Lands committee protests pipeline deal

The Legislative Committee on Public Lands has issued a series of 35 recommendations including a statement strongly opposing the agreement between El Paso Corporation and the Western Watersheds Project withdrawing objections to the Ruby Pipeline project across northern Nevada.

Committee Chairman Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, said the committee was especially disappointed that the public and livestock industry weren't consulted during negotiations. In exchange for withdrawing its opposition to the project, El Paso created a $15 million mitigation fund which Rhoads said raises concerns that money could be used to permanently retire grazing rights needed by cattlemen.

He said not only committee members but the Nevada Cattlemen's Association, Western Legacy Alliance and county commissioners from several Nevada counties oppose the agreement.

That concern will be included in a letter to Nevada's Congressional Delegation, Secretary of the Interior and governor of Nevada and Rhoads said a delegation will go to Washington D.C. - at their own expense - to make the case that future agreements be done in public and to ensure WWP doesn't use that money to try reduce grazing allotments.

The committee approved a total of 10 recommendations calling for legislation by the 2011 Legislature and 25 for committee consideration during session.

The committee renewed its long-standing request for Congress to fully fund the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act. That act compensates counties with extremely high percentages of federal land within their borders for the loss of tax revenue. Several Nevada counties are more than 90 percent federal land.

Member also called for lowering the fee for agricultural water appropriation applications, exempting off highway vehicles that don't have vehicle identification numbers from titling and registration and calling for efforts to make sure the Bureau of Land Management complies with laws relating to wild horses and burros.

The list includes a call for regulations designed to add environmental soundness to the requirements for permitting interbasin transfers of water. Rural officials have been concerned that interbasin water transfers could seriously damage existing agriculture as well as the potential for economic development in their counties.