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 a “land grab to fund Republicans’ billionaire giveaway tax bill.”

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.”

What the bill does

In total, the amendment would compel the sale of about 450,000 acres. The vast majority is in Pershing County, but includes about 65,000 acres in Clark County — more than double the amount in the lands bill negotiated by the county, stakeholders and Cortez Masto in the latter’s bill.

In addition, the amendment identifies 15,860 acres in Washoe County for disposal — identical to the lands bill Rosen unveiled in 2024 — with a mandate to sell some below market value for affordable housing, and to convey 12,085 acres to the City of Fernley to be developed as the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center II. The land in Pershing County can be sold or exchanged by the BLM at a one-to-one ratio.

The amendment — which passed 24-19 with all but one Republican in support — is now included in the natural resources portion of the reconciliation bill, which also passed out of committee. These bills represent a first attempt at cobbling together Republicans’ massive reconciliation bill, and the amendment could fall out of the final product at various stages or not be included in the Senate version. 

But its initial passage out of committee represents a path forward for the selloff, which will not require the approval of the Democrats who represent Las Vegas in Congress at any point.

Each of the affected counties have requested land bills over the years to allow for the conveyance of federal lands for economic development, among other uses. Over years, the Nevada delegation has worked with county commissions, environmentalists, ranchers, developers and others to craft bills that aim to balance development and conservation needs — a tradition upheld over decades, from the Santini-Burton Act of 1980 to the landmark Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) to a 2022 bill conveying Churchill County land to the military in exchange for protecting sensitive areas. 

While Amodei’s amendment provides for the sale of lands identified in resource management plans and in existing lands bills, it does not contain the conservation easements historically included in those bills. 

Clark County

Amodei’s maneuver was met with fury from conservationists, who said the Northern Nevada representative ignored the traditional bipartisan process by which lands bills are achieved.

“Mr. Amodei loves talking about process,” said Jose Witt, the Nevada state director of the Wilderness Society, referencing the congressman’s documented frustration with how national monuments are created without congressional approval. “Well, this process went over in the middle of the night, intentionally while we were eating dinner or in bed, because he knew it was going to be unpopular.”

Most of the delegation’s Democrats want some public lands to be sold — but in tandem with new conservation protections for other parcels and with the guarantee that the funds generated will go towards Nevada projects. 

As such, Nevada lands bills have always been passed on their own or through legislative vehicles that permit both conveyances and conservation. But because budget reconciliation bills — which only require 50 votes in the Senate and thus can be passed without the minority party — can only relate to spending, revenue and the deficit, expanding conservation protections would not be germane and cannot be included. 

Cortez Masto has spearheaded the crafting of a controversial bill in its own right in the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act — better known as the Clark County lands bill — that would permit the conveyance of 25,000 acres of public land in Clark County in exchange for stricter conservation protections to about 2 million acres of land. Because Amodei’s map is different, her lands bill would still need to be passed to achieve the desired disposal, in addition to the conservation portions.

Under SNPLMA, the federal government drew a boundary around Las Vegas in which parcels of land could be sold. Cortez Masto’s bill expands that boundary by 25,000 acres.

Amodei’s amendment includes more land area than Cortez Masto’s. He said his amendment would necessitate the sale of 65,129 acres in Clark County through a joint selection process between the county and the federal government, with some acreage set aside to be sold under market value for affordable housing.

His map, provided to The Nevada Independent, would require disposals in less-populated areas of the county. It includes lands along State Route 168 northeast of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, parcels along the California border, in the northeast corner of the county near Mesquite and land around Laughlin.

It does not include any new lands closer to Las Vegas identified in Cortez Masto’s bill.

“I'm not trying to be a land king in Clark County by any means,” Amodei said. “But you look at that map and say, this isn't about the Strip. This isn't about downtown Vegas.”

Cortez Masto’s office, however, calculated that the bill would require the sale of an additional 100,000 acres in Clark and Nye counties because of a provision requiring the sale of thus-far unsold lands identified by the Bureau of Land Management in the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan. 

Amodei said that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the bill will generate about $8 billion in revenue — but that figure can be difficult to predict because the lands need to be appraised and sold at auction. Many parcels lack infrastructure.

