Chat with Chic, June 21, 1985

Chat with Chic A Report from Washington June 21, 1985 By U.S. Senator Chic Hecht Public hearings will be held in Nevada June 24, 25, and 26 on the proposed interchange of land between the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service and there will be a lot of interest in testimony during these hearings in Reno, Las Vegas and Elko. And that is as it should be because constructive input from Nevadans on an issue of this type is paramount. In the meantime, Senator Laxalt and I co-sponsored an amendment which prevents any administrative transfer through remainder of this fiscal year and I'm pleased to report our amendment was unanimously approved by the Senate on June 20. The amendment, attached to the supplemental appropriations bill providing emergency funds for federal programs through the current fiscal year, also prohibits administrative action on the plan in Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington. It is our feeling that any proposal which significantly impacts Nevada and the West deserves the utmost scrutiny. Our legislative action will ensure that Nevada and the other affected states will have the additional time necessary to determine if the land swap is justif-ied. In my mind, such justification has not been presented, at least in the case of Nevada. Public hearings, however, may determine other-wise . The proposed BLM - Forest Service land exchange truly is an ambitious undertaking. Everyone has to admit that there is a certain compelling logic behind the idea of consolidating management of our vast public lands in the West. It would be hard to deny that this proposal would save money in Nevada over the long run. On paper, it makes a great deal of sense. Chat with Chic, page 2 But the problem is more than a paper transaction. Under the current proposal, about 5 million acres of Nevada's national forest would be transferred to the BLM which operates under a different Federal Agency, administers different laws and has a different overall manage-ment philosophy towards our federal lands. There is no doubt that lands would be managed differently if the land exchange is approved. I have always been a supporter of reducing the size and cost of our federal government and in fact have been recognized as the Senate's most conservative member. However, I really question whether these proposed management changes involving Nevada land are worth the projected budgetary savings, about $2 million per year. I also question whether the agencies have seriously considered alternative cost-saving plans for Nevada. I know that many of this week's witnesses at the three public hearings will present some alter-natives and I don't think the public record will be complete until the BLM and Forest Service review and comment on these options as well. Finally, let me remind all Nevadans that I am a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources through which any land exchange proposal must pass before it becomes law. Right now, I find very little support for this proposal in Nevada, and I represent Nevada on this Senate committee, not Ohio nor Delaware nor interest groups in Washington, D.C. As I await testimony during this week's Nevada hearings on this vital subject, I want you to know that your voices will be heard loud and clear when this proposal comes before the U.S. Senate.