Housing policy experts warn that urban sprawl creates other problems, such as the lack of transportation infrastructure needed to connect people to jobs, food and other resources.  (Photo: Elizabeth Beard, Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

Nevada’s housing crisis isn’t new, nor is the push by local and state elected officials to open up federal land beyond city limits to build more affordable units.

Yet land availability is just one part of the equation, and experts say the state would be better served focusing on permanent funding for affordable housing projects on available land within the metro area’s current boundaries.

As President Joe Biden made his way to Southern Nevada in March to speak on federal solutions to address the nationwide housing crisis, Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo sent a letter criticizing the White House for not making more federal land available to build more housing.

“To address the housing crisis, the State of Nevada and our local communities need to access the land that is within their respective borders,” Lombardo wrote. “Unfortunately, we must rely on acts of Congress and severely backlogged federal agencies to secure the land necessary to grow. The federal process for privatizing land for development is too slow, too complex, and contributes to higher costs for Nevada families seeking homeownership.” 

The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) estimates Nevada lacks more than 78,000 affordable homes for extremely low-income households, defined as those with incomes at or below the federal poverty level, which is about $31,000 for a family of four.

“At the end of the day, what makes affordable housing affordable is the financing,” said Wally Swenson, the vice president of corporate affairs at the nonprofit developer Nevada HAND, which builds affordable housing units. “For Nevada HAND and our developers’ perspective, it’s about having robust financial resources to build, it’s having affordable and available land to build on and it’s having favorable zoning.”

The American Rescue Plan Act, signed into law by Biden in 2021, allocated billions of dollars of federal funds to Nevada. 

Former Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat, pledged $500 million of ARPA dollars for housing, which gave the state needed dollars to address financing gaps and either build or preserve affordable housing projects. 

Swenson said it created an unprecedented amount of funding for the development of affordable housing. But those dollars are finite and will only go so far.

Around 3,000 units are being built statewide using federal relief money.

“It’s not going to get us out of our crisis alone,” he said. “What we can do as a community is come together to identify the different ways to address this crisis, from land availability to making additional financing available to developers.”

Lombardo didn’t respond to the Current’s emailed questions about what specific proposals, if any, his office has looked at to address financing gaps in building and developing affordable housing projects.

Yonah Freemark, the research director for the Land Use Lab at the D.C. based economic think tank Urban Institute, said some communities throughout the country have looked at identifying new revenue sources, such as various tax increases, to fund affordable housing projects. 

Maurice Page, executive director of the Nevada Housing Coalition, said the coalition is “looking at best practices around the country” but isn’t ready to back a particular idea. 

He said the state could include looking at real estate taxes or property taxes. 

“We have to be very creative in where we can raise taxes without affecting our current workforce,” Page said. “We have to be able to offset some of these costs. These are issues where we have to be able to look at and analyze to see if that would be a win for us and a win for the state.”

Another area the policymakers should consider is seeking more support for housing from corporations when they locate to Nevada, and “seeing if they would be willing to put in their budgets money for housing for their workforce,” Page said. 

With the high volume of people in need of housing – Swenson said Nevada HAND gets thousands of inquiries every week – the state has reached “a point in time where every conversation should be on the table.”

“The conversation of tax increases have been thrown out by legislators in session,” Swenson said. “That hasn’t moved forward.”

‘You push up transportation costs’

Though land is needed to build more housing, not all types of land are the same. 

The majority of federally owned lands are on the perimeter of the Las Vegas Valley, meaning its development will result in more urban sprawl.

Housing policy experts warn that urban sprawl creates other problems, such as the lack of transportation infrastructure needed to connect people to jobs, food and other resources.  

“Land plays a huge part,” Page said. “Let’s not also forget the fact that when we’re opening up more land and trying to get homes built, we also look at the infrastructure. We have to look at child care, transportation, utilities. We have to look at all of that as well. All of that costs money.” 

Alex Horowitz, the project director of the Pew Charitable Trust Housing Policy Initiative, said the further people get from work, grocery stores and school, “even if you’re adding more housing you push up transportation costs.” 

“Transportation is often the second biggest item in a families budget after housing,” he said. “If you add housing further and further out from the places people go every day, that’s usually a recipe for extending commute and pushing up transportation costs.” 

Freemark added that just because federal land might be an option, “doesn’t mean we should necessarily build housing on it.”

“I do approach the use of federally owned lands with a bit more skepticism because it’s often going to result in negative outcomes for sensitive ecologies,” Freemark said. “And frankly, it’s going to encourage more driving.”

M.J. Maynard, the CEO with the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, warned Clark County commissioners in April that future revenue projections indicate the agency could start seeing a $156.3 million deficit starting in 2028. 

Those projections are just for maintaining existing roadways.

Building housing on new federal land further away from city limits would also require building, and then maintaining, new roadways and transportation infrastructure. 

While there has been a push to use federal land, there are no parameters on the type of housing could be built there if freed up. 

The Current reached out to the Howard Hughes Corporation, a real estate developer that has built master planned communities like Summerlin, to see how making more federal land available would affect their ability to develop more housing. 

They declined to comment.

Swenson said Nevada HAND’s model is to identify infill development, which utilizes existing urban spaces. The nonprofit developer, he said, has worked with local governments to address zoning barriers to build more units. 

Horowitz said there are still more solutions cities and states can research to address its housing shortage. 

“We see states making sure certain types of housing are not prohibitive by localities that have adopted exclusionary zoning,” he said, referring to laws that restrict the types of homes that can be built. “Nine states have legalized accessory dwelling units when a single family house or duplex usually has a basement or backyard apartment or they can convert a garage into an apartment.” 

Horowitz points out the City of Las Vegas is triple the size of Paris, which he added “has more than triple the population of Las Vegas.”

It’s possible to build more housing within the city limits. 

“Even though sometimes cities, you hear people say if the city is built out because if there isn’t a lot of open space or green fields to build on, we see jurisdictions can succeed at adding housing within city limits,” he said. “Often that means people can live closer to the places they go every day.”

The post Financing, zoning, not federal land access, are what will expand affordable housing, experts say  appeared first on Nevada Current.

(Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

Parents in Nevