MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Natural Resources
Seventy-second Session
May 19, 2003
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 2:20 p.m., on Monday, May 19, 2003, in Room 2144 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness, Vice Chairman
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Michael Schneider
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Maggie Carlton (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst
Lynn Hendricks, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Stephen D. Hartman, Lobbyist, Nevada Land and Resource Company, LLC
Alan List, Pershing County Farmer
Tim DeLong, Pershing County Rancher
Hugh Montrose
Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter/Sierra Club
Tina Nappe, Lobbyist, Sierra Club
Chairman Rhoads:
We will open the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 10.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 10: Expresses support for plan to consolidate certain public and private lands in Pershing County and urges Nevada Congressional Delegation to introduce and support legislation providing for such consolidation of lands in Pershing County. (BDR R-1323)
Stephen D. Hartman, Lobbyist, Nevada Land and Resource Company, LLC:
This resolution supports the consolidation of the “checkerboard” lands within Pershing County. We own nearly 600,000 acres of checkerboarded land in Pershing County. The checkerboarding has caused much difficulty for private and public landowners alike across the State of Nevada. The Pershing County commission appointed a committee to work on consolidation of the checkerboard land, and members of that committee are here today.
I have provided a packet with an outline of the purpose of this resolution (Exhibit C), a copy of Pershing County’s resolution (Exhibit D), and a map of Pershing County showing the extent of the problem (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.). We would like to convey a significant chunk of property currently owned by the Nevada Land and Resource Company, LLC (NLRC) to the federal government. At the same time, we would like a chunk of land to go to Pershing County. We would also like a congressional bill to authorize the sale by auction of a further chunk of land over the next 20 years to allow land to come back into private hands, those auctions to be held every couple of years. The map identifies approximately 150,000 acres of land slated for both near‑term and long‑term disposal by auction that would come back into the private sector. Further details of the program are laid out in the memo (Exhibit C).
Alan List, Pershing County Farmer:
I have lived and farmed in Lovelock for 30 years, and I have been on the planning board there for 15 years. We feel this is a win-win solution. It allows the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to consolidate their land farther from the areas that were developable, and at the same time allow land that is now checkerboard BLM or old railroad land to be auctioned for development. Pershing County is limited in the kind of land that can be developed away from the cities and along the I-80 corridor. Through hearings and meetings over the past 2 or 3 months, we have come to feel this is a very good thing for the BLM and private industry in Pershing County.
Chairman Rhoads:
Would the trade be acre for acre or value for value? Would you have to appraise it all?
Mr. List:
I understand it would all be appraised and a value set on the lands to be transferred to BLM ownership. The trade would probably be value for value. The net result would probably be that for every acre that went into private hands, two acres would stay public. Most of the acreage to go to the BLM would be remote areas and mountain tops, which is what people value the most as public property.
Chairman Rhoads:
So the dark blue on the map denotes land to go to the BLM?
Mr. Hartman:
The dark blue is BLM land scheduled for disposal. The NLRC land to go to the BLM is white with diagonal blue lines. We will place with the county 20 years’ worth of tax on the property being disposed of. That ad valorem tax will allow them time to transition from public ownership to private ownership.
Chairman Rhoads:
What percentage of Pershing County is currently federal land?
Mr. List:
Pershing County is currently about 87 percent federal land.
Mr. Hartman:
After the consolidation, this figure will go up by about 2 or 3 percentage points. The auction revenues need to be split between the county and the BLM.
Chairman Rhoads:
Does this plan require congressional action? Could we not just work out the details ourselves with the BLM?
Mr. Hartman:
The scale is too large, when checkerboarding across the entire State is considered.
Chairman Rhoads:
When they created the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, there was one for northern Nevada as well. Could something be done with this?
Mr. Hartman:
It should. We have been working on Pershing County’s situation for a number of years. This resolution appeared to be the most palatable solution from all standpoints. It solves National Conservation Act issues, economic development issues, and range issues. The issue of more land going into federal ownership has been a constant one. The committee and NLRC are committed to making the local master plan the tantamount instrument for deciding the disposition of land. The concept of multiple use on the range needs to be an overriding policy. The loading of allotments and priorities, including the horse-free areas, need to be maintained.
Tim DeLong, Pershing County Rancher:
I currently lease 150,000 acres from the BLM, and it is all for sale. If the land is sold, I will be out of business. I have talked to all the Pershing County ranchers, and they would all rather take their chances with the BLM than with the NLRC.
