The bill also provides for the transfer of lands to Clark
	County at no cost within the airport management area for
	McCarran International Airport. Should those lands be sold or
	leased, the United States would be paid 85 percent of the fair
	market value received. The bill also includes a provision
	allowing local government entities to select other lands needed
	under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act prior to their
	conveyance. Local and regional governmental entities may also
	apply for rights-of-way for flood control and water treatment
	purposes, which can be granted in perpetuity and at no cost.
	Additionally, the Secretary is authorized to transfer the
	Recreation and Public Purposes Act reversionary clause from one
	parcel of land to another upon request by the owner of those
	lands.
	Nearly a year ago, the BLM acting Director, Mike Dombeck,
	testified in opposition to an earlier version of this bill. At
	that time Mr. Dombeck stated, ``while we support the goal of
	disposing of certain lands within Las Vegas to accommodate the
	city's growth, the Department strongly opposes this bill.'' He
	pointed out that the earlier bill would divert huge amounts of
	Federal resources and funds to local interests, offering a
	windfall to a few at the expense of many. Since that hearing a
	year ago, the Nevada delegation staffs have worked to resolve
	many of the problems we identified with this bill as originally
	introduced in the 104th Congress.
	Since H.R. 449 was introduced in the House, and its
	companion bill S.94, a number of technical issues have been
	discussed and resolved between BLM and Congressional staffs.
	Those details are unnecessary to pursue here, however there
	remain a few issues that are as yet unresolved that need to be
	remedied before the Administration can fully endorse the bill.
	Several of these areas are outlined in detail in my written
	statement, and they include the issue of consultation regarding
	selection of the lands to be sold rather than joint selection
	as specified in the bill, the conveyance of nearly 5000 acres
	near the airport at no cost to Clark County, the expansion of
	the Recreation and Public Purposes Act to allow for affordable
	housing anywhere within Nevada, the waiver of environmental
	laws for the conveyance of the youth activity facilities, and
	the need to discuss the location of the Red Rock National
	Conservation Area boundary modifications. The bill does not
	specify those areas.
	Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that a population explosion
	is occurring in many western communities. Las Vegas has seen an
	increased migration of people from Southern California and
	large metropolitan areas in the East. Public lands can be part
	of the solution and an effective land disposal program can
	assist in orderly growth.
	The BLM agrees that we need to move to dispose of much of
	the urban lands in the Las Vegas area when appropriate. These
	public lands should be disposed of in harmony with the needs of
	the local jurisdiction. We also believe that all land disposal
	must benefit both the American people and the local community
	as well. This legislation provides a good framework to allow
	for a fair approach to dealing with the situation in Las Vegas
	area. The bill deals with disposal of public land using a
	nearly identical boundary as developed in the BLM draft
	resource management plan. With some additional fine tuning,
	this bill will assist the BLM, local governments and the
	citizens of Nevada and the United States. We would be happy to
	work with the Nevada delegation to provide such a solution.
	Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
	the Subcommittee today and discuss this bill, and I would be
	glad to answer any questions you might have.
	[Statement of Mat Millenbach may be found at end of
	hearing.]
	Mr. Ensign. Thank you, Mat. I have a few questions for you
	before I open it up to other members. First I want to address
	the youth activities, the little league--the 38.5 acres that
	you have raised questions about, Sections 202 and 203 of FLPMA.
	First of all, this Administration has supported waivers where
	it suits their purposes. And in fact, the President last year
	signed in the omnibus parks bill several waivers, all of which
	were more serious than this and involved hundreds of thousands
	of acres. The transfer of lands for youth activity, the Little
	League Baseball, involves only 38.5 acres and has already been
	identified for disposal under the BLM's own RMP and are subject
	to the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.
	I guess the question--does the Administration really object
	to 38.5 acres going to Little League?
	Mr. Millenbach. No, sir. It is a standard objection of the
	Administration to exempt the lands from the provisions of, say,
	the Endangered Species Act and so forth----
	Mr. Ensign. What does the BLM think?
	Mr. Millenbach. We support the transfer of the lands. We
	would like to be able to do the required clearances and so
	forth before that is done.
	Mr. Ensign. I also want to address the question of joint
	selection. First of all, we originally had veto power by the
	local government. And we have compromised to joint selection.
	And we know that BLM's position has been basically that the
	county has zoning ordinances. And just as the county has
	sometimes trouble saying no to zoning changes, the BLM has also
	had trouble saying no to developers. And don't you think that
	we need to be jointly working together here with the BLM and
	the local government to work out the problems here, especially
	dealing with some of these areas around the airport? It seems
	that just the Federal Government doing it by itself is not
	working. That is one of the reasons for the bill. It is one of
	the fundamental reasons for the bill. It is not working the way
	it is supposed to work, and that is the reason that we selected
	this joint selection.
	Mr. Millenbach. We believe that a consultation requirement
	is entirely appropriate. My understanding is of this, and I
	think you can probably ask the people from Las Vegas who are
	going to testify in the next panel about this, but my
	understanding is that our relationship between the local
	governments in the Las Vegas Valley and our people in the Las
	Vegas district office is actually very good. The difficulty
	with the joint selection provision is that under our normal
	land sale and other land disposal authorities under Federal
	Land Policy and Management Act, what is envisioned there is a
	consultation requirement. And if this bill were modified to
	require that, we would be very comfortable with that.
	Mr. Ensign. OK. Mr. Faleomavaega.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Millenbach,
	if I am correct, in your statement you are saying that the
	Burton-Santini version is your baseline. Do you--is the BLM
	still fully supportive of the Burton-Santini version?
	Mr. Millenbach. The Burton-Santini? Yes, sir. The Burton-
	Santini Act has worked out very well for us. We have been able
	to sell lands in the Las Vegas area and buy environmentally
	sensitive lands in the Lake Tahoe area using the 85/15 income
	distribution. I think everybody has been very satisfied with
	that and feel like it has worked out both in the Federal aspect
	and the local aspect.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. And it is your position that the Burton-
	Santini version can still be workable in working out the
	differences that you are----
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, sir.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. [continuing]--the problem that you are
	having now with the officials of Nevada? Is this your position?
	My point here is that is there a different standard now that we
	are applying in doing the land exchange or are you using the
	Burton-Santini version as the basis of doing the land exchange?
	Mr. Millenbach. We are using the Burton-Santini as the
	basis for the 85/15 split. I know there is a difference between
	the joint selection requirement of Burton-Santini and the
	consultation requirement of the Federal Land Policy and
	Management Act, which is our general land sale exchange.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. So the proposed bill does not attempt to
	change any of the basic principles underlined in the Burton-
	Santini version?
	Mr. Millenbach. It doesn't attempt to change the way that
	the money is raised. It is raised through the sale of the
	Federal lands through competitive sale. Those are both
	consistent. The money is put into a fund for specific purposes
	and then we are allowed to spend that money out of that fund
	for those purposes. This does the same and we concur with that.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. So you are saying that the BLM is more
	than happy to work together with the Nevada delegation using
	the Burton-Santini version as the basis and then see what
	other----
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, sir.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. [continuing]--sense of flexibility can be
	fleshed out on the other provisions of the proposed bill?
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, sir, absolutely.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. I noticed that you have got about five
	areas of concern in your statement.
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, sir.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Can you point with any sense of priority
	or do you consider every one of the five points or concerns of
	equal weight? Are there some areas that perhaps it can be
	worked out quickly, or is it going to take us another 200 years
	to work these differences out?
	Mr. Millenbach. Well, I hope not. The map of the Red Rock
	National Conservation Area boundary, I think, is just a matter
	of us sitting down and agreeing on the map. I saw your staff
	was showing you a copy. And we are pretty comfortable with
	that. We are much less comfortable with the use of the
	Recreation and Public Purposes Act for affordable housing. We
	think that is going to give us very substantial problems in the
	future in terms of administering those lands if the uses are
	changed after title is transferred. And we end up in a position
	where we might have to revert title. Then what do we do with
	these houses that are on the lands?
	Mr. Faleomavaega. What would be your best estimate in terms
	of a timeframe that perhaps we could get together and kind of
	iron these things out by way of moving this legislation
	forward?
	Mr. Millenbach. We could start any time.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Fantastic. No, but my question is what
	kind of a timeframe are we looking at, maybe another five
	months or less or more or another two years till we--can this--
	in other words, the five areas that you have expressed concern,
	can it be workable, can it be solvable? Are there some areas
	here that it is totally impossible, or is it--each of these
	five areas of concern, can they be worked out?
	Mr. Millenbach. I believe they can, yes, sir.
	Mr Faleomavaega. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
	you, Mr. Millenbach.
	Mr. Ensign. Thank you. Just real quickly, how does the
	joint selection in this bill differ from the joint selection
	that is mentioned in Burton-Santini?
	Mr. Millenbach. They are the same provision.
	Mr. Ensign. They are the same provision, and because it was
	fine before, why isn't it fine now?
	Mr. Millenbach. It is inconsistent with the normal way we
	sell lands and exchange lands. There is a consultation
	requirement in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act that
	requires us to coordinate our plans with local government.
	Mr. Ensign. Right, but we have recognized that the normal
	way we do things is not working, and that is one of the reasons
	for this bill. And that is one of the reasons for joint
	selection under Burton-Santini and one of the reasons for joint
	selection under this current legislation. So it just puzzles me
	why the Administration would have objections--it worked under
	Burton-Santini, wouldn't you agree?
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, sir.
	Mr. Ensign. OK, why wouldn't it work under this bill?
	Mr. Millenbach. Well, it is a matter of consistency with
	the normal way we do business. If we had consultation but not
	joint selection, what that would require us to do is to work
	with the local governments just the same as we do now to try to
	come to some agreement on what that might be, but in the case
	of a substantial disagreement or where we needed a tie breaker,
	we still believe that it is the Federal Government's
	responsibility to make decisions about Federal lands.
	Mr. Ensign. Even though it worked under Burton-Santini,
	with joint selection?
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, sir.
	Mr. Ensign. You don't see any inconsistency in that?
	Mr. Millenbach. I understand there is an inconsistency. I
	just think that we believe that it would be more in keeping
	with our Federal land disposal programs nationwide.
	Mr. Ensign. In other words--let me change the way I asked
	the question. If it is a certain procedure, consistent with a
	certain procedure, but unless you can tell me why it didn't
	work under Burton-Santini, then why shouldn't we do it the same
	way under Burton-Santini, it doesn't seem to justify. Just
