Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Lee, Susie [D-NV-3]
ID: L000590
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative doublespeak, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity and expose its true nature.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act (HR 2134) claims to promote economic development and conservation in southern Nevada. How quaint. In reality, it's a Frankenstein's monster of a bill, stitched together from various special interest groups' wish lists. Its primary objective is to serve the interests of its sponsors, Ms. Lee and Mr. Amodei, by securing land deals, water rights, and other goodies for their constituents.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This behemoth of a bill contains numerous provisions that benefit specific groups, including:
1. Tribal empowerment and economic development (Titles I and II): Land transfers, trust arrangements, and gaming restrictions for the Moapa Band of Paiutes and Las Vegas Paiute Tribe. 2. Conservation and land management (Title III): Wilderness designations, national conservation area adjustments, and special management areas. 3. Local government conveyances (Title IV): Land transfers to various cities and counties in Nevada for public purposes, such as fire training facilities and water supply infrastructure.
These provisions are carefully crafted to appease specific stakeholders while masquerading as a comprehensive economic development and conservation package.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:
1. Native American tribes (Moapa Band of Paiutes and Las Vegas Paiute Tribe) 2. Local governments (Clark County, City of Boulder City, etc.) 3. Special interest groups (environmental organizations, gaming industry representatives) 4. Land developers and speculators 5. The State of Nevada
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a ticking time bomb of unintended consequences:
1. **Land grabs**: The transfer of land to tribal trusts and local governments may lead to increased development pressure, threatening environmental conservation efforts. 2. **Water rights chaos**: The absence of Federal reserved water rights for lands taken into trust may spark conflicts between the Tribe, state authorities, and other stakeholders. 3. **Gaming industry manipulation**: Restrictions on class II and III gaming may be circumvented through clever loopholes or future legislative tweaks, benefiting select interests. 4. **Environmental degradation**: Increased development and land use changes may harm sensitive ecosystems and wildlife habitats.
In conclusion, HR 2134 is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation, designed to serve the narrow interests of its sponsors and stakeholders while masquerading as a comprehensive economic development and conservation package. Its true purpose is to further entrench the power dynamics that have long plagued Nevada's politics: corruption, cronyism, and environmental degradation.
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Lee, Susie [D-NV-3]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No committee contributions found
No individual contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Lee, Susie [D-NV-3]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 31 nodes and 30 connections
Total contributions: $72,000
Top Donors - Rep. Lee, Susie [D-NV-3]
Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 543 — Department of the Interior 68. Karen Budd Falen, “Biden’s ‘30 By 30 Plan’: A Slap at American Private Property Rights,” Cowboy State Daily, April 15, 2021, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-private- property-rights/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 69. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3396: Rescission of Secretary’s Order 3388, ‘Land and Water Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior,’” February 11, 2021, https://www. doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3396-signed-2-11-21-final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2021). 70. Ibid. 71. Associated Press, “Ute Indian Tribe Criticizes Biden’s Camp Hale Monument Designation,” KUER 90.1, October 13, 2022. 72. William Perry Pendley, “Trump Wants to Free Up Federal Lands, His Interior Secretary Fails Him,” National Review Online, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/secretary-interior-ryan-zinke- monuments-review-trump-executive-order-antiquities-act-environmentalists/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 73. The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405, 43 U.S. Code § 2601. 74. Ibid., and American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184, 187 (D.D.C. 2019). 75. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d, pp. 187–188. 76. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26 (June 26, 1990), p. 26114–26194. 77. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 114 (June 13, 2000), pp. 37249–37252. 78. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11 (January 18, 2017), pp. 6145–6150. 79. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2019). 80. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Final Consent Decrees/Settlement Agreements,” https://www.doi.gov/ solicitor/transparency/final (accessed March 16, 2023). 81. Michael Doyle, “Interior Order Erases Litigation Website,” E&E News, June 17, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/ articles/interior-order-erases-litigation-website/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 82. Rob Roy Ramey, On the Origin of Specious Species (Lexington Books 2012), pp. 77–97. 83. William Perry Pendley, “Killing Jobs to Save the Sage Grouse: Junk Science, Weird Science, and Plain Nonsense,” Washington Times, May 31, 2012, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/killing- jobs-to-save-the-sage-grouse/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 84. Michael Lee, “Wyoming’s Push to Delist Grizzly Bears from Endangered Species List Faces Opposition from Anti-Hunting Group,” Fox News, January 21, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-delist-grizzly- endangered-species-list-opposition-anti-hunting-group (accessed March 18, 2023). 85. News release, “Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts,” October 29, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump- administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. 50 Code of Federal Regulations §17, and Sean Paige, “‘Rewilding’ Will Backfire on Colorado,” The Gazette, June 19, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-rewilding-will-backfire-on-colorado/article_ d0016672-ed79-11ec-b027-abe62ba840a1.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. Madeleine C. Bottrill et al., “Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 12 (December 2008), pp. 649–654, https://karkgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Bottrill-et-al-2008. pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 88. Rob Roy Ramey II, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, April 8, 2014, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rameytestimony4_8.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 89. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87. 90. Pennsylvania is the nation’s third-largest coal producer, and its state program was the model for SMCRA. 91. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635. 92. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour,” INE–26, June 23, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/directive1003.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 93. Tim Gallaudet and Timothy R. Petty, “Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2019, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ legacy/document/2019/Oct/Federal%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Improving%20Forecasts%20of%20 Water%20Availability.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 544 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 94. 32 U.S. Code, ch. 52. 95. Donald J. Trump, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West,” October 19, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential- memorandum-promoting-reliable-supply-delivery-water-west/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 96. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,” https://www.doi.gov/ buybackprogram (accessed March 18, 2023). 97. Great American Outdoors Act, Public Law 116–152.