Titus, who does not support Cortez Masto’s bill either, said beyond the lack of conservation, Amodei’s amendment falls short in other ways. It does not include provisions for the construction of a water pipeline through Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area to serve Henderson, tribal trust land for the Moapa Band of Paiutes or the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, or provides for the infrastructure and water needs of rural areas of the county that would be opened for development, she said.

Patrick Donnelly, the Great Basin director for the Center for Biological Diversity, is no fan of lands bills even when negotiated over years with a variety of stakeholders. But Amodei’s amendment represents a major turning point for the process by which Nevada lawmakers achieve them, he said.

“The whole point of those bills is, it's a compromise,” Donnelly said. “This isn't a compromise. This is just all the bad stuff and none of the good stuff.”

The Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance, the Nevada Housing Coalition and the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association are all supporters of Cortez Masto’s Clark County lands bill. All declined or did not respond to requests for comment by publication time on whether they support Amodei’s amendment.

Native Voters Alliance Nevada was displeased as well. In a statement, executive director Taylor Patterson said the lands identified for disposal push up against tribal land in Avi Kwa Ame National Monument, Gold Butte and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. 

“These are not excess acres,” Patterson said. “These are Native lands. And the people advancing this know exactly what they are doing.”

Democrats were irate over the lack of a special account. 

“Now Nevadans are going to be stuck footing the bill, while billionaires like Elon Musk are getting their tax breaks as part of this bill,” Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV) said in an interview. “And Mark Amodei felt it was more important to deliver to them than to deliver to everyday Nevadans.”

Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-AR) was looking at selling public lands as a way to hit the committee’s revenue target of $1 billion, meaning the notion that revenue generated could go toward Nevada instead of the deficit would be a tough ask.

Amodei noted that the bill has a provision ensuring that lands sold within the SNPLMA boundary retain the privilege of the Nevada special account. Without former Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) power, he said, it’s unlikely that the Nevada delegation could once again configure an arrangement where the proceeds from lands sales would remain in state. 

The Nevada special account has come up as a sticking point in the past — most Republicans opposed the Clark County lands bill in committee last year for its conservation easements and because, as Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) noted in November, it was unfair that Reid negotiated special deals for Nevada.

“I'm having a hard time finding anybody over here who says, ‘Yeah, Nevada should still get to keep all that money,’” Amodei said. “They’re going, ‘Screw you’!”

Timeline

Amodei said pressure was building on him to decide whether to include the Clark County provisions of the bill in his amendment Tuesday afternoon. He said he consulted multiple members of the Clark County Commission, including Marilyn Kirkpatrick and Jim Gibson (both Democrats).

In the evening, he said he began hearing from congressional Democrats who urged him to drop the Clark County provisions. Cortez Masto, he said, told him he could expect a lot of criticism. 

Amodei said he decided to keep the Clark County parts of the bill in because he thought the county would be in a better negotiating position to get its requested conveyances in Cortez Masto’s bill and its conservation acreage if they had already won some land disposals through reconciliation.

The odds of passing a lands bill are “like me running a four-minute mile at my age,” said Amodei, 66. “You better start training real hard and hope to hell that it's downhill and that the weather's perfect.”

The Nevada delegation has had difficulty achieving its lands priorities in the years since Reid’s retirement in 2017. As the Senate majority leader, Reid could more easily force a vote on his lands bills. 

But Nevada Democrats say the lack of consultation or a direct heads up was insulting. Cortez Masto’s spokesperson, Lauren Wodarski, said Cortez Masto heard about the amendment secondhand and confirmed that she “directly urged” Amodei to back down, to no avail.

Democrats also dinged Amodei for introducing the amendment in the middle of the night. Lee said amendments are typically filed in advance of the markup.

But Amodei said he had been asked by the committee’s Republican leadership to wait until the committee was done processing Democratic amendments to introduce his, hence the late hour.

The amendment kicked off a rancorous debate in the Natural Resources Committee, with Democrats incredulous that Amodei and his colleagues would go against the wishes of Las Vegas’ representatives. 

“[The amendment] sells off public lands, and the members of Congress who are impacted by it oppose it,” Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) said. “This is unacceptable … this is disgusting. This is stupid.”