Releasing Nevada’s federal lands to help address housing shortages is an idea with juice on both sides of the aisle.

Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo in a February letter asked lawmakers to draft a resolution supporting the issue; on March 4, Assm. Sandra Jauregui (D-Las Vegas) introduced AJR10, a resolution expressing the Nevada Legislature’s support for a major public lands bill in Congress backed by Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) that, like most other Nevada lands bills, would transfer large swaths of federally owned land to the state for purposes such as housing.

But three months later, Jauregui’s seemingly straightforward proposal is dead — failing to advance out of the Legislature thanks to a confluence of factors most notably including Rep. Mark Amodei’s (R-NV) failed last-minute federal amendment to sell off hundreds of thousands of acres of public land in Nevada as part of the Republicans’ budget reconciliation package.

Amodei’s (later rescinded) move riled up both sides of the aisle, with opposition ranging from the idea of divesting so much public land to the proceeds not being earmarked for Nevada to the amendment’s late night introduction that many said lacked transparency. 

The state resolution followed an unusual legislative process, skipping a hearing in the Assembly and having only short (less than 24 hours) notice of its hearing in the Senate — prompting transparency complaints from some environmental groups, who unfavorably compared it to the federal legislation. 

Despite having boasted bipartisan support in the Assembly, passing 36-6, when it reached the Senate, Democratic lawmakers were loathe to make any moves that could be construed as support of Amodei’s amendment, according to sources close to Senate Democrats.

A source close to Assembly Democrats said AJR10 worked hand in hand with Cortez Masto’s lands bill “for responsible development that protected precious public lands,” but Olivia Tanager, director of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, said the resolution missed the mark. Like the federal bill it supported, AJR10 had split support from progressives concerned about the environmental harms of sprawl, and the Sierra Club has long opposed the federal lands bill supported by AJR10. 

“It’s really hard when Democrats have been proposing to sell off public lands … for them to walk the line of why Amodei’s amendment, other than scale, was all that different,” Tanager said. “The messaging was it’s OK for Democrats to sell off public land, but not Republicans.”

It mattered even if the legislation itself is nonbinding and essentially symbolic, she said.

“To some people, a resolution doesn’t have a lot of weight,” Tanager added. “To us, it was an endorsement of a plan we knew was really bad.”

‘The best gift we could have imagined’ 

Complaints that opponents of the resolution were being edged out of the process trailed the measure throughout its journey in the Legislature.

The Nevada Legislature is statutorily exempt from the state’s open meeting law, but both the Senate and Assembly have rules generally requiring sufficient notice be given before bills and resolutions are heard. Agendas for legislative committee meetings and bills scheduled for a hearing are usually posted several days in advance, especially earlier in the 120-day session.

But no hearing was held in the Assembly for AJR10. In a bit of unusual legislative maneuvering, it was referred to the Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections, but three weeks later was withdrawn from the committee and was put on the Assembly floor for a vote — a move that raised the eyebrows of transparency advocates.

When the resolution advanced to the Senate’s Legislative Operations and Elections Committee, a hearing — the resolution’s first — was scheduled, but with just one day’s notice, Tanager said.

The Sierra Club rallied against the short notice, and the hearing was ultimately pulled. But it was later put back on the May 1 agenda — this time, with just several hours notice, she said.

The back-and-forth left many people without the chance to provide input, opponents said. Vinny Spotleson, volunteer chapter chair with the Sierra Club, said the lack of notification for AJR10’s first and only hearing limited the number of people speaking in opposition.

One week after AJR10’s hearing, Amodei introduced his last-minute amendment that drew the ire of opponents not just for its content, but for its late-night introduction, and it “riled up, rightfully so, a lot of people,” said Tanager.

It passed the U.S. House National Resources Committee on party lines before being stripped from the legislation two weeks later at the behest of a fellow Republican lawmaker. 

On the legislative front, an amendment proposed by Jauregui just days later took aim at Amodei’s amendment, stating that “such policy should be developed in a bipartisan, collaborative effort and not through partisan, midnight amendments that harm Nevada's revenue, access to water, and conservation efforts.”

Tanager said although AJR10 and Amodei’s proposal were vastly different, the processes were similar. 

“What’s the difference between calling out Amodei on his 11:30 amendment when here, they were going to be voting on it at 10 at night?” she said. 

After AJR10 passed out of the Senate committee, it was moved to the chief clerk’s desk, and the Senate adjourned on the Legislature’s second house deadline without voting on the resolution.

Tanager believes that resolution’s vote tally was going to be “very bad” — which sources close to Senate Democrats later confirmed — and that, rather than having a poor showing, the resolution was left to die.

“I really think what he [Amodei] gave us was the best gift we could have imagined for Southern Nevadans,” Tanager said.