"Nevada's economy is constrained by limited private and state owned land." So reads the opening statement in the overview of Nevada Land Management Task Force's preliminary draft report. The overview report's comparison of the percentage of private and state land in each of five western states shows Nevada with by far the least at just 12.2 percent private land and 0.2 percent state land.
The challenge to build a state economy and provide services for its residents without control of 87.6 percent of the land is what led the Nevada Legislature to pass legislation creating the Task Force to study whether the state could and should ask Congress for control over more land.
Task Force's membership: a representative of each of Nevada's 17 counties, all but one of whom are county commissioners.
Task Force's purpose: study the costs, benefits and other issuesfsurrounding a possible transfer of ederal land to state control. The Legislature asked the Task Force for 1) An economic analysis of costs and revenues association with transferring federal lands to the state 2) a proposed plan for administering and managing any lands transferred and 3) a recommendation on what lands might be included in a potential transfer
Task Force funding: All costs have been borne by Nevada's counties.
Could Nevada make money managing the land, or would the costs overwhelm any revenue?
The Task Force has determined that the State of Nevada would likely be able to generate significant net revenues from the management of an expanded state land base, according to the preliminary draft report.
Determining whether it was reasonable to assume that the state of Nevada could make money managing additional land was a challenge, Baughman said.
"We really couldn't just look at Nevada's current experience because it only has 3,000 acres of state lands, so we used other states as a proxy."
The economic analysis looked at a five-year average of revenues and expenditures - including paying employees to manage state lands in Nevada's nearby western neighbors: Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, and Utah. Baughman acknowledged similarities and dissimilarities between Nevada and these four neighbors. He suggested taking the lowest amount of revenue generated and the highest management cost of any of the states during that five-year time frame to acknowledge concerns that Nevada's revenue might be lower and costs might be higher than average. "Managing a state lands base in Nevada needs to be self-funded," said Baughman.
Baughman also noted that the 2008-2012 comparison period was during "the depths of the recession, so we believe these numbers represent an operating time when things in this country were tough. The analysis showed that the four states were able to make money during the recession, and Baughman said "If states are able to make money in the worst of times, they certainly should be able to return money to the trusts during the best of times."
Have they considered the cost of fighting wildland fire?
In detail. Intertech looked at wildland fire suppression costs, and methods of ensuring fires stay small including strategic placement of firefighting resources and implementation of fire suppression programs as recommended by a previous study NACO did as directed by the Nevada Legislature.
What about environmental responsibility for the land?
Ample state agencies already have responsibility for air and water quality, mining reclamation, solid waste and hazardous waste management, development of new environmental regulations, regulating oil, gas, and geothermal drilling activities, and fire control, among other environmental responsibilities.
Are they talking about selling land?
Not for the vast majority of the land. The Task Force recommends Phase 1 transferred lands be managed for long-term sustainable net revenue with the exception of those lands identified as suitable for disposal.
If the state makes money, how is it used?
The Task Force recommends revenue be held by the state in trust for select beneficiaries including:
• K-12 schools,
• public higher education,
• public specialized education (schools for deaf and blind),
• public mental health services, medical services,
• programs for candidate and listed threatened or endangered species recovery plans
• local government to mitigate the loss of PILT, at a minimum.
The list of trust beneficiaries recommended by the Task Force is comparable to other states' beneficiaries except for the last two items. Baughman said other states have not used any land management revenue for species recovery plans, but providing some revenue for the state to develop and implement plans to restore species makes sense.
The PILT replacement is meant to allay counties' fears that they will have less money to provide the services on which their residents depend.
What land is recommended for transfer in Phase 1?
All of the land being recommended is currently managed by the BLM, and includes:
• Checkerboard land along the railroad corridor
• Lands already identified by BLM for disposal, or those meeting disposal criteria
• Lands already under Recreation and Public Purpose leases
• Lands already granted to state and local governments or private parties for Rights-of-Way
• Subsurface estate where the surface estate is privately held
• Lands designated by the Secretary of the Interior as Solar Energy Zones
• Lands already leased for geothermal exploration and utilization
• Lands authorized for disposal within enacted and introduced federal legislation (such as under the Pine Forest lands bill)
Transfer would include: surface estate, subsurface estate, and water rights connected with transferred lands
The total acreage being recommended for Phase 1 transfer is 5.3 million acres. BLM manages a total of approximately 48 million acres in Nevada.
What categories of land did the Task Force recommend be excluded from transfer consideration?
Designated wilderness areas, national parks, national conservation areas, Department of Energy or Defense lands, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service managed lands and lands administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Will the Task Force share the data, testimony, and public comment that went into the preliminary draft report and their recommendations?
That information is included in the report. Appendix C will contain a summary of the formal presentations to the Task Force by state agencies, environmental organizations, private land owners, and many others.
Appendix D will have a list of people providing public comments, and a summary of the issues raised. Appendix E will show the comparative analysis of revenues and expenses for both state trust land and BLM-managed land in the comparison states. The report also shows exactly who each state's trust beneficiaries are and how much money the state is able to allocate yearly to those beneficiaries.
The full draft report and recommendations are available on the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) website under Nevada Land Management Taskforce's resource page, 4/28 Updated Preliminary Draft Report. Public comment can be directed to NACO.
Contact Joyce Sheen at j.sheen@winnemuccapublishing.net.
[[In-content Ad]]
