While lawmakers in Carson City wrangle over bills seeking state control of at least some of the federal public lands that constitute 87 percent of the land within Nevada’s borders, Rep. Mark Amodei is moving forward with legislation in Washington.
He already has introduced H.R.1484 — Honor the Nevada Enabling Act of 1864 Act. The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, where its co-sponsor, Rep. Cresent Hardy, sits. Amodei and Hardy represent the bulk of rural Nevada in their respective 2nd and 4th Congressional districts.
The bill opens with these findings:
- (1) The Federal Government controls over 80 percent of all of the land within the State of Nevada, which is a greater percentage than any other State.
- (2) The paucity of State land and privately controlled land in Nevada severely constrains the size and diversity of Nevada’s economy.
Mark Amodei
- (3) The Federal Government promised all new States, in their statehood enabling Act contracts, that it would dispose of federally controlled public lands within the borders of those States.
- (4) The Federal Government has honored this promise with 38 States.
- (5) The Federal Government has failed to honor this promise with, and continues to control significant percentages of the land within, the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
Cresent Hardy
- (6) The United States Supreme Court has declared that statehood enabling Act contracts are `solemn compacts’ with enforceable rights and obligations.
- (7) Nevada could generate significant net revenue for the benefit of its lands and people if it were afforded the opportunity to manage an expanded State-controlled land portfolio.
- (8) A transfer of federally administered land to Nevada can be accomplished in phases.
The bill goes on to say the state should be authorized to select no less than 7.2 million acres of public land for conveyance to Nevada in an initial phase.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in Carson City dither over SJR1 and AB408. Amodei’s bill appears to be vehicle for carrying SJR1 forward, but probably would help if the Legislature could pass it.
4TH ST8 
Each of these legislators ought to be investigated; they are not acting in the interests of the citizens of this country, and instead it is clear that they have other “constituencies” in mind.
The land these legislators seek to transfer into private hands belongs to each citizen in this country and not to any individual. And that is the way it ought to stay.
That was not the deal at statehood.
The “deal” was inserted into Nevada’s Constitution.
Yes, Nevada would 5 percent when the land shall be sold. Nevada voters also repealed the Disclaimer Clause in 1996.
Yes, when one side decides to repudiate a contract that means the contract is null and void.
Every lawyer knowa that.
That is why the federal government needs to honor its commitment to sell the land which it agreed “SHALL be sold” when Nevada became a state, Nyp.
Feds broke the contract. Nevadans just trying to get a redress of grievances, but can’t seem to get a fair hearing from anyone.
“That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States”
The federal government NEVER “agreed” that the land would be sold. Agreeing that Nevada would receive proceeds in the event it was sold, isn’t close to the same thing.
“SHALL be sold”
IS VERY SPECIFIC. Nyp.
It was written directly into the Nevada constitution as a REQUIREMENT of statehood.
the land belongs to We The People of the United States. If you are interested in buying it, name a price and we will consider it.
But don’t come asking for free stuff.
And your quote refers to the TERRITORY of Nevada NOT the STATE of Nevada.
Once a state, those lands “SHALL be sold”
Yup. If We the People choose to sell any of our property, 5% of the net proceeds shall allocated to the Nevada to the Nevada state government so it can build roads and irrigation ditches. However, We the People are not currently interested in selling, so the clause is irrelevant. Nevertheless, if you would like to interest us in selling some of our land, please name a price you are willing to pay.
“If We the People choose to sell any of our property” There is NO “if” in the words “SHALL be sold”
The federal government really has no choice in the matter…(legally speaking)…it must offer the lands. Though, from the view of power and control, the federal government is as corrupt as it is powerful and all controlling.
You guys nirvana.
Really.
Really.
I’m afraid you need a course in remedial legal reading.
“Shall be sold” leaves no room for “remedial legal reading”.
Or “interpretation”
Please identify the date by which the property “shall be sold”. And, since you cannot, clearly your interpretation of the language cannot be correct. Instead, what the language clearly means, is that “in the event” the land is, Nevada may share in the proceeds. It’s just that simple.
Your reading skills leave much to be desired.
But I’ll play along. We the People will look for a buyer for our lands that lie within Nevada state lines. Whatever we sell, you guys will get 5% of the net proceeds. We the people will keep the rest.
That’s what you think the law requires, right?
There is the very probable fact that you, Nyp, have zero claims to represent “We the People”. The offer(s) must come from duly authorized representatives of the Federal Government.
Patrick (insisting that the word “SHALL” means something other than what it means) has hit on a (very small) portion of the issue, corruption and power going hand in hand.
Fine. A “duly authorized representative of the Federal Government” will sell the property to the highest available bidder, keep 95% of the net proceeds, and will give 5% to Nevada.
That is what you think the law requires?
The words “SHALL be sold” leave no wiggle room. I make no “interpretation” on them and you will not succeed in eliciting, from me, any such “interpretation” of those words.
so you thing the federal government must sell all of the public land in Nevada, retain 95% of the proceeds, and give the Nevada 5% of the net proceeds?
“Sec. 10. Five percent of subsequent sales of public lands by United States to be paid to state for
public roads and irrigation. And be it further enacted, That five percentum of the proceeds of the sales of
all public lands lying within said state, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission
of said state into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said
state for the purpose of making and improving public roads, constructing ditches or canals, to effect a
general system of irrigation of the agricultural land in the state, as the legislature shall direct. ”
There is NO wiggle room.
so the federal government must sell all of the public land in Nevada, retain 95% of the proceeds, and give the Nevada 5% of the net proceeds?
“subsequent to the admission of said state into the Union”
So, your answer is “yes”?
My answer is not to be “interpreted”.
Is the federal government legally required to sell all of the public land in Nevada, retain 95% of the proceeds, and give the Nevada 5% of the net proceeds?
Section 10 of the Nevada Constitution (approved and agreed by the Federal Government) leaves no wiggle room.
What was the date by which the sales were “required” to be made again. And please point to the date specified in the Nevada, or even the federal Constitution.
“subsequent to the admission of said state into the Union”
How many days in a “subsequent”?
The statement is abundantly clear.
Then it ought to be a simple matter for you to identify the date when the sales “shall” have been made without resorting to anything other than a date.
Head games, it’s you and me baby
Head games, and I can’t take it anymore
Head games, I don’t wanna play the…
Head games
I once again suggest anyone interested in this issue, review the following:
Click to access RL34267_12032007.pdf
Explains the issue well with citations of relevant legal authorities.
Sec 10 of the Nevada constitution (Agreed to and approved by the Federal Government) is unambiguous and abundantly clear.
“Interpretation” is only a weak minds attempt to change it.
The Federal Government needs to honor and keep its end of the contract.
“The Federal Government needs to honor and keep its end of the contract.”
With all of the states…
[…] this year Rep. Mark Amodei introduced H.R.1484 — Honor the Nevada Enabling Act of 1864 Act. The bill has been referred to the House Committee on […]
[…] the House needs to press forward with Amodei’s Honor the Nevada Enabling Act of 1864 Act (H.R.1484), which was introduced more than a year ago and has been referred to two subcommittees of the […]
[…] two years Rep. Mark Amodei has had pending a bill that calls for transferring federal land to the state in phases. The initial phase would authorize […]
[…] in Washington, a year ago Rep. Mark Amodei introduced a bill calling for transferring federal land to the state in phases. The initial phase would authorize the […]