Introduction
— 518 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise logging, mining, oil, and gas and, with the Bureau of Reclamation in 1902, as the nation’s dam builder. Today, DOI has 70,000 employees in approximately 2,400 locations with offices across the United States, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Territories and Freely Associated States. Historically, DOI operated in a bipartisan manner consistent with the laws enacted by Congress pursuant to its powers under the Property Clause.2 Thus, DOI fulfilled its statutory responsibilities in a manner that ensured the ability of western states, counties, and communities to be sustained by both economic and recreational activities on neighboring federal lands, especially given that in some rural western counties, federal lands constituted 50, 60, 70, 80—even 90 percent of the county’s landmass.3 That ended with the Administration of President Jimmy Carter, who, beholden to environmental groups that supported his election, adopted DOI policies consis- tent with their demands, much to the horror of western governors, most of whom were Democrats. President Ronald Reagan campaigned against this “War on the West,” declared himself a “Sagebrush Rebel,” and, on taking office,4 quelled the rebellion by reversing Carter Administration policies. President George H. W. Bush distanced himself from Reagan’s western policies, committed to a “kinder and gentler America,” and proclaimed his desire to be “the environmental Pres- ident,” which resulted in changes at the his Administration’s DOI—again, much to the dismay of westerners.5 President Bill Clinton resumed Carter’s “War on the West,” epitomized by his DOI’s deploying of wolves into the states bordering Yellowstone National Park; the decreed death of a world-class mine in Montana; and the designation of a vast national monument in Utah over the objections of Utah leaders—but with the support of the Hollywood elite.6 Although Texas Governor George W. Bush and former Wyoming Representative Dick Cheney (R–WY) campaigned in 2000 against Clinton’s worst outrages, includ- ing the Utah monument, there was no significant ratcheting back of DOI policies that were either objected to by westerners or contrary to the express provisions of federal statutes. President Barack Obama’s DOI resumed the anti-economic fed- eral lands policies activated by Carter and amplified by Clinton; however, Obama’s DOI’s antipathy to oil and gas activity on federal lands as mandated by Congress could not have come at a worse time. After the demonstrated success of fracking on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) acreage in Wyoming in 1993, the fracking revolution soon swept the nation,7 yielding massive discoveries on state and private land from coast to coast, but not, thanks to Obama, on western federal lands.8 President Donald Trump, on the other hand, immediately ordered his DOI to comply with federal law, conduct congressio- nally mandated lease sales, and seek to achieve energy dominance or independence. Thanks in part to the success of oil and gas operations on federal land in the West, the United States achieved energy security for the first time since 1957 in 2019.9 — 519 — Department of the Interior President Joe Biden’s DOI, as is well documented, abandoned all pretense of complying with federal law regarding federally owned oil and gas resources. Not since the Administration of President Harry S. Truman—prior to creation of the OCS oil and gas program—have fewer federal leases been issued.10 At DOI, not since the Reagan Administration was the radical environmen- tal agenda (first implemented by Carter, resumed by Clinton, and revitalized by Obama) rolled back as substantially as it was by President Trump. Trump’s DOI change affected not only oil and gas leasing, as noted above, but all statutory responsibilities of its various agencies, bureaus, and offices. Thus, whether the statutory mandate was to promote economic activity, to ensure and expand rec- reational opportunities, or to protect valuable natural resources, including, for example, parks, wilderness areas, national monuments, and wild and scenic areas, efforts were expended, barriers were removed, and career employees were aided in the accomplishment of those missions. Unfortunately, Biden’s DOI is at war with the department’s mission, not only when it comes to DOI’s obligation to develop the vast oil and gas and coal resources for which it is responsible, but also as to its statutory mandate, for example, to manage much of federal land overseen by the BLM pursuant to “multiple use” and “sustained yield” principles.11 Instead, Biden’s DOI believes most BLM land should be placed off-limits to all economic and most