Titus Testimony On Red Rock At Clark County Commission Meeting

Statement

Congresswoman Dina Titus of Nevada's Third District testified today during a Clark County Commission meeting on Red Rock Canyon. Below are her remarks as prepared.

"Thank you for the opportunity to comment this morning. As the sponsor of SB 358 I have a keen interest in ensuring that Red Rock Canyon remains protected from encroaching development. I worked closely with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and with local community members and advocacy groups on SB 358, which passed the Nevada State Legislature in 2003 with unanimous bipartisan support. It was one of the proudest moments of my twenty years in the Nevada State Senate.

"As Nevadans, we are truly blessed to have Red Rock Canyon right in our back yard -- just 17 miles away from the glitz and glamour of the Las Vegas Strip. Red Rock Canyon is a very special place. From camping and hiking to horseback riding and rock climbing, Red Rock Canyon offers countless recreational opportunities for Nevadans and for others from around the country and the globe. The wildlife that call Red Rock home, including 100 different species of birds, the desert tortoise, and of course, the burro, along with the wide variety of desert plant life you'll find here make Red Rock a wonderful example of the Mojave Desert. And the cultural resources at Red Rock, like rock art and roasting pits, allow us to look back thousands of years to gain an understanding of what early life in the desert must have been like. Over one million visitors come to the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area each year, making it a wonderful addition to our tourism industry here in Southern Nevada. Red Rock Canyon is truly the crown jewel of the desert southwest.

"Let me begin by clearing up some serious misinformation that is going around and even appeared in an article in yesterday's Review Journal. First, the Nevada Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue. It was a federal district judge who ruled that SB 358 violated Nevada's State Constitution. Second, that ruling had nothing to do with any letter I wrote. The ruling was based neither on a takings nor equal protection argument, but rather on Article 4, Sections 20, 21, and 25 of the Nevada Constitution, which prohibit regulation of county business; state that general laws must have uniform application; and hold that the legislature will establish a uniform system of county government throughout the state. That decision is currently being appealed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where it could be reversed or certified to the Nevada Supreme Court.

"The county's overlay ordinance, on the other hand, is being challenged on separate federal constitutional claims. If no settlement is reached between the county and the developer, that case will begin in federal district court in May.

"Let me be clear -- I do not believe the county should settle with Gypsum Resources. It is my view that we cannot afford to allow this area to be more densely developed, even if the proposed settlement decreases the overall size of the area available for development. I realize the financial pressure on the county to settle this case, however, and to approve the ordinance to amend the Red Rock Overlay. If the Clark County Board of Commissioners decides it is in its best interest to settle, I believe strongly that the settlement agreement must be conditioned on the result of the State's appeal. The settlement should make clear that no actual land development can occur until the state's appeal is resolved. It should further provide that the developer has no particular rights while the appeal is pending, even if the county approves the developer's major project application during that period.

"I hope that you will take these suggestions under consideration as you decide whether to approve the ordinance to amend the Red Rock Overlay. The Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area is a unique place that should be protected for generations to come. By modifying the settlement agreement so that it is conditioned on the state's appeal, you will ensure that development does not occur until after the state has had its appeal resolved. You cannot undo land development -- once it's done, it's done. Conditioning the settlement on the results of the state's appeal is common sense and will ensure that development is not begun, prematurely causing irreparable damage.

"Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to comment."

Source