Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) and House Republicans passed an amendment to sell off hundreds of thousands of acres of public land in Nevada without getting proceeds earmarked for Nevada or land designated for conservation in exchange, setting off a firestorm of criticism from conservationists and Democrats who called it an “insane plan.”
Amodei’s amendment — introduced around 11 p.m. Eastern time Tuesday following 11 hours of debate — was the only successful addition to the natural resources portion of Republicans’ budget mega-bill.
The amendment would require the sale of public lands in Clark, Lyon, Pershing and Washoe counties within a two-year period — and, critically, it sends proceeds to the U.S. Treasury rather than mandating that the funds generated from those land sales be spent in Nevada, which would be a notable break from prior lands bills for the state.
Amodei — who represents Northern Nevada — said in an interview he had been in contact with Clark County’s lobbyists and commissioners about the inclusion of the Clark County portions, and that Natural Resources leadership was excited about the potential of selling public lands in the West as a revenue generator needed to offset trillions in tax cuts and new border and energy spending.
The reconciliation bill may be the only vehicle that allows for any portion of the lands bills to move — and so, he told The Nevada Independent, he felt he had to seize his opportunity — even if the realities of reconciliation mean he could not include conservation or a special Nevada account.
Counties — including Clark — have called for the release of more federal lands for years as a means to accommodate growth, particularly with housing. More than 80 percent of Nevada is federally owned and managed.
“Southern Nevada Water Authority, Clark County, my colleagues — tell me, what's your lobbying plan to get either house to do it?” Amodei said.
But the amendment was opposed by Clark County, with spokesperson Jennifer Cooper saying in a statement to The Nevada Independent that county leaders want more available land but that the proposal “does not reflect the Board’s priorities to facilitate responsible future development, especially as it relates to environmental conservation, water and public infrastructure.”
The proposal was met with outrage from all three of the Democrats who represent Las Vegas in the House as well as Nevada’s two senators, who are also Democrats. They homed in on the lack of a provision mandating the funds are kept in a special account for Nevada purposes and that Amodei did not consult them as being particularly egregious.
“I wouldn't go up there and draw a map of Northern Nevada and presume to know what should be sold off without consulting with Mark Amodei and people up there,” said Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) in an interview. “What would they think if I did something like that? This is not the way you do things.”
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), the author of the existing Clark County lands bill, blasted Amodei in a statement that called the amendment an “insane plan”.
And though the amendment includes the conveyance portions of a lands bill Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) is sponsoring, she said she would not support it because the money would be returned to Washington instead of Nevada.
Conservationists and Democratic members alike said Amodei’s move was a departure from decades of negotiated compromise on lands bills, dating back decades.
“It completely eliminates, in my opinion, all the credibility that Amodei has going forward saying that he values public local engagement,” said Russell Kuhlman, the executive director of the Nevada Wildlife Federation. “Because when his feet are to the fire, obviously he does not value that very highly.”