recreational uses. Worse yet, Biden’s DOI not only refuses to adhere to the statutes enacted by Congress as to how the lands under its jurisdiction are managed, but it also insists on implementing a vast regulatory regime (for which Congress has not granted authority) and overturning, by unilateral regulatory action, congressional acts that set forth the productive economic uses permitted on DOI-managed federal land. BUDGET STRUCTURE At $18.9 billion, DOI’s 2024 proposed budget is small relative to many other federal agencies. On the other side of the ledger, the DOI forecasts it will generate more than $19.6 billion in “offsetting receipts” from oil and gas royalties, timber and grazing fees, park user fees, and land sales, among other sources. Most of the proposed allocations are divided among nine bureaus. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Fulfills Indian trust responsibilities on behalf of 566 Indian tribes; supports natural resource education, law enforcement, and social service programs delivered by tribes; operates 182 elementary and secondary schools and dormitories and 29 tribally controlled community colleges, universi- ties, and post-secondary schools. Bureau of Land Management. Manages and conserves resources for 245 million acres of public land and 700 million acres of subsurface federal mineral estate, including energy and mineral development, forest management, timber and biomass production, and wild horse and burro management.
Introduction
— 518 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise logging, mining, oil, and gas and, with the Bureau of Reclamation in 1902, as the nation’s dam builder. Today, DOI has 70,000 employees in approximately 2,400 locations with offices across the United States, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Territories and Freely Associated States. Historically, DOI operated in a bipartisan manner consistent with the laws enacted by Congress pursuant to its powers under the Property Clause.2 Thus, DOI fulfilled its statutory responsibilities in a manner that ensured the ability of western states, counties, and communities to be sustained by both economic and recreational activities on neighboring federal lands, especially given that in some rural western counties, federal lands constituted 50, 60, 70, 80—even 90 percent of the county’s landmass.3 That ended with the Administration of President Jimmy Carter, who, beholden to environmental groups that supported his election, adopted DOI policies consis- tent with their demands, much to the horror of western governors, most of whom were Democrats. President Ronald Reagan campaigned against this “War on the West,” declared himself a “Sagebrush Rebel,” and, on taking office,4 quelled the rebellion by reversing Carter Administration policies. President George H. W. Bush distanced himself from Reagan’s western policies, committed to a “kinder and gentler America,” and proclaimed his desire to be “the environmental Pres- ident,” which resulted in changes at the his Administration’s DOI—again, much to the dismay of westerners.5 President Bill Clinton resumed Carter’s “War on the West,” epitomized by his DOI’s deploying of wolves into the states bordering Yellowstone National Park; the decreed death of a world-class mine in Montana; and the designation of a vast national monument in Utah over the objections of Utah leaders—but with the support of the Hollywood elite.6 Although Texas Governor George W. Bush and former Wyoming Representative Dick Cheney (R–WY) campaigned in 2000 against Clinton’s worst outrages, includ- ing the Utah monument, there was no significant ratcheting back of DOI policies that were either objected to by westerners or contrary to the express provisions of federal statutes. President Barack Obama’s DOI resumed the anti-economic fed- eral lands policies activated by Carter and amplified by Clinton; however, Obama’s DOI’s antipathy to oil and gas activity on federal lands as mandated by Congress could not have come at a worse time. After the demonstrated success of fracking on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) acreage in Wyoming in 1993, the fracking revolution soon swept the nation,7 yielding massive discoveries on state and private land from coast to coast, but not, thanks to Obama, on western federal lands.8 President Donald Trump, on the other hand, immediately ordered his DOI to comply with federal law, conduct congressio- nally mandated lease sales, and seek to achieve energy dominance or independence. Thanks in part to the success of oil and gas operations on federal land in the West, the United States achieved energy security for the first time since 1957 in 2019.9
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.