	because that is the way it is normally done, if it works,
	shouldn't we be about common sense government?
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, sir.
	Mr. Ensign. This seems like common sense.
	Mr. Millenbach. It has--well, let me try to----
	Mr. Ensign. Let me ask you something first before you go--
	just to get your mind set. Have you ever lived in an area like
	what we are talking about? Have you ever dealt with local
	government, lived in an area that is growing like Las Vegas
	that has so much Federal land, that has these kinds of
	problems, so you could understand what local governments are
	telling you? I am not a local government person. I have never
	been involved in local government, but I know what my local
	government people are telling me and why they need this joint
	selection, why they think it is so important to have this joint
	selection and why Burton-Santini included it in their bill.
	Mr. Millenbach. The first--no, I haven't lived in an area
	like Las Vegas. I have lived in mostly smaller towns, except
	for here. You know, the rationale is that the Federal
	Government has responsibility to dispose of the public lands.
	And I think for us to allow--give somebody else that
	responsibility would be inconsistent with what our overall
	legislation provides for. I will admit to you it has worked
	very well, Santini-Burton. There have not been glitches, and I
	attribute that to the efforts of the local government people in
	the Las Vegas area, Clark County people, city of Las Vegas and
	so forth, and our people in the district have been able to work
	very well with each other over the years. That is my
	understanding. And because of that, there has been no problems
	with this provision of the bill.
	Mr. Ensign. And I think that we have outstanding people in
	the BLM currently. We are going to have them in the future. We
	are going to have outstanding people locally, and I would
	submit to you and I would implore the Administration to
	reconsider its position on this joint selection, that this will
	work just like it worked under Burton-Santini. So, you know,
	when we are negotiating over the next couple of weeks I would
	implore the Administration to rethink its position on this.
	Mr. Gibbons.
	Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to delve
	just a little deeper into these issues of joint consultation
	versus--urban consultation versus joint selection. Under
	consultation, is the county or local government planning ever
	taken into consideration before the government, the Federal
	Government, decides on which property they are going to
	release?
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, it is.
	Mr. Gibbons. Before you do that, or is it your decision to
	release this property and then you will talk to them?
	Mr. Millenbach. It is kind of a two-step process. The local
	governments, they have their land use plans. And when we do our
	general resource management planning, which identifies the
	broader area that would be disposed of, the requirement of law
	is that we consult with the local jurisdictions to make sure
	that our resource management plans are consistent with their
	plans.
	Mr. Gibbons. Now if county or local government disagreed
	under your consultation plan to release Federal lands, for
	example, because of their infrastructure needs, would they have
	the ability to say no to your process and your plans, change
	it?
	Mr. Millenbach. No, sir. The resource management planning
	is delegated down to the Secretary of the Interior, and he
	retains the authority to make the final decision.
	Mr. Gibbons. So only veto power under joint selection would
	allow county and local government participation in the decision
	for their planning purposes versus consultation?
	Mr. Millenbach. They would still have the ability to
	consult and be consulted.
	Mr. Gibbons. Would they still have the veto power under
	consultation?
	Mr. Millenbach. No, sir.
	Mr. Gibbons. Thank you.
	Mr. Ensign. Ms. Christian-Green.
	Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a
	question primarily for my information. There is an issue over
	the noise, airport noise abatement area.
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, ma'am.
	Ms. Christian-Green. And in your testimony you refer to a
	memorandum of agreement. In that memorandum of agreement, was
	the 4600 acres agreed to as what was needed by the State of
	Nevada for airport noise abatement?
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, ma'am. That is my understanding. There
	is an existing memorandum of agreement whereby we have agreed
	not to dispose of public lands that are within this defined
	area on the map. What this bill would do would transfer the
	lands within that boundary to the airport authority.
	Ms. Christian-Green. And I just want to reecho the
	sentiments of our Chairman and other colleagues on the issue of
	joint selection. As a delegate from one of the territories,
	that is an issue that we understand. And I want to support the
	Chairman's remarks on that.
	Mr. Ensign. Any other members wish to inquire? Mr. Vento.
	Mr. Vento. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The normal course of
	events for Burton-Santini has a dedicated purpose for the fund
	to buy forest land. So this obviously opens it up, the 85
	percent at least, to multiple purposes. Now those purposes are
	all in the State of Nevada. And the issue here, of course, is
	that the sale of State lands is usually going back to the
	treasury, is that correct?
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, sir. All but four percent.
	Mr. Vento. All but four percent, which is kept for----
	Mr. Millenbach. Well, I believe it goes back to local
	government.
	Mr. Vento. I didn't quite hear your answer.
	Mr. Millenbach. It goes back to local government.
	Mr. Vento. It goes back to local government, so there is a
	small distribution here for administrative or other procedures.
	But in a land State like Nevada, because of the unusual public
	ownership with the deeds, you are actually taking the funds
	here on a non-appropriated basis and putting them back into a
	special fund for Nevada. Do you have any funds like that in
	other States that are similar to this other than the Burton-
	Santini example, which we know is for a designated purpose?
	Mr. Millenbach. Not that I can think of right now. I would
	have to follow up on that. I don't believe we do.
	Mr. Vento. Well, I think it is useful. I think it is an
	interesting concept and one that has worked for this particular
	purpose. I think that as you look at public land States, though
	this may be an answer in terms of trying to deal with and
	enhance some of the public lands, like it is your intention by
	repairing areas of Nevada. Many of the BLM lands do not have,
	as an example, the wetlands associated pieces of the ecosystem,
	is that right, Mr. Millenbach?
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, sir. We think that there is a big
	advantage to this idea of establishment of a fund. What it does
	is allows us to buy these environmentally sensitive lands near
	the recreational areas such as the Spring Hill Recreation Area
	near Las Vegas, repair areas near Clark--in Clark County and
	other areas throughout the State. It simplifies our process.
	And I think it will really make it a lot more efficient. The
	objectives of the bill that the Chairman stated this morning
	are very well taken, and we agree with them within the
	Department. Our difficulty has more to do with some of the
	details of the bill. And of course in the past it has been--we
	have not been able to get OMB agreement to set up a special
	fund, so we have been working very hard with the Office of
	Management and Budget to get an exception to the Budget
	Enforcement Act that would allow us to set up this fund and
	then----
	Mr. Vento. Which we have with Burton-Santini?
	Mr. Millenbach. That is correct.
	Mr. Vento. Well, I expect that that is going to be a
	problem, at least with the appropriation issue.
	Mr. Millenbach. Well, we are making pretty good progress
	with OMB.
	Mr. Vento. Well, I would be very interested to follow on.
	And obviously the purpose--I guess we would all like to review
	those purposes. This sort of represents the particular
	interests of Nevada. I don't think it is too bad. I think that
	it is within reason.
	The joint selection issue is an interesting process. But I
	think that in cases where there is disagreement, one ought to
	have an opportunity, in my view, just for the benefit of the
	members, to go to resolve this in terms of being able to come
	up with a decision. You need to work with the local governments
	and the Clark County government in terms of where they are
	going to put in a water service, where they are going to have
	development. And so I understand that it is appropriate.
	This gets back to this other question I had. And that is
	when I visited the area some years ago, as you recall--I don't
	know if you were along on that visit or not or who it was from
	BLM, but as I recall, there was, of course, a lot of this very
	desirable land. But there were also some small tracts of land.
	How does this deal with that particular problem? You have the
	mixed ownership of this land that is isolated. I just might
	comment to my colleagues that never have visited the site very
	often, these sites have things dumped on them. They are public.
	They are not surveyed. There are all sorts of problems with
	them.
	Mr. Ensign, we haven't talked about it, Mr. Chairman at
	some point I would like to, because these small tracts are our
	responsibility. These small tracts of land that don't have
	water. They are generally surrounded by private land. I don't
	know what the actual situation would be. From a practical
	standpoint, it represents a problem.
	Mr. Millenbach. Well, I think to the extent that this bill
	allows us to sell these smaller tracts of property, I think, is
	very advantageous.
	Mr. Vento. Are you barred from doing that? You are not
	barred from selling it right now, are you?
	Mr. Millenbach. That is correct. We could sell any of it
	under our existing authority. We could exchange it under our
	existing authority. I think one of the problems with exchanging
	these smaller tracts, though, it is much more difficult for us
	to put together an exchange package that would be of interest
	to a subdivision developer or something like that with those
	small properties.
	Mr. Vento. Well I have a simple mind and I would like to
	see certain blocks of land cleared and clear up responsibility.
	I am sure you would, as well, because having responsibility for
	land and then having it turn into a sort of temporary dump--
	someone throws trash on it or whatever happens to it. It
	represents a serious problem with regards to where we are
	going. So I would try to look and see if there is some solution
	here that would facilitate the consolidation of these lands in
	that area and then deal with that. I know the survey costs
	greater than the value of some of this land because it doesn't
	have water and so forth associated. I am correct in that, am I
	not, Mr. Millenbach?
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, sir, it is--they are not very
	convenient for us to have to administer. And again, I think
	this bill would be very helpful in dealing with that, because
	it would allow us to sell off a small piece of property, put
	the proceeds into----
	Mr. Vento. Well, there is an incentive here. That is true,
	it seems to me that the easier things to sell are those that
	have immediate economic value. The value of some of these
	tracts might not be as significant.
	Mr. Ensign. Mr. Vento, if I----
	Mr. Vento. I would be happy to yield.
	Mr. Ensign. Just to address that problem, actually, almost
	every piece of land in Las Vegas Valley right now has value. If
	you are in the Las Vegas Valley, you understand. I don't care
	if it is a two-acre piece of property or a one-acre piece of
	property or whatever, if it is in the Las Vegas Valley right
	now, there is access or there will be access and within the
	boundaries on the map that is over there. What we have tried to
	do with this is to--if somebody could display----
	Mr. Vento. No, I know. I have already seen it.
	Mr. Ensign. OK. If somebody could move the map into
	position over there. One of the things that we have tried to
	do, we are concerned about growing outside of a boundary. We
	wanted to establish kind of a boundary that this is what the
	Las Vegas Valley is going to be and it is not going to be
	outside this boundary. And so everything within that is
	developable, but outside it is not. So we are not going to be
	going out into these various areas. So even those small tracts
	of land within that, small developers, people that maybe want
	to build a home on it, you know, they like that piece of land.
	The biggest problem now--the reason it is dumped on, that land,
	is because it is publicly owned. And private people have a
	tendency to look out for their land a little more than public
	ones.
	Mr. Vento. Try to understand that there is some of the
	public land that is very desirable that has construction
	material and so forth dumped on it. Unfortunately it persists
	there. What I am talking about are small tracts and homesteads
	that are to the, if I remember, the west and south, Mr.
	Millenbach.
	And these sites don't have the water. They have wells but