Chairman Rhoads:
What feedback have you gotten from the delegation so far?
Mr. Hartman:
They had no problems with it. Their main concern was making sure it was accepted at the county level and by the public lands subcommittee. It was our idea to seek your support with the resolution. We have had ranchers fence off land in the middle of the desert, and this creates a problem.
Chairman Rhoads:
I think this is a very good idea.
Senator Shaffer:
What is the fair market value of property in this area?
Mr. Hartman:
There was a chunk of about 50,000 acres that was appraised at $55 to $65 per acre. A lot of this land is high on the mountain. One of the things that was looked at was making sure some of this land can never be made private again. This includes land on top of the mountains and land with environmental or cultural importance.
Senator McGinness:
I have been told Churchill County has some real problems with this concept. Why is their situation different from Pershing County?
Mr. Hartman:
Some feel there should be no more land in federal ownership, no matter what the reason. The other major difference between Churchill and Pershing or Elko or Humboldt counties is they have not dealt with practical range issues such as grazing. We have had ranchers fence off water on their land and on others’ land, preventing people from trailing in to the Humboldt River to exercise their water rights.
Senator McGinness:
I think probably a lot of the land is not in as urban an area as in Pershing County. It is out there adjacent to the Forty Mile Desert.
Mr. Hartman:
We own a good chunk of the Forty Mile Desert.
Mr. DeLong:
The most important thing to me is to keep these areas horse-free after the land is taken over by the BLM.
Hugh Montrose:
I have lived in Lovelock for most of my life. The committee that worked on this checkerboard proposal was diverse, with representation from the mines, ranching, and fish and wildlife. The plan you see before you is our agreement on the best way to go.
Chairman Rhoads:
How are the water rights going to work?
Mr. Hartman:
We have historically allowed people using our land to file for water rights.
Chairman Rhoads:
How long do you anticipate the entire process will take?
Mr. Hartman:
If the resolution is passed by the Legislature, the process in Washington, D.C., will probably take at least a couple of years.
Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter/Sierra Club:
We are in support of the consolidation portion of this resolution. We have some concerns about adopting Pershing County’s resolution. Those who prepared this have significant interests in the land in question, but they are not the only people with an interest in public lands in Nevada. Historically we have supported where the BLM has designated excess land to be disposed of, but we would like to review those in a public process. The people who participated in adopting the resolution are not necessarily representative of the citizens of the entire State. Wildlife, ranching, and mining were there, but there were no recreationists other than the local folks. We are not opposed to consolidation; we have concerns about the process.
Chairman Rhoads:
Were you aware of people getting together to come up with this proposal?
Mr. Johnson:
I was not familiar with it. Others in the Sierra Club or the environmental or recreational community may have been.
Chairman Rhoads:
Did this matter come before the county commissioners?
Mr. Hartman:
Yes, it did. They appointed a committee that had publicly noticed meetings.
Chairman Rhoads:
Were there any recreationists on the committee?
Mr. Hartman:
Mr. Brad Quilici from the Board of Wildlife Commissioners was there and looked after those issues, sportsman access and recreation issues.
Chairman Rhoads:
I would assume Congress will have hearings on this if they adopt it.
Mr. Johnson:
I did not mean they did not have public hearings, but we are often not informed of such localized meetings.
Tina Nappe, Lobbyist, Sierra Club:
I am speaking for myself today. I am indicative of a member of the public who is a user of northern Nevada lands and has not been notified of this process. I have no objection to the concept of blocking up land. It is a creative way of resolving some of the problems. My concern is neither the citizens nor the State of Nevada are even referred to in the resolution. It is an agreement between three groups: Pershing County, the NLRC, and the BLM, none of whom can be said to represent the rest of the State. I suggest inserting the following at line 27 on page 2: “Whereas, the citizens of Nevada and the State of Nevada have an interest in access, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and recreation in any changes affecting BLM lands; and …” The following should be inserted at line 42 on page 2: “Resolved, that in the event Congress approves the legislation, scoping meetings will be held statewide describing the BLM lands and any potential disposal or acquisition, and the draft plan when it is completed will be subject to public comment.” I bring these amendments because the resolution says nothing about public comment.
Chairman Rhoads:
We will close the hearing on S.J.R. 10. We will discuss it again in work session on Wednesday.
Chairman Rhoads:
There being no further discussion, the meeting is adjourned at 2:46 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lynn Hendricks,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
DATE: