Nevada’s 2nd District Congressman, Mark Amodei, made big news last week when he added an amendment to a budget bill. It proposes to sell off hundreds of thousands of acres of public land in Nevada for development.
Federal land bills are nothing new. For decades, money from the sale of public lands in Nevada has come back to the state for things like park maintenance. Instead, this amendment would send the proceeds to the federal government.
It’s a move that has angered the Democratic members of Nevada’s Congressional Delegation, local and tribal leaders, as well as conservationists.
Congressman Amodei was not available for comment ahead of the program. During his explanation of the amendment to the House Natural Resources Committee, he said the measure would help generate billions for the federal government.
“The continued federal ownership of the land identified in this amendment would cost taxpayers for continued maintenance and the payment of PILT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, dollars,” Amodei said. “The disposal of this land would allow for more responsible development while giving a positive return to the American taxpayer.”
In all, the sale proposed in the amendment would include around 460,000 acres in Nevada and Utah or transfer them to local governments or private entities. Most of that land is in northern Nevada, but roughly 65,000 acres are in Clark County.
The amendment’s supporters argue that opening more federal land for development will help lower housing costs, but opponents say the proposal will encourage sprawl.
“It's been marketed as an attempt to address the affordable housing crisis, although in Mr. Amodei’s amendment and the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act, there are zero provisions that ensure that that land is actually going to be used for affordable housing,” said Olivia Tanager, Director of the Sierra Club’s Toiyabe Chapter. “A lot of it is going to be used for warehouses and other things that are incredibly water-intensive.”
The proposal’s critics are also concerned that the amendment could exacerbate water issues along the Colorado River. Great Basin Water Network Executive Director Kyle Roerink called the amendment a water grab by Southern Utah.
“When you look at the amendment, there is essentially a pathway outlined on a map that follows the pathway of the Lake Powell pipeline,” Roerink said. “And while the environmental permitting that was ongoing for the Lake Powell pipeline years ago was ultimately paused, that doesn't mean that Utah is still not on a quest — and a seemingly never-ending quest — to get that project built and to really turn what they have in paper water rights into wet water,” Roerink said.
And while there are similarities between some of the maps, the proposed 140-mile pipeline was shelved when drought drained Lake Powell to record lows in 2020.
Washington County Conservancy District General Manager Zach Renstrom told KUER that the two projects are not linked. "The Lake Powell Pipeline has nothing to do with the lands transfer bill that's been presented.” Renstrom said. “Zero.”
Guests: Olivia Tanager, director, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club; Gabby Birenbaum, beltway correspondent, The Nevada Independent ; Kyle Roerink, executive director, Great Basin Water Network
