EDITORIAL: Nevada legislators will again debate issue of federal control of land

Is it really so outrageous and controversial to suggest that the federal government, which controls about 85 percent of Nevada’s land, should cede a small portion of that real estate to local interests?

To hear some conservationists and environmentalists react, you’d think proponents of such a plan are eager to auction off to developers huge chunks of the Red Rock Conservation Area, Great Basin National Park or other protected landscapes. This is patently false, but it’s a perception that certain special interests eagerly cultivate as a means to erode public support for federal-to-state land transfers.

Opponents also claim that such transactions will make it more difficult for outdoor lovers to gain access to hiking trails, fishing holes or hunting grounds. This argument ignores the reality of a federal government that over the years has unilaterally piled more and more recreational restrictions on public land use.

The debate about Washington’s dominance over the vast majority of the Silver State has gone on for decades. It is back in the news these days thanks to Senate Joint Resolution 7, which urges the transfer of about 7 million acres of federal property to the state. That would still leave D.C. agencies running herd over close to 80 percent of the nation’s seventh largest state by area. Is that not enough?

The land in question could hardly be described as environmentally sensitive. As state Sen. Pete Goicoechea, points out, much of it is checkerboard property that runs along the Interstate 80 corridor in the north. Other transfers would involve holdings that the Bureau of Land Management is already looking to sell or real estate that the state or local governments currently use.

“We’ve got 58 schools in Clark County built on [recreation and public purpose] lands,” Sen. Goicoechea, a Eureka Republican, told the Review-Journal. “And we need to tell the federal government, ‘No, we’re not going to pay you anymore. We need title.’ Transfer these lands back to us.”

This is somehow a radical notion?

Nothing in SJR 7, which mirrors a symbolic measure passed during the 2015 session, would undermine the ability of Nevadans to enjoy the state’s public land. In fact, state and local officials have a far greater incentive to heed local concerns about land use than do bureaucrats answering to far-off Beltway administrators. Putting a tiny portion of federal holdings in state or local hands will also help struggling rural economies create business and job opportunities while generating tax revenue.

The course of action reccomended in Senate Joint Resolution 7 is in the best interest of Nevada and deserves support.