	they don't have water rights. They don't have access. I think
	we have some maps that we had available a few years ago when I
	was there. And I would like to get into the small tracts issue
	and see what we can do. It is just that I would like to see it
	consolidated. I don't think they have quite the desirability
	because they are small tracts. Developers can't build the
	developments on them. And there are some practical problems
	with them, as I said. And, you know, it certainly may be that
	one of our goals--my time has expired.
	I wanted to ask a little bit about the Recreation and
	Public Purposes Act. I agree with you on the policy issue. One
	of the problems with the policy is the fact that it is
	innovative use. And I work with policy issues in Congress a
	lot. I like to see something, but it is the oversight problem.
	And the oversight problem deals generally with the Recreation
	and Public Purposes Act. And I am aware that there are some
	controversies over the nature of some of the public purposes,
	even in BLM lands in the Las Vegas Valley. Isn't that correct,
	Mr. Millenbach?
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, sir.
	Mr. Vento. And so I think the issue is rather than take on
	these tasks, this is one that if you don't have now it's very
	difficult to dodge the requirement. So there may be a different
	way that this could be accomplished in terms of if this water
	policy was going to be in public ownership or other means, is
	that correct?
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, the difficulty comes with the
	reversionary clause that is a part of those patents, and then
	the requirement that if the title changes or there is a change
	in use of the property, then the title reverts back to the
	Federal Government. So then we end up being stuck with, you
	know, somebody's house on a piece of property that has reverted
	back to us. Then what do we do from there? So----
	Mr. Vento. It is an impossible situation. Monitoring it and
	then the legal process that you have to go through to deal with
	enforcement, so that for all practical purposes this is not--I
	mean, I can understand the social goal that is desirable, but I
	think that how this is structured, I think, is--you may correct
	me.
	I was paying attention to the discussion with the Chairman
	with regards to the Little League Baseball. We are all in favor
	of Little League Baseball. I think the issue--the incidence of
	the environmental waivers that existed in the omnibus park
	bill, I would say was probably boilerplate language that dealt
	simply with the transfer of it, not necessarily with the
	ultimate use. And what you are dealing with here, I am sure
	that this bill will have in it NEPA waivers, other waivers that
	will facilitate the transfer. But I think what you are asking
	for here is an exception to the absolute end use of what you
	are going to do with it. I don't know if that is reasonable or
	not. We may have done some of that in the omnibus bill.
	Mr. Ensign. It is still subject to the Recreation and
	Public Purposes Act, the use.
	Mr. Vento. Oh, no, I understand the use issue, but I think
	that what you are seeking is waiver from the Endangered Species
	Act or a waiver from NEPA or a waiver of other things. If it is
	incident to the transfer, I don't know that there is an
	objection to that. Is that correct, Mr. Millenbach?
	Mr. Millenbach. The----
	Mr. Vento. In other words, it shouldn't have to go through
	NEPA if you are--in terms of this legislation for you to
	transfer some of this land under this law.
	Mr. Millenbach. The way the act is worded now is that it
	would exempt us from NEPA and the Endangered Species Act, and
	so forth.
	Mr. Vento. Well, this was a standard waiver. You know, that
	is a standard boilerplate waiver language--you are objecting to
	that. But, I think that this goes beyond that in terms of
	waivers for specific purpose.
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, except that this is already designated
	by the BLM for disposal. This land is designated already for
	disposal.
	Mr. Vento. Yes, but, you would not, if you were going to
	put a factory on it, you wouldn't necessarily exempt that
	factory from every environmental requirement----
	Mr. Ensign. Right, but----
	Mr. Vento. [continuing]--that exists with regard to the
	Endangered Species Act.
	Mr. Ensign. If it is already designated for disposal and it
	is subject to the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, I think
	that you have addressed those problems.
	Mr. Vento. Well, the Recreation and Public Purposes Act I
	don't know that the----
	Mr. Ensign. You can't put a factory on that.
	Mr. Vento. No, you put the little league baseball on, but I
	don't know what their spikes might do to the desert tortoise. I
	mean, they well might be there. I know they are definitely
	where my brother is. But I think there is a difference. I don't
	know that, in this case that this is--I don't know what the
	owner's requirement would be--you have to obviously have a
	demonstration. If there is not a big problem, then they don't
	need the waiver from the Endangered Species Act and some of the
	other environmental laws. What you're saying is that you feel
	that under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act you have
	already gone through the environmental waiver process? They
	have satisfied those concerns, is that what you are saying?
	Mr. Ensign. What we are saying is we are trying to save
	some of the bureaucratic process, so we can get the fields
	built. You know, you can take four years to do the
	environmental----
	Mr. Vento. I think you have to demonstrate that. Maybe the
	additional witnesses today can fill us in on some of the
	details. Unfortunately we all have to leave, but I appreciate
	the Administration's work on this issue. And we will be paying
	close attention to this bill as it moves through. I tried to do
	so last time at the end of the session; I do have an interest
	in the area and it sounds like you are a long way down the road
	with regard to it. We look forward to working with you,
	especially on the small tracts issue that are quite essential.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Ensign. Thank you. Just before I dismiss you, Mat, let
	me just address one last thing. And that has to do with the
	objection to the money being used like at Lake Mead. You know,
	we have a backlog for the repairs and maintenance of Lake Mead
	this year of $203 million. Five wastewater treatment facilities
	violate county codes out there. And what is wrong with using
	some of this money to do that when the Administration really
	hasn't made it a top priority in the appropriations bills to do
	that? You know, we are just trying to come up with, here is a
	source of funds, maybe we can use it for this.
	Mr. Millenbach. The rationale is two items. One is that we
	believe that the money from the sale of public lands should be
	put back into the purchase of public lands, and that using them
	for the construction and maintenance of administrative
	facilities and that kind of thing is really not appropriate. In
	fact, we have just put out a policy within the Bureau to stop
	doing land exchanges for the very same thing. You might
	remember in the IG report of 1996 we were criticized for
	buying--exchanging for a bowling alley up in Elko or Tonopah, I
	guess. And so we don't believe as a general matter that we
	should be selling out public lands to do those kind of things.
	The other difficulty is that it gets to be hard to know
	when to stop doing that. At what point do you stop selling off
	public lands to buy capital improvements and do maintenance of
	existing facilities? So that is the rationale behind that.
	Mr. Ensign. I guess let me address that. And this has to do
	with the affordable housing thing, as well. And that is at what
	point--some of this is common sense. Some of this is case by
	case. In other words, if you can justify it, if it is for the
	overall public good--I think this gets back into when you
	addressed the affordable housing and Mr. Vento talked about
	that it is an admirable goal and all of that. Well, maybe it
	doesn't fit into our pretty box that we think the regulations
	should be and all of that, but government--and we are all in
	the government. We are to be working for the people. And we
	should be able to figure these things out. If we all agree on
	the goal, and we all do.
	If there is anybody who disagrees with the goal, maybe they
	need to reevaluate their thinking, but when you have these
	similar goals and it just happens to be that is not the normal
	way of doing things, we should be better stewards of our jobs
	and our responsibilities to the public to say yes, that may not
	be the normal way to do it, but let us figure out a way that we
	can guard against this being abused in the future and
	unintended consequences, but let us figure out a way to do it
	so that the public good is served by the government.
	That is what I would implore, in the next couple weeks when
	we negotiate on some of these issues is if you object to the
	ways that we have it written or maybe you see some unintended
	consequences down the road, let us try to come up with the same
	arguments--the same goals, maybe a little different way of
	getting around some of these things. Because the bottom line is
	that we are trying to make a system that is not working as well
	as it should, we are trying to make it work a little better
	than it is working currently.
	Mr. Millenbach. I agree. I think between our staffs over
	the last six months or a year we have made a lot of progress on
	this, and we are quite happy and willing to try to work these
	things out and get this bill moved forward. We would like to
	see this get enacted.
	Mr. Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Millenbach. Enjoyed having you
	with us in front of the committee.
	I would like to call the next panel of witnesses.
	Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Ensign. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Shadegg.
	Mr. Shadegg. I will be brief. Mr. Millenbach, first of all
	let me compliment the Chairman on the bill. I think it is
	appropriate and worth, perhaps, consideration for other
	locations. What I want to do is get a sense of timing. Maybe
	this has been brought up in testimony already. Perhaps you can
	already indicate--maybe you can answer the question for me, Mr.
	Millenbach, easily. What is your anticipation of when this
	legislation will be--assuming we can get it through fairly
	quickly, what point would you imagine implementing this process
	and to what portions--and we discussed when you were here last
	the ongoing transactions. Is it your anticipation that this
	would apply to any of those ongoing transactions or to those
	that have not been completed by the time this passes, or what
	do we do with the ongoing exchange?
	Mr. Millenbach. You are talking about the ones that we
	already have agreements on? Yes, we have got, I believe, five
	of those underway. We are proceeding to move forward with
	those. We would have to go back and take a look at the
	agreements themselves, but my understanding is that they--the
	agreements do envision a land exchange with those existing
	people that we have the agreements with. I will have to get
	back with you after I take a look at each one of those
	agreements to see exactly what they say. Are you concerned
	about the idea that all of a sudden we would stop doing the
	existing exchanges?
	Mr. Shadegg. As you recall, last time you were here we had
	an extended discussion about when you change the rules if you
	have a process that is bad that you think needs to be corrected
	but people have been following. At what point is it fair to
	change the rules of the game?
	And this may be a significant improvement in the process
	and it may be a beneficial way for assuring that the taxpayers
	are compensated and at the same time assuring that we have a
	process that gets land out of government ownership into other
	ownership and by the way, also doing some environmentally
	important goals.
	The question is at what point do you decide, OK, you have a
	new set of rules, I will apply the new set of rules. Can you do
	that to people that have already begun the game? Can you do
	that at half time, or do you play that game out and then start?
	Mr. Millenbach. That is a very good question. I--what we
	are going to have to do is take a look at those agreements,
	compare them with what we have got in bill and get back with
	you on that.
	Mr. Shadegg. When you say take a look at those agreements,
	do you mean as to whether or not they contemplate that they are
	completed agreements or whether or not they contemplate that
	these procedures might apply?
	Mr. Millenbach. Yes, how would the provisions of this act
	affect those agreements. I wouldn't want to--I can't give you a
	complete answer on that today, because----
	Mr. Shadegg. Could you look at that and get back to me?
	Mr. Millenbach. I sure can. Yes, sir.
	Mr. Shadegg. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Ensign. Thank you. I would like to thank you again,
	Mat. And I would like to call the next panel of witnesses,
	Lance Malone, newly elected Clark County Commissioner; Richard
	Wimmer, Deputy General Manager, Southern Nevada Water
	Authority; and Steve Hobbs, Nevada State Director, Nature
	Conservancy. Commissioner Malone.

	STATEMENT OF LANCE MALONE, CLARK COUNTY COMMISSIONER

	Mr. Malone. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Committee members,
	thank you for inviting me to testify in support of H.R. 449,
	the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. I offer
	testimony today on behalf of the entire seven-member Board of
	County Commissioners from Clark County. In August of 1995, the
	Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution calling upon
	Congress to introduce and enact the Southern Nevada Public
	Lands Management Act.
	This bill is a product of extensive community discussion
	among local government, Federal agencies and all affected
	stakeholders through numerous public lands task force meetings
	organized and conducted by the members of the Nevada
	Congressional delegation. On behalf of the Board of County
	Commissioners, I would like to thank the leadership of our
	entire delegation for their efforts to achieve a consensus
	solution to an issue that has been controversial and
	troublesome, the disposal of Federal lands in the Las Vegas
	Valley.
	There is a significant burden placed on local government of
	providing public services such as water, sewer, fire and police
	protection for the new neighborhoods, which have been built on
	vast tracts of Federal land opened up through BLM land
	exchanges. Dick Wimmer, from the Southern Nevada Water
	Authority, will discuss this further in his testimony.
	Right now the BLM has pending applications for over 20 land
	exchanges that could privatize approximately 53,000 acres of
	land in Las Vegas Valley. Six of these proposed exchanges
	remain a priority with the BLM and total over 10,000 acres of
	land.
	The County Commission believes that Federal land disposal
	policy should privatize land in accordance with local
	government's planning policies and zoning guidelines. This
	would ensure that growth would occur in areas of the valley
	where services are place and/or planned. We must avoid the
	leapfrog development which drives up the cost of local
	services.
	Clark County supports H.R. 449 for several reasons. We see
	three major benefits. We get to be more involved. Like the
	Santini-Burton Act, under this bill local government will have
	a say in the process of Federal land disposal. We get some of
	the financial benefit for water development and for our parks,
	recreation and open space. And third, the national treasures
	that are located here in Southern Nevada, such as Lake Mead,
	Red Rock and Mount Charleston, also get new facilities and
	financial help.
	Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to several of the suggested
	changes being proposed to the bill by the Department of the
	Interior. First let me point out that most of the provisions
	which BLM wants to fix are already law in the Santini-Burton
	Act and are currently applied within the geographic boundaries
	of the Santini-Burton disposable area. H.R. 449 essentially
	extends these provisions to apply to a larger disposal area
	covering most of the developable land within the Las Vegas
	Valley.
	Specifically the Interior Department testimony recommends
	eliminating requirement in H.R. 449 that BLM and local
	governments ``jointly select lands to be offered'' for
	disposal. The BLM apparently thinks it is just like a
	corporation or private homeowner and should be free to dispose
	of its property as it chooses only after consultation with
	local government. H.R. 449, however, requires that BLM land
	disposal activities be consistent with local land use planning
	and zoning requirements. These provisions were copied from the
	existing Santini-Burton law, which already apply in part of the
	valley. Why not make them apply throughout the entire valley?
	Our experience under the current land exchange process is
	that without joint selection it is the BLM which in effect
	determines how, when and where local land use planning
	decisions are made. No corporation or private owner is the
	single largest landowner in Las Vegas Valley and has the power
	to drive growth the way that BLM does.
	Mr. Chairman, the joint selection section is the heart of
	this legislation. It creates true Federal/local government
	partnerships by requiring both governments to work
	cooperatively to coordinate the needs, impact, size, scope and
	timing of BLM land sales and exchanges. When the Administration
	raised the same concerns last year, Clark County accepted a
	compromise which deleted a sentence copied from the Santini-
	Burton Act which gives local government an explicit veto over
	any sale or exchange of BLM land. If BLM desires to get the
	joint selection of H.R. 449, I would respectfully disagree and
	request that you keep it as originally passed in the Santini-
	Burton Act, including the local government veto language.
	The bill being considered today reflects an agreement
	reached last year between the airport and local BLM with
	respect to lands in the clear zone at the western end of
	McCarran Airport runways. These lands are part of an existing
	cooperative management agreement, or otherwise known as CMA,
	between the BLM and the airport, which gives the airport a veto
	over the disposable lands which aircraft noise exceeds 60 LDN.
	This bill moves a step further and transfers these lands to the
	airport for protection. Under the bill, the airport will manage
	the lands in conformity with the CMA agreement and the FAA
	regulations on land use capability--excuse me, compatibility.
	Because most of the land is located within the original
	boundaries of the Santini-Burton Act, the county agrees that if
	any development is allowed to occur on these lands, that it is
	compatible with airport noise, 85 percent of the proceeds will
	be given to the Federal Government for this acquisition of
	environmentally sensitive land in the Tahoe Basin pursuant to
	the original terms of the Santini-Burton Act.
	Finally, the Board of County Commissioners believes
	strongly that the 60 LDN level of noise protection upon the CMA
	boundary is based on the minimum level necessary to protect
	public health and safety. The 60 LDN protection level is based
	upon recommendations from the EPA, the Federal Interagency
	Committee on Noise, the National Resource Defense Council. Even
	the FAA's new policy guidance to local governments recommends
	we impose local land use planning protections at the 60 LDN
	level.
	The Nevada Public Lands Management Act is a growth
	management tool that makes sense for Clark County and the State
	of Nevada. It creates a true partnership between the Federal,
	State and local government and helps lessen the cost of the
	infrastructure impacts associated with land exchanges.
	Management of local parks and national resources like the Lake
	Mead National Recreation Area, the Red Rock Canyon National
	Conservation Area and the Toiyabe National Forest will also
	benefit. Whether you think about economics, conservation,
	growth management or just plain and simple fairness, the
	Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act makes sense.
	[Statement of Lance Malone may be found at end of hearing.]
	Mr. Ensign. Thank you. Richard Wimmer.

	STATEMENT OF RICHARD WIMMER, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN
	NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY

	Mr. Wimmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
	committee. My name is Dick Wimmer. I am the Deputy General
	Manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. The Southern
	Nevada Water Authority is that regional entity that represents
	all of the water purveyors in Southern Nevada.
	As many of you probably have heard many times by now, we do
	have significant water challenges in Southern Nevada. Our
	challenges aren't so much, though, the amount of water we have,
	at least in the short run, but they are how we go about
	building and, probably more importantly, paying for the
	facilities to be able to deliver that water to the growing
	parts of the valley. This bill, H.R. 449, will provide us with
	important tools that will help us to be able to deal with some
	of these issues, some of the issues which have been created by
	the release of 17,000 acres to developers in remote areas of
	the valley that are outside the reaches of our existing
	infrastructure.
	The Southern Nevada Water System, which is the system that
	treats and delivers water to the Las Vegas Valley from the
	Colorado River, was constructed in the '60's and '70's. It is
	presently operating at absolute peak capacity during the summer
	and does not have additional capacity to serve our future
	needs. A very aggressive capital improvement program is
	presently underway, the first phase of which needs to be on
	line this summer to prevent shortages. And the total cost of
	this phased capital improvement program is over $1.7 billion.
	That is a fairly significant commitment for a community of just
	over a million people.
	One of the reasons that this cost is so high is because BLM
	land exchanges have opened land that leapfrogged existing
	development and created the need for infrastructure way outside
	the reaches of our system. This has caused us to have to build
	significantly more facilities than otherwise would have to have
	been built.
	To try to illustrate this, we had the Las Vegas Valley
	Water District do an analysis of four rapidly growing areas in
	land exchange areas on the outer reaches of the city and do a
	comparison assuming the same rate of growth as to what our
	infrastructure costs would have been had that growth occurred
	within the growing area of the community instead of
	leapfrogging out to the outer reaches. That analysis showed
	that the added costs of providing water service to these land
	exchanges, which was about 9700 acres, was $136 million. That
	is an average added cost of about $14,000 per acre for these
	exchanged lands.
	This clearly illustrates that the Southern Nevada water
	purveyors are victims of third party impacts associated with
	the BLM land exchange policies within the Las Vegas Valley. We
	have looked at whether to follow the examples of the Central
	Utah Project, the Central Arizona Project, or the California
	Central Valley Project and come to Congress and ask for 65
	percent Federal cost sharing, but we realize that there just
	isn't money available in Washington to do that today. We are
	therefore resolved to build the facilities without Federal
	assistance.
	We do believe, however, that we are justified in asking for
	some Federal assistance, because the Federal Government is the
	single largest landowner who will benefit from the increased
	land values resulting from the provision of water to these
	desert areas. We are seeking a partnership with BLM in future
	sales and exchanges.
	It has already been mentioned H.R. 449 borrows from both
	the Burton-Santini Act and the Apex Act by allowing local
	government to participate in the process of identifying lands
	to be disposed of and also in sharing in the increased land
	values brought by providing that infrastructure through the 85/
	15 split of the proceeds from the sales of Federal lands. It
	would only partially reimburse us for the water infrastructure
	that is providing the value to these Federal lands when they
	are sold.
	H.R. 449 will reestablish a cooperative working partnership
	between the Federal Government and local government as we seek
	to provide water service to the growth which will occur in the
	next decade through the continued disposal of Federal land
	holdings within the Las Vegas Valley. We urge you to expedite
	the bill's enactment so the terms of this cooperative
	partnership can be immediately applied to the next block of
	Federal lands that are made--that are released for development.
	Thank you very much.
	[Statement of Richard Wimmer may be found at end of
	hearing.]
	Mr. Ensign. Thank you. Mr. Hobbs.

