Westerners are up in arms about proposed public land sales. NV Dems don’t seem to notice.

While Lake Mead sits at about one-third full, a bipartisan cohort of Nevada’s state lawmakers think now is the time to sell off public lands to support more Colorado-River-dependent homes and businesses in Southern Nevada. 

On Thursday, Nevada Assemblymembers, the majority of whom are Democrats, overwhelmingly voted to ask President Donald Trump to support selling off tens of thousands of acres outside of Las Vegas as fast as possible. The resolution implores the administration to support  federal legislation from Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act. 

The news of the 36-6* vote in the Assembly comes as communities across the West are rising up and opposing efforts to sell off public lands. Coalitions of concerned citizens across party lines have reservations about these efforts to build in areas prone to drought, wildfire, or flooding.

Nevada Democrats do not. 

Traditionally, public lands privatization is an issue championed by sage brush rebels and urbane developers aligned with the GOP. The Keep It Public movement in Nevada has some legitimate supporters but a dark underbelly. Thanks to a special carveout in federal law championed by Nevada Democrats in the late 1990s, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)  sells off large chunks of public land that facilitates cookie-cutter growth around Las Vegas and praise from politicians. 

Across the West, the private-sector crowd views many places not named Yosemite or Yellowstone, or lacking a Grand or Great adjective, as blank canvases for industry. The industry du jour changes among the decisionmakers. But the lands are always expendable enough. Today, affordable housing is the artifice by which powerful interests believe they can get cheap land for major projects.  

For Las Vegas, there’s less water in the Colorado River System and rapidly warming temperatures posing deep uncertainty. As for the overall quality of life, it depends on your income bracket. And most of the people championing public land sales don’t fret around tax time.   Many politicians are, after all, wealthy. 

For the masses, there are more regressive taxes and higher utility bills across Nevada than decades past. Nevada’s public education system still ranks as one of the worst in the nation. The health care system is near the bottom rung. The  well being of children is worse in Nevada compared to other states. And, of course, housing affordability is a major problem as investors like Black Rock buy up residential blocks that were, you guessed it, built on lands sold off by the BLM. 

 A quarter century of practice can fairly raise the question: Is the public-lands-sale model working? Now is the time for Nevada to tell the others in the West: proceed with caution. Instead, Nevada politicians of all stripes are saying “build, baby, build.” 

The challenge, of course, is finding an effective substitute that meaningfully incentivizes the private sector without further sapping the public in the long run.  In Clark County, there are more than 75,000 acres of infill available. But developers aren’t buying it at meaningful rates to appease political appetites. 

We have opportunity zones, abatements, investment trusts, deductions, and credits that industries benefit from in the West.  Data centers, energy companies, mines, and casinos are a few industries that can attest to the benefits.

Meaningful solutions to the housing problem will require financial tools and reasonable foresight too. And that will require more than milking the sacred cow of legitimized public land sales. We need to put people where there’s existing infrastructure, high-rise opportunities, walkability, and mass-transportation options. There must be water and power infrastructure already in-place. 

But instead, Nevada Democrats just supported putting more folks in the wildland-urban interface so associated with the fringes and foothills of western public lands. These are water-scarce places currently home to desert tortoise and important carbon capturing environments. Many of the very people who attest to giving a damn about urban heat just voted to exacerbate the problem. But don’t try telling them that. There’s money to be made. 

The type of sprawl Nevada Democrats voted to support via AJR10 will warrant expensive new water lines, sewer systems, roads, electricity infrastructure, schools, fire stations, and a host of other intangibles that have costs that span decades. These are not one-time expenses. They are forever expenses. 

Nevada Democrats and Senator Cortez Masto are desperate to expand the existing policy from former Senators Reid and Bryan known because it dispenses proceeds from public land sales. And other states will take notice. Such revenue streams are red meat for states looking to Nevada as an exemplar. 

BLM accounts for  $4 billion in revenue generated from public land sales since the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act first took effect. Public education, regional water managers, and the aviation department split less than $700 million since the genesis of the program, according to a federal report released last summer. 

New proposals would have to indeed fill the gaps. But it does make you wonder: Are public land sales the only way to support our community?  Is it sustainable? Are the funds sufficient to cover the new needs that will inevitably occur. 

Nevada Democrats think so. 

But these are folks who also think that, of all things to ask President Trump to do, selling off public lands is the most pressing issue of the day.  

*The six members of the assembly, all Democrats, who voted against the resolution were Natha Anderson, Venicia Considine, Tanya Flanagan, Selena La Rue Hatch, Cinthia Moore, and Howard Watts.