	STATEMENT OF STEVE HOBBS, NEVADA STATE DIRECTOR, NATURE
	CONSERVANCY

	Mr. Hobbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
	committee, for allowing me to come before you and talk about
	this bill. My name is Steve Hobbs. I have been the State
	Director for the Nature Conservancy in Nevada for three years
	now. As I am sure you know, the Nature Conservancy is an
	international, nonprofit organization whose mission is the
	conservation of plants, animals and natural communities that
	represent the diversity of life on Earth. To date, the Nature
	Conservancy and its more than 900,000 members have conserved
	more than ten million acres for future generations.
	While in Nevada, I have been involved in several
	transactions involving land exchanges in the Las Vegas Valley.
	I see both the opportunity and challenge of the current system.
	As you know, the Las Vegas economy is booming as never before.
	Nearly 5000 new residents per month come to Las Vegas to share
	in this prosperity. And the challenge to local and Federal
	Government is daunting. Our natural resources and the
	attractive environment that draws both new residents and
	tourists is in jeopardy.
	The Las Vegas Valley sits as an island in a sea of Federal
	land. To meet the demand for residential housing spurred by
	this phenomenal growth, developers must look to expand onto
	Federal lands that do not enhance the public land portfolio.
	The current Federal land exchange process has helped to
	facilitate this growth, but in a way that is largely
	unsatisfactory to all parties involved.
	A recent report from the President's Council of Economic
	Advisors recognized that matching the desires and financial
	expectations of both parties in a Federal land exchange is very
	difficult. The report states ``a land purchase fund that
	decouples buying and selling land assets is superior to direct
	swaps.'' The Nature Conservancy agrees. Besides solving the
	problem of finding lands that match in value, we believe that a
	system that sells government land at auction, keeps the
	receipts off-budget and then uses them to improve the public
	land portfolio has several advantages.
	Number one, by auctioning the land we use the power of the
	free market to decide the value of the public lands. Too often
	the science of objective land appraisals becomes the art of
	speculation, especially in as volatile a market as exists in
	Las Vegas. This leads to endless debate over the validity of
	various appraisals for the same parcel of land, often without
	clear resolution.
	Second, such a system would give much more flexibility to
	government agencies to acquire land and reduce the overall
	costs of acquisition. The current land exchange system is
	needlessly complicated and often takes more than a year,
	sometimes two, for a single transaction. This time lag leads to
	lost opportunities and increases the overall cost to taxpayers
	to acquire these lands.
	Third, a system of competitive bidding maximizes financial
	return to the government. It is quite likely that in an
	expanding real estate market such as Las Vegas the winning bid
	for land will exceed the assume fair market value that the
	Federal Government might derive through an appraisal.
	And last, an auction system would make the Federal land
	acquisition and disposal process more transparent to the
	American people.
	The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1997,
	H.R. 449, establishes a new land disposal system for Nevada
	that incorporates these ideas. Besides solving the problems of
	acquiring environmentally sensitive land through the exchange
	process, H.R. 449 provides funding for the nation's natural
	treasures in Southern Nevada that have become overrun by the
	burgeoning resident population and increased tourism.
	H.R. 449 is sensitive to the needs of rural Nevada, as
	well. H.R. 449 provides for compensation to local governments
	through the payment in lieu of taxes program. This program
	ensures that local property tax revenues remain stable when
	government purchases convert private lands into public
	ownership.
	H.R. 449 also requires that Federal agencies consult with
	local government before they acquire private lands to ensure
	that the proposed acquisition is compatible with the long-term
	goals of the local community. The Nature Conservancy feels very
	strongly that sustainable conservation is only possible when
	the social and economic needs of the local community are
	considered. And we wholeheartedly support this provision of
	H.R. 449.
	The natural treasures of Nevada are the nation's treasures.
	Our scientists in 25 years of extensive ecological surveys have
	determined that Nevada is the sixth most ecologically important
	State in the nation.
	H.R. 449 solves the myriad problems that exist with the
	current land exchange process while providing the funding
	necessary to ensure a lasting legacy of environmentally
	sensitive land. The Nature Conservancy fully supports H.R. 449.
	[Statement of Steve Hobbs may be found at end of hearing.]
	Mr. Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Hobbs. Let me ask a few
	questions of the panel. And we do have a vote on, so we are
	going to try to wrap the hearing up within the next, oh,
	probably seven or eight minutes, so we will try to be as brief
	as we possibly can. I want to ask--first of all, Dick, I would
	like to just address one quick question to you. You mentioned
	the $14,000 an acre. Could you also talk about some of the
	impacts on land as far as paying for water, for rights-of-way
	and things like that, the impact that that can have on
	basically local rate payers?
	Mr. Wimmer. Absolutely. At the present time we are in the
	position where we have to either buy private lands or we have
	to go through lengthy processes and pay for sites for
	reservoirs and other right-of-ways necessary for water
	facilities. That adds significantly to the cost to the public
	for those water facilities. And this would help in that
	tremendously.
	Mr. Ensign. OK, thank you. Mr. Hobbs, under the current
	process versus what you foresee under H.R. 449, do you foresee
	that groups like the Nature Conservancy would have more or less
	input into what lands are then purchased?
	Mr. Hobbs. Well, I think the benefit of H.R. 449 is that it
	provides more input from the entire environmental community,
	local governments, Federal Governments. I think it just makes
	the whole process more of a cooperative process than exists
	today.
	Mr. Ensign. OK, and, Lance, welcome, by the way.
	Mr. Malone. Thank you.
	Mr. Ensign. The comments--we had a discussion earlier about
	joint selection, and you mentioned that in your testimony. As a
	newly elected local commissioner, you have seen--one of the
	reasons you probably ran for office was--in our conversations
	was seeing some of the frustration out there at the local
	level. I guess I would just like you to discuss a little bit
	about that, how important and just kind of elaborate a little
	more of what the joint selection process--what that would mean
	to local government.
	Mr. Malone. Mr. Chairman, it is going to be imperative that
	Clark County Commissioners and the other municipalities that
	are surrounding the area have a say in what goes on when it
	comes to land exchanges. It has, of course, great importance to
	us when they are allowed to make the exchanges without--other
	than just consultation, without going with our use, our
	planning, our zoning decisions that are being made. We have
	what is called--and Mr. Hobbs eloquently stated it,
	leapfrogging effects, which is very costly, which the taxpayers
	have to pay. And that, of course, then increases the homes. And
	so it makes it a little bit more difficult for home buyers to
	come in and purchase a home because they will be financially
	impacted. So I can assure that the joint selection is really
	the heart of this legislation.
	Mr. Ensign. Thank you. Ms. Christian-Green.
	Ms. Christian-Green. Just wanted to thank you for your
	testimony. And as a freshman here in Congress and on this
	committee, I thought we would be looking at having continuing
	conflicts between developmental concerns and environmental
	concerns. And it is very encouraging to come here this morning
	and to see your representatives in Congress on both sides of
	the fence, developmental interests and conservation interests
	coming together and working out an agreement on an issue of
	importance to the State.
	Mr. Ensign. Thank you, Ms. Christian-Green. We in Nevada
	like to think that we are a little bold in our thinking that
	the--maybe we are a little also arrogant in that we think that
	the rest of the country can learn a lot from our State. But let
	me just conclude. Maybe each of you could make a brief
	statement on this from your perspective of identifying just the
	number one reason you think H.R. 449 should be--as brief, 30
	seconds or less--why you think H.R. 449 should be moved forward
	as quickly as possible. We will start with you, Mr. Hobbs.
	Mr. Hobbs. Thank you. I think that this really is the
	legacy for the State of Nevada. And I see this as a model for
	what can happen in other States. I think we have a unique
	situation in the State of Nevada. I think we can capitalize on
	that. This is a unique opportunity for us and we need to act
	now in order to really realize a dream for conservation and for
	the entire State.
	Mr. Malone. I think mostly the western parts of the United
	States is owned by the BLM, which is of course great concern to
	local government entities, being able to have a say. We have
	several environmentally sensitive areas such as Nellis Air
	Force Base, that is contiguous with private ownership, and
	their live munitions area. And we are trying to, of course,
	work out with our State senators and with our delegation in
	land exchanges to those extent. But when it comes to land
	sensitivity, we have a lot of wonderful areas in the Las Vegas,
	Nevada, in general that needs to be conserved. And I think the
	only way we can do that is by pushing for H.R. 449.
	Mr. Wimmer. It defines the outer boundaries of the disposed
	area of land so that we know what the size of the municipal
	area will be in terms of private landownership. This lets us
	plan for infrastructure and for other things. It also
	contributes a little bit back in terms of the costs that we are
	incurring that is actually creating the value in the Federal
	lands when they do sell.
	Mr. Ensign. Well, I would like to thank the panel and
	everyone, our senators and Mr. Millenbach, for your testimony
	today, and especially for those from Nevada that you traveled
	out here. I appreciate your work. Just a final note. Lance, we
	will be meeting up in my office--my staff will be taking you up
	there--after I vote. This Subcommittee is adjourned.
	[Whereupon, at 11:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned;
	and the following was submitted for the record:]

	Statement of Mat Millenbach, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management

	Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 449, the
	Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1997, regarding
	land disposal in the Las Vegas Valley. The Bureau of Land
	Management (BLM) supports the concept behind this bill. We
	believe that through continuing discussions with the bill's
	authors in the House and the Senate, a final bill can be
	produced that would receive the Administration's endorsement.
	Let me provide some background and context for this
	legislation. In many parts of the West, the legacy of
	settlement has left us with a scattered ownership pattern. The
	Las Vegas area is a good example. As communities such as Las
	Vegas expand, the BLM works with local jurisdictions to make
	public lands available through sale or exchange and also
	provide lands for public purposes through Recreation and Public
	Purpose (R&PP) Act patents and leases. In the Las Vegas Valley,
	BLM is working with all jurisdictions and private interests to
	facilitate the disposal of public lands, mostly through
	exchange. Our program of land exchanges in the Las Vegas Valley
	is designed to dispose of land with high commercial value,
	which allows us to acquire resources significant to all
	Americans, including:
	<bullet>prime recreation areas;
	<bullet>riparian and wetland habitat;
	<bullet>critical habitat for threatened, sensitive and
	endangered species, and
	<bullet>significant historical, archaeological, and
	cultural sites.
	H.R. 449 and its companion Senate bill, S. 94, specifically
	affect several thousand acres of public land in the Las Vegas
	Valley, which are managed by the BLM. In recent years, the Las
	Vegas Valley has become the fastest growing metropolitan region
	in the country, but development has been influenced by the
	presence of public lands in the area. The rapid expansion has
	also had an impact on the Las Vegas District of BLM, which has
	experienced an increase in applications for permits to use
	public lands. These requests have included rights-of-way for
	power lines and roads, R&PP leases for fire stations and
	schools, land exchange proposals, and other realty actions.
	This bill seeks to resolve the future of these public lands by
	requiring BLM to sell, exchange or transfer public land in the
	Las Vegas Valley.
	Mr. Chairman, the BLM strongly believes that the land
	ownership pattern in the Las Vegas area needs to be addressed.
	In fact, our draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the area
	targets the vast majority of BLM-managed lands within the Las
	Vegas metropolitan area for disposal in order to meet the
	growth needs of the community. The lands specified in H.R. 449
	are nearly identical to those identified for disposal in the
	RMP.
	As part of it's planning process, BLM's Las Vegas District
	works toward partnerships with local governments in southern
	Nevada. The BLM is a charter member of the Southern Nevada
	Public Lands Task Force, and BLM personnel meet regularly with
	the Clark County Planning Director at quarterly meetings. In
	January 1996, BLM initiated the Southern Nevada Land Exchange
	Strategy Project to improve the effectiveness of the land
	exchange program and other realty actions in the Las Vegas
	District. Coordination and communication with local governments
	continue to be key to success of the project. In the area of
	land exchanges, our goal is to prioritize land exchange
	opportunities and move forward with timely completion of high
	priority land exchanges that meet the public interest and
	respond to local needs.
	One of the best examples of sound legislation that
	addressed public land disposal is the Santini-Burton Act of
	1980. The law gave the Department of the Interior the authority
	to sell land in the Las Vegas Valley and to use 85% of the
	revenue to purchase National Forest System Lands in the Lake
	Tahoe Basin. The Federal government shares a reasonable portion
	of the receipts (15%) with Clark County, the City of Las Vegas
	and the State of Nevada. In return, lands in the magnificent
	Lake Tahoe Basin have been protected and made available for the
	enjoyment of the public.
	The intent of H.R. 449 is to capture the best qualities of
	the BLM's land exchange goals, the Burton-Santini Act and the
	partnerships that have been developed with local government.
	This bill provides for the disposal, by sale or exchange, of
	certain Federally-owned, BLM-managed lands within a limited
	area of the Las Vegas valley. Fifteen percent of the proceeds
	from these land disposals would be distributed to local
	entities. The balance of the funds would be used, for the
	benefit of natural resource management within Nevada for
	Federal land acquisition, capital improvements, development of
	a multi-species habitat conservation plan in Clark County and
	the development of recreation and natural areas within Clark
	County. The bill also provides for the transfer of lands to
	Clark County, at no cost, within the airport management area
	for McCarran International Airport. Should those lands be sold
	or leased, the United States would be paid 85% of the fair
	market value received. The bill also includes a provision
	allowing local governmental entities to select public lands
	needed under the R&PP Act prior to their conveyance. Local and
	regional governmental entities may also apply for rights of way
	for flood control and water treatment purposes which can be
	granted in perpetuity and at no cost. Additionally, the
	Secretary is authorized to transfer the R&PP reversionary
	clause from one parcel of land to another upon request by the
	owner of those lands.
	Under existing BEA rules, this bill would have significant
	PAYGO costs. However, the Administration is planning to propose
	changes to the current rule that prohibits scoring asset sale
	proceeds as PAYGO savings. Such a change would mean that the
	lands sale proceeds could be counted as offsetting the land
	acquisition and other costs in this bill. We will continue to
	work with OMB and the sponsors of the bill to resolve these
	issues.
	Nearly a year ago, the BLM acting Director, Mike Dombeck
	testified in opposition to an earlier version of this bill. At
	that time, Mr. Dombeck stated, ``while we support the goal of
	disposing of certain public lands within Las Vegas to
	accommodate the city's growth, the Department strongly opposes
	this bill.'' He pointed out that the earlier bill would divert
	huge amounts of Federal resources and funds to local interests,
	offering a windfall to a few at the expense of many. Since that
	hearing a year ago the Nevada delegation staffs have worked to
	resolve many of the problems we identified with the bill, as
	originally introduced in the 104th Congress.
	Since H.R. 449 was introduced in the House (and its
	companion bill S. 94), a number of technical issues have been
	discussed and resolved between BLM and Congressional staffs.
	Those details are unnecessary to pursue here. However, there
	remain a few issues that are as yet unresolved that need to be
	remedied before the administration can endorse the bill.
	First, section 4(a) waives FLPMA sections 202 and 203 for
	land disposals and section (b)(3) waives environmental laws for
	construction of a youth activity facility. The Administration
	opposes waivers of environmental laws in legislation. Such
	waivers undercut the applicability of the laws, undermine
	enforcement, possibly lead to serious environmental problems
	and set a dangerous precedent. We urge that these waivers be
	removed from the bill.
	Second, section 4(f) of the bill establishes a special
	account for 85% of the proceeds of land sales. Creating a
	special account that makes funds available without further
	appropriation is a significant departure from Administration
	policy. However, the Administration could support the
	establishment of such a fund if its uses were limited to land
	acquisition within Nevada and reimbursement of costs incurred
	by the local BLM offices in arranging sales or exchanges.
	Third, Section 4(d) of the bill is entitled, ``Joint
	Selection Required''. This section appears to require the
	Secretary to obtain local government concurrence before any
	land disposal action. The Secretary, just like a corporation or
	a private homeowner, should have the discretion to dispose of
	lands without having to wait for the local government to
	approve that transaction. After all, local government has the
	ultimate control of land development through planning and
	zoning. We believe strongly in consultation with local
	governments, but do not believe they should have veto power. We
	request that the term joint selection be changed to
	``consultation''.
	Fourth, Section 4(g) of the bill transfers 4,600 acres that
	are located within the Las Vegas Airport noise area to Clark
	County, at no cost. Specifically, the bill requires the
	Secretary of the Interior to transfer lands that are identified
	in a current Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the BLM to
	Clark County, at their request and at no cost. If the lands are
	later sold or leased, then the Airport Authority is required to
	pay the Federal government 85% of the value received. Although
	this approach is superior to the straight donation as designed
	in earlier versions of the bill, it still requires modification
	to assure that we are not conveying more lands than necessary
	for the airport's needs. I am sure the airport authority would
	like to keep this process as simple as possible without
	creating unnecessary long-term actions. Some additional
	modifications would also be necessary to insure that any
	conveyance (for example land exchanges) or use authorization
	upon the lands results in a sharing of receipts as intended in
	this section. We would be glad to work with the subcommittee
	staff and the airport authority on this issue.
	Finally, the bill contains a provision which allows
	affordable housing to be an acceptable use of the R&PP
	authority anywhere within Nevada. The R&PP Act authorizes the
	sale or lease of public lands for recreational or public
	purposes to State and local governments and to qualified
	nonprofit organizations. Examples of typical uses under the act
	are historic monument sites, campgrounds, schools, fire houses,
	hospitals, parks and fairgrounds. These lands are conveyed at
	costs below market value, with the exact price dependent upon
	the type of use or the restrictions placed on the lands. Most
	sales under the R&PP Act are made at $10 per acre or 50% of
	market value. The United States sells lands under this
	authority with a reversionary clause that requires the lands to
	remain in the ownership of the patentee and to be used for the
	purpose requested. Sales of these lands or changes of use
	result in a reversion of title to the United States known as a
	divestiture. Because of these requirements in the R&PP Act,
	this affordable housing provision causes potential problems
	should the property be conveyed or the use of the property
	change. The BLM could find itself in the position of having to
	divest title to hundreds of one-quarter acre tracts or a
	converted apartment house complex. We would suggest that this
	provision be removed. Taking back these types of properties is
	time consuming and offers no benefit to natural resource
	management in Nevada.
	Finally, we need to continue discussions regarding the need
	and location of any Red Rock NCA boundary modifications as
	called for in the legislation. The bill as written does not
	specifically delineate which areas are included--we would like
	to work with staff to insure that this boundary modification is
	in the best public interest.

	CONCLUSION

	Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that a population explosion
	is occurring in many western communities. Las Vegas is seeing
	an increased migration of people from southern California and
	large metropolitan areas in the east. Public lands can be part
	of the solution, and an effective land disposal program can
	assist in orderly growth. The Bureau of Land Management agrees
	that we need to move to dispose of much of the urban lands in
	the Las Vegas area when appropriate. Of the 130,000 acres
	within the area affected by this legislation, about 20,000 of
	those acres are public lands. These public lands should be
	disposed of in harmony with the needs of the local or tribal
	jurisdictions. We also believe that all land disposals must
	benefit both the American people and the local community as
	well.
	This legislation provides a framework to allow for a fair
	approach to dealing with the situation in the Las Vegas area.
	The bill deals with disposal of public land using a nearly
	identical boundary as developed within the BLM Draft Resource
	Management Plan. With changes to address the concerns outlined
	above as well as some possible changes of a more technical
	nature, the Administration could support the legislation. We
	would be happy to work with the Nevada delegation to provide
	such a solution.
	Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear
	before the Subcommittee and discuss this bill. I will be glad
	to answer any questions.

	------ 0


	Statement of Commissioner Lance Malone

	Introduction

	Thank you for inviting me to testify in support of H.R.
	449, The Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. I offer
	testimony today on behalf of the entire seven member Board of
	County Commissioners from Clark County. In August of 1995, the
	Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution calling upon
	Congress to introduce and enact the Southern Nevada Public
	Lands Management Act.
	This bill is the product of extensive community discussion
	among local government, federal agencies and all affected
	stakeholders through numerous public lands task force meetings
	organized and conducted by the members of the Nevada
	Congressional delegation. On behalf of the Board of County
	Commissioners, I would like to thank the leadership of our
	entire delegation for their efforts to achieve consensus
	solution to an issue that has been controversial and
	troublesome, the disposal of federal lands in the Las Vegas
	valley.

	Infrastructure Costs and Local Government

	Right now, local governments and Nevada's legislature are
	struggling to determine how best to pay for new infrastructure
	for water, sewer, roads, schools, fire and police protection
	for the new neighborhoods which have been built on vast tracts
	of federal land opened up through BLM land exchanges which
	proceeded despite local government opposition to many of the
	exchanges.
	Right now, the BLM has pending applications for over 20
	land exchanges that could privatize another 53,000 acres of
	land in the Las Vegas Valley. Six of these proposed exchanges
	remain a priority with the BLM, and total over 10,000 acres of
	land. The County Commission believes that federal land disposal
	policy should privatize land in accordance with local
	governments' planning policies and zoning guidelines. This
	would ensure that growth would occur in areas of the valley
	where services are in place or planned. We must avoid the
	leapfrog development which drives up the cost of local
	services.

	Santini-Burton Act

	In 1980, Congress adopted the Santini-Burton Act which
	created a federal-state partnership to the disposal of federal
	land in Clark County. Under the Santini-Burton Act, local
	government nominated the federal land to be sold at auction and
	participated in sharing fifteen percent of the revenue. To
	date, only 2,696 acres of land have been privatized under
	Santini-Burton land sales. Compare this to over 22,000 acres
	which have been privatized through land exchanges just in the
	last few years. The problem with Santini-Burton is that it
	applies to only a small area within the valley. Federal land
	outside that area is disposed of through a land exchange
	process where local governments have not always been listened
	to. The land exchange process has contributed to urban
	development occurring on the fringes of the valley, far from
	existing services costing us more to provide roads, water
	service, sewer, schools, police and fire protection.

	Zoning Limitations

	While we local officials have to make decisions about
	zoning and land use, increasingly, a local government's
	authority to deny zoning for land uses is becoming limited by
	court decisions. Some would say to us ``just use your local
	authority to deny land use applications,'' however, the reality
	is that we often can't. Clark County does have community
	development zones which reflect where public infrastructure and
	services are available. The CD 1, 2, 3, etc. designations are
	used by the Board to approve or disapprove zoning applications.
	We cannot, however, succeed at our local efforts to manage
	growth without having a say in when, where, and how federal
	land within the valley is disposed of to private developers.
	When local governments build infrastructure systems, the
	value of federal land is increased. It's our local residents,
	through taxes and fees, that contribute significantly to the
	value of the federal land. Under the land exchange process it's
	the federal government that gets the benefits from that local
	investment.
	Clark County supports the proposed legislation for several
	reasons. We see three major benefits:
	1. We get to be more involved. Like the Santini-Burton Act,
	under this bill, local government will have a say in the
	process of federal land disposal.
	2. We get some of the financial benefit for our water
	development and for our parks, recreation and open space--the
	people who have made the investment that contributes to the
	value of federal land will be partially reimbursed for
	infrastructure costs.
	3. The federal agencies that serve our local community (and
	our tourist population that comes from all over the world)
	would get some financial help for improving and maintaining the
	national treasures that are located here in Southern Nevada
	such as Lake Mead, Red Rock and Mount Charleston, and are
	impacted by the growth brought about when federal land is made
	available for private development.

	Joint Selection

	Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to several of the suggested
	changes being proposed to the bill by the Department of the
	Interior. First, let me point out that most of the provisions
	which BLM wants to fix are already law in the Santini-Burton
	Act and currently apply within the geographic boundaries of the
	Santini-Burton disposal area. H.R. 449 essentially extends
	these provisions to apply to a larger disposal area covering
	most of developable land within the Las Vegas valley.
	Specifically, the Interior Department testimony recommends
	eliminating the requirement that BLM and local governments
	``jointly select lands to be offered'' for disposal. In
	addition, the BLM wants to eliminate provisions which require
	that BLM land disposal activities be ``consistent with local
	land use planning and zoning requirements''. Both these
	provisions are part of the existing Santini-Burton law.
	Mr. Chairman, the joint selection section is the heart of
	this legislation. It creates a true federal/local government
	partnership by requiring that both governments work
	cooperatively to coordinate the needs, impacts, size, scope and
	timing of BLM land sales and exchanges. When the Administration
	raised these same concerns last year, Clark County accepted a
	compromise which deleted a sentence copied from the Santini-
	Burton Act which gives local government an explicit veto over
	any sale or exchange of BLM land. If BLM desires to gut the
	joint selection section of H.R. 449, I would respectfully
	disagree and request that you keep it as originally passed in
	Santini-Burton including the local government veto language.

	Protecting McCarran International Airport

	Mr. Chairman, the Administration's testimony recommends
	amending the section which transfers lands within the current
	The Clark County Department of Aviation (DOA)/BLM Cooperative
	Management Area which protects the clear zones at the end of
	McCarran International Airport's runways. Let me provide some
	background, the Clark County Department of Aviation, as the
	owner and operator of McCarran International Airport, has
	received more than 200 million dollars in federal grant
	assistance over the past ten years. Federal grant recipients
	are required to comply with grant assurances which specify
	airport policy on many issues. One of the most significant is
	maintaining compatible land use. The federal government does
	not want to provide financial assistance to an airport that
	does nothing to protect the public investment by enacting
	zoning and other preventive aircraft noise mitigation measures
	in high noise areas. If the airport or airport sponsor fails to
	maintain land use compatibility then the federal investment in
	the airport becomes worthless because aviation growth is often
	impeded nearby residents, who have moved close to the airport
	in places where there have been no land use controls. These new
	neighbors then vocally oppose airport expansion and advocate
	restrictions on aircraft takeoffs and landings.
	To make things even worse for airport proprietors, the
	Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 took away an airport's
	right to enact any type of operational restriction on large
	aircraft. The only control an airport has left is to utilize
	land use control measures to try to maintain compatibility.

	History of McCarran Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning

	In 1988, as part of the Airport & Airway Improvement Act,
	Congress authorized a program for conducting noise
	compatibility studies. These studies are commonly referred to
	as Part 150 Studies. The Part 150 Study consists of two
	products: (1) Noise Exposure Maps depicting equal areas of
	noise exposure for specific levels of aircraft noise and (2) a
	document containing plans for how to abate and mitigate
	aircraft noise at the subject airport. These two products are
	then submitted to the FAA for approval and evaluation. The FAA
	goes through a meticulous evaluation process for every proposed
	noise abatement and noise mitigation measure. They do this
	because if they approve a measure, it must be (1) lawful; (2)
	feasible; and (3) it legitimizes the measure as a valid and
	effective noise abatement or mitigation measure and thus makes
	it eligible for federal funding.
	What is a compatible land use for an airport? According to
	the guidelines in Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150, the
	answer to this question is more easily expressed in terms of
	what is not a compatible land use. Essentially, non compatible
	uses include any residential land uses, schools, churches and
	hospitals. Most other land uses (commercial and industrial land
	uses) are compatible.
	A newly promulgated policy by the FAA has put much more
	pressure on airports to maintain compatibility. Under the
	former version of FAR Part 150, if an airport had conducted a
	Part 150 study they could be eligible to use federal funds on
	areas in the 65 ldn and greater for noise purchases, even if
	they did nothing to prevent incompatible development from going
	in. This is no longer the case. If an airport wants to receive
	funds from the federal government for land in noise impact
	areas, it needs to have adequate land use protections in place
	for existing land.

	The Inefficient Planning Past

	During the 1980's the BLM, which owns most of the land to
	the west of the airport's departure runways allowed for the
	disposal of several parcels of land within the noise impact
	area. There are repeated efforts to dispose of land in the area
	through land exchanges with developers who want to exchange
	environmentally sensitive lands in other parts of the Nevada
	and the country for land in the Las Vegas valley. This has
	resulted in a planning nightmare for local BLM officials, and
	it has also jeopardized Clark County's land use compatibility
	plans for McCarran Airport.

	Cooperative Management Area (CMA)

	In response to this problem, the Department of Aviation and
	the BLM negotiated the Cooperative Management Agreement in
	1991. Our two governmental entities were attempting to meet
	their respective mandates in a mutually beneficial, cooperative
	fashion. The Bureau of Land Management has the mandate of
	managing thousands of acres of land in southern Nevada and they
	do that with very limited resources. Clark County, as the owner
	and sponsor of McCarran International Airport, has the
	obligation of complying with a federal mandate which requires
	maintaining land use compatibility around the airport. Since a
	great deal of federal land underlies the primary departure
	flight tracks from McCarran Airport, and since most of the
	private land that is intermixed with the public land is
	undeveloped, the opportunity for some innovative compatible
	land use planning existed.
	In exchange for giving the airport the opportunity to
	review and comment on the proposed disposal of federal land in
	the Cooperative Management Agreement (CMA) area, the Department
	of Aviation agreed to provide continual property patrol and
	management services of the land in the CMA. Under this
	agreement the BLM is assisted in the management of the land and
	Clark County has the opportunity to review and approve of any
	proposed sales or transfer of federal land. This helps to
	ensure future development of the area will be compatible with
	the high levels of aircraft noise produced in the area.
	Clark County undertook a Part 150 study for MIA in June of
	1987 and an update of the study in June of 1991. As part of the
	1991 update, Clark County included the Cooperative Management
	Agreement with the BLM as a new preventive noise mitigation
	measure. The measure was subsequently approved by the FAA in
	March of 1994. Despite this agreement however there has still
	been incompatible development on the CMA through the release of
	federal lands. BLM says that it is simply unable legally to
	convey property with deed restrictions which will protect the
	airports noise impact area.

	H.R. 449

	The bill being considered today reflects a new agreement
	reached between the airport and the local BLM with respect to
	the CMA lands. The bill transfers the land to the airport. We
	will manage the lands in conformity with the CMA Agreement and
	the FAA regulations on land use compatibility. Because most of
	the land is located within the original boundaries of the
	Santini-Burton Act, the County agrees that if any development
	is allowed to occur on these lands that is compatible with
	airport noise, 85% of the proceeds will be given to the federal
	government for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive
	land in the Tahoe Basin pursuant to the original terms of the
	Santini-Burton Act.
	The BLM now proposes to amend the area being protected and
	transferred to cover only areas where there is a 65 ldn noise
	level (because this is the level at which federal money is
	provided to buy residences) rather than the 60 ldn level
	provided for in the agreement. Once again, I am astounded that
	the BLM is recommending this change.
	The federal government will receive 85% of the proceeds
	regardless of whether the 60 or 65 ldn level is used.
	Furthermore, Clark County will still exercise its rights under
	the existing Cooperative Management Agreement to prevent the
	BLM from disposing the land between the 60 and 65 ldn level
	because BLM cannot adequately insure airport compatibility.
	Finally, the BLM is simply wrong with respect to which noise
	level deserves protection. The Board of County Commissioners
	has selected a 60 ldn level of noise protection based upon
	information which is supported by recommendations from the
	Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Interagency
	Committee on Noise, and the National Resources Defense Council.
	Even the FAA's new policy recommends land use planning
	protections at the 60 ldn level.

	Public Housing

	Lastly, I want to respond to the BLM's criticism of the
	section of H.R. 449 which allows local governments to acquire
	land for affordable housing projects under the provisions of
	the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Every year Congress
	appropriates millions of dollars to the Department of Housing
	and Urban Development to assist local governments with
	affordable housing projects. The Clark County Public Housing
	Authority however is limited in its ability to acquire land for
	these projects because the federal land is largely unavailable
	and the private land is extremely expensive to purchase. I want
	to commend the Nevada delegation for recognizing the need to
	solve this problem.
	Affordable housing is a growing need in today's cities. The
	problem of homelessness must be attacked by all agencies of
	federal government in cooperation with local government.
	Affordable housing is just as legitimate a public purpose as
	local parks or fire stations to merit free federal land under
	the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.

	Conclusion

	The Nevada Public Lands Management Act is a growth
	management tool that makes sense for Clark County and the State
	of Nevada. It creates a true partnership between the federal,
	state and local gonads. Management of national resources like
	the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Red Rock Canyon
	National Conservation Area and the Toiyabe National Forest will
	benefit from the privatization of public land in Clark County.
	Whether you think about economics, conservation, growth
	management or just plain and simple fairness, the Southern
	Nevada Public Lands Management Act makes sense.

	------


	Statement of Richard Wimmer, Deputy General Manager, Southern Nevada
	Water Authority

	Introduction

	Chairman Hansen, Rep. Ensign and other members of the
	Committee, my name is Dick Wimmer and I am the Deputy General
	Manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). The SNWA
	is that unit of local government which represents all water
	purveyors in southern Nevada.

	Growth and Water

	As many of you have probably heard, we have significant
	water challenges in southern Nevada. Our biggest water
	challenge is not the amount of water Nevada has but rather, it
	is how do we handle the infrastructure costs needed to deliver
	our water to the growing parts of the valley.
	This bill H.R. 449 will provide us with the tools necessary
	to cope with this significant growth which is resulting in part
	from the Interior Department land exchange policy which has
	released over 17,000 acres of land to developers in areas of
	the valley where our system has had no delivery capacity.

	Leapfrog Development Caused by Land Exchanges Creates Third
	Party Impacts

	The Southern Nevada Water System (SNWS) was constructed in
	the 1960's and 70's by the Bureau of Reclamation and was sized
	for a maximum delivery of water from Lake Mead of 380 million
	gallons per day. For the past two summers we have watched
	nervously as peak deliveries reached our system capacity. This
	summer will be the true test of our ability to manage the
	system so that everyone receives the water they need and
	expect. Recognizing this system problem, the SNWA agencies have
	embarked upon an accelerated plan to augment the treatment and
	delivery capacity of the existing system by 100 million gallons
	per day and to design and construct a new regional system to
	deliver future water supplies from Lake Mead. The total cost of
	this capital program will exceed $1.7 billion. $1.7 billion is
	a large commitment for a community of just over a million
	people.
	One reason the cost is so high is that as we sat down to
	design our new water system we found that we were forced to
	engineer a whole new system to supply water to those areas of
	the valley that were far beyond the boundaries of our existing
	system. Because the BLM land exchanges opened land that
	leapfrogged past existing development and infrastructure, they
	created demand we could not meet by simply running another
	extension of pipe or extending our existing system to provide
	water service to these areas. Rather than grow like other
	cities, from the inside out, adding incrementally to our
	existing system similar to the expanding ripples in a pond, we
	have been forced to design a new stand alone system that
	surrounds our existing infrastructure.
	To illustrate these added costs for you, the Las Vegas
	Valley Water District did an analysis of the facilities we have
	built and will build to the year 2000 which are needed to
	provide water to land exchange areas in the four major areas of
	growth in the western part of our system which could have been
	avoided if the land exchanges had not occurred.
	In our analysis we assumed the same rate of growth, however
	we located that growth in other areas of the system which had
	been previously approved for development and where capacity
	existed within the system. Our analysis showed that the added
	costs of providing water service to these land exchanges
	covering 9,700 acres was $136 million. This is an average added
	cost of $14,000 per acre for exchanged lands. The irony is that
	much of this land was originally appraised and exchanged for
	$10,000 or less per acre. Southern Nevada water purveyors are
	the victims of third party impacts associated with the BLM land
	exchange policies within the Las Vegas Valley.
	We have looked at whether we should follow the examples of
	the Central Utah Project, Central Arizona Project, and
	California's Central Valley Project and come to Congress and
	ask for 65 percent federal cost sharing to help us expand our
	water project. We have recognized however that there is no
	money to be found in Washington these days. We are therefore
	resolved to build the system without federal assistance.
	We believe however that we are justified in asking for some
	federal assistance because the federal government is the single
	largest landowner who will benefit from increased land values
	resulting from the provision of water to these desert tracts.
	What we are seeking is a partnership with BLM in future land
	sales or exchanges.

	Santini-Burton Act and the Apex Act

	In discussing our problems with our Congressional
	delegation, we proposed to expand upon two federal statutes
	governing the disposal of public lands in Clark County
	previously approved by this Committee. These statutes are the
	Santini-Burton Act and the Apex bill, already referred to by
	Commissioner Malone. This federal legislation created funding
	partnership between the federal government and Clark County in
	developing federal desert land at Apex. The Apex Project Nevada
	Land Transfer Authorization Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-67)
	recognized that BLM desert has no value if it cannot be
	developed. That statute created a real partnership with BLM
	which reimbursed the County for the value of the improvements
	which were made to the land. Under the terms of this Act, Clark
	County provided the infrastructure to develop the Industrial
	Park and negotiated the sale of land parcels to private
	industries desiring to locate at the Apex Industrial Park. Both
	BLM and the County have shared in the profits equally.
	H.R. 449 borrows from both the Santini-Burton Act and the
	Apex Act by allowing local government to participate in the
	process of identifying lands to be disposed of and also in
	sharing in the increased land values brought by providing
	infrastructure through a 85/15 split of the proceeds from the
	sales of federal lands. For the SNWA, this approach is
	critically important to defray the added costs of building a
	new water system to provide service to the expanded rings of
	BLM lands which surround the developed parts of Las Vegas. It
	will partially reimburse us for water infrastructure that is
	providing value to otherwise barren desert tracts of federal
	land.

	Conclusion

	H.R. 449 will reestablish a cooperative working partnership
	between the federal government and local government as we seek
	to provide water service to the growth which will occur in the
	next decade through the continued disposal of federal
	landholdings within the Las Vegas valley. We urge you to
	expedite the bill's enactment so that the terms of this
	cooperative partnership can be immediately applied to the next
	block of federal lands that are released for development. Thank
	You.

	------


	Statement of Steve Hobbs, Nevada State Director, The Nature Conservancy

	The Nature Conservancy is a private, nonprofit corporation
	whose mission is the conservation of plants, animals and
	natural communities that represent the diversity of life on
	Earth. To date, the Conservancy, its nearly 900,000 members,
	and its like-minded partners have conserved more than ten
	million acres in 50 states and Canada. The Conservancy has
	helped conservation organizations in the Caribbean, Latin
	America, and the Pacific conserve millions of acres through
	innovative debt-for-nature exchanges and community-based
	solutions that enable sustainable economies. While some lands
	acquired by the Conservancy are sold to local, state, and
	federal government entities, the Conservancy owns 1,340 nature
	preserves--the largest private preserve system in the world.
	The Nature Conservancy was incorporated in 1951 and has
	sought to establish state chapters in each state. The Nature
	Conservancy of Nevada is the newest chapter in The Nature
	Conservancy having been established in 1995. However, the
	Conservancy has been very active in the past throughout Nevada
	from helping to acquire the largest oasis in the Mojave Desert
	at Ash Meadows to our effort to restore important wetlands
	while maintaining a strong agriculture-based economy in Fallon.
	We are currently working with Clark County officials, various
	federal agencies, and community leaders in crafting a Multiple
	Species Habitat Conservation Plan in an attempt to get ahead of
	the endangered species issues which confront this community.
	The Nature Conservancy is the largest conservation organization
	in Nevada with more than 4,200 members that provide financial
	support for our activities.
	Nevada is a state of contrasts. From the mosaic of high
	mountain ranges to the stark beauty of the deserts, Nevada
	contains some of the most diverse landscapes in the West. This
	diversity led The Nature Conservancy to rank Nevada as the
	sixth most ecologically important state with more than 320
	species being either rare or unique to Nevada.
	However, the wide-open spaces of Nevada are undergoing a
	rapid transformation. The growth that Nevada has experienced
	over the last five years is unprecedented. The vibrant economy
	of Nevada has attracted workers from all around the country.
	At a rate of 5,000 new residents per month, the Las Vegas
	Valley has exploded and maintaining the clear skies and
	beautiful surroundings that attract tourists, the basis of the
	Las Vegas economy, is challenged by this growth.
	The Las Vegas Valley exists as an island in a sea of
	federal land. To meet the demand for residential housing
	spurred by this phenomenal growth, developers must look to
	federal lands. The federal land exchange process has helped to
	facilitate this growth, but in a manner that is largely
	unsatisfactory to all parties involved.
	We need to explore alternatives to the current land
	exchange process. The Economic Report of the President,
	transmitted to the Congress last month, addresses this issue.
	The report includes the annual report of the President's
	Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). The CEA report includes the
	following statement (page 227):
	``Achieving the most efficient mix of public land private
	lands may require reconfiguring the public land base, adding to
	it in some places and divesting in others . . . Reconfiguring
	could be accomplished directly through swaps of public for
	desired private lands, as is most common today, or public lands
	could be sold and the proceeds put into an account for land
	purchases elsewhere. Economists have long recognized that the
	swap option is limited by the ``double coincidence of wants''
	problem. It is often hard to find a swap partner who both owns
	an asset the government wishes to acquire and places a similar
	value on an asset the government wishes to sell. For this
	reason, a land purchase fund that decouples buying and selling
	land assets is superior to direct swaps.''
	A system that sells lands at auction, keeps the receipts
	off-budget, and uses them to purchase other lands has major
	transactional advantages over traditional land exchanges,
	including:
	1. No need to match properties. In a traditional land
	exchange, a private party trades a land tract to the Secretary
	for a piece of land under the Secretary's control. The two
	tracts must be of almost equal value. Finding such a pair of
	matched tracts can be difficult and time consuming,
	particularly since the private party seeking a government tract
	rarely owns another the government wants. Most often, the
	private party has to seek out and purchase such a tract before
	the process begins. Turning government lands into cash first
	avoids the need to find equally matched tracts.
	2. Competitive bidding simplifies appraisals. Obtaining
	agreement from two parties on the appraised value of two pieces
	of property is probably the most difficult, time consuming, and
	frustration-inducing element of traditional land exchanges.
	Competitive bidding for the government property largely
	eliminates the need for one of the two appraisals. By
	definition, competitive bidding obtains a true market value for
	a property, and can greatly reduce the uncertainty, risks,
	controversy and delay that accompany having to set the value of
	a property through appraisal and negotiation.
	3. Competitive bidding maximizes return to the government.
	Selling the government lands at auction provides competition
	between buyers that will maximize the value received by the
	government for its land. True competition is often totally
	absent from traditional exchanges.
	4. The system accommodates sellers and reduces costs.
	Having cash on hand for acquisitions allows the Secretary to
	act quickly to take advantage of selling decisions by
	individual landowners. While negotiating an exchange is a
	complicated process that often takes more than a year,
	landowners' decisions to sell are often tied to an immediate
	need for cash. Being able to meet that need in a timely fashion
	greatly enhances the Secretary's ability to acquire lands in
	these circumstances--and can reduce interest and transaction
	costs the Secretary now reimburses to third parties for
	purchasing and holding lands the Secretary wants to acquire
	before funding is appropriated by the Congress.
	Land exchanges have long been scored as not affecting the
	federal budget in any way (except for transaction costs). But
	when government land is sold, the receipts become general
	receipts to the Treasury, and cannot be spent without further
	appropriation by the Congress--which puts them back into the
	budget process and its increasingly tightening limits.
	Having an off-budget fund fueled by land sales, and using
	that fund to buy land, is no different in its net fiscal impact
	than a land exchange. The final effect is no expenditure of
	appropriated funds, and no net change in the value of
	government assets--just a change in where those assets are
	located.
	The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1997
	(H.R. 449) addresses these issues in a way that does not impact
	the Federal Budget. This concept has been proven to work with
	the Santini-Burton Act through which more than 11,000 acres of
	important natural areas surrounding Lake Tahoe have been
	conserved.
	H.R. 449 also provides the federal agencies in Nevada the
	financial resources they need to accommodate the increased use
	of our public lands and safeguard those precious examples of
	our vanishing natural heritage. The explosive growth in
	Southern Nevada places a burden upon the management of our
	public lands. Not only has the hunger for land to develop
	caused pressure upon the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
	dispose of many of their lands through the cumbersome land
	exchange process, but this sudden increase in population has
	created difficulties for our federal agencies in maintaining
	the high quality recreational opportunities that can be found
	at nearby Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Spring Mountains
	National Recreation Area, and Red Rock Canyon National
	Conservation Area. The pressure on our irreplaceable natural
	resources in Southern Nevada, and elsewhere in the state, is
	beginning to show and unless steps are taken soon to provide
	the resources necessary to alleviate the problem.
	H.R. 449 would also make the exchange process more
	transparent to the American public than it is now. There is the
	general public perception, be it real or imagined, that the
	land exchange process is driven by powerful development
	interests rather than the federal and local government agencies
	charged with acting on the public's behalf. It is also the case
	that the federal agencies do not have the level of control over
	when and how offered lands are acquired making it difficult to
	make informed management decisions. H.R. 449 gives us an
	opportunity to amend this situation by giving the federal
	agencies the opportunity to be more deliberate and thoughtful
	in their land acquisition process to ensure that the public is
	truly benefiting from the transaction.
	H.R. 449 also provides for compensation to local
	governments through the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program
	administered by the Department of the Interior and the U.S.
	Forest Service. This program ensures that rural community's
	property tax revenues remain stable. H.R. 449 also requires
	that local governments be consulted before lands within their
	jurisdiction are purchased. In the state of Nevada, where more
	than 90% of the land base is owned by government, it is vitally
	important that our conservation acquisitions complement the
	goals of the local community while accomplishing the goals of
	conserving Nevada's unique natural heritage.
	To that end, The Nature Conservancy feels that it is very
	important that the Public Lands Task Force in Nevada move
	forward with the establishment of objective criteria for
	evaluating potential projects to be funded by monies generated
	through the passage of H.R. 449. These funds represent Nevada's
	conservation legacy for future generations. It is our
	responsibility to establish clear guidelines as to how this
	money will be spent to ensure that this unique opportunity to
	protect our environment in Nevada and ensure a lasting high
	quality of life for Nevadans not be wasted. The Nature
	Conservancy is eager to lend assistance in this effort relying
	upon more than 40 years of experience in aiding government
	agencies establish conservation strategies.
	The natural treasures of Nevada are the nation's treasures.
	We, as a nation, have a responsibility to future generations to
	pass on nature's legacy. The Southern Nevada Public Land
	Management Act of 1997 (H.R. 449) seeks to solve the myriad
	problems of traditional land exchanges thereby ensuring
	economic prosperity for the region while, at the same time,
	providing the financial resources necessary to ensure that this
	same economic prosperity does not result in the diminution of
	Nevada's natural environment. Prosperity is not truly
	prosperity unless it ensures a lasting quality of life for all.
	We have a unique opportunity in Nevada to provide for both
	economic growth and conservation of our natural resources. H.R.
	449 is the legislation that will enable us to seize this
	opportunity. The Nature Conservancy urges the passage of H.R.
	449.

	------

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.001

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.002

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.003

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.004

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.005

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.006

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.007

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.008

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.009

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.010

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.011

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.012

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.013

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.014

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.015

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.016

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0299.017

	<all>
	</pre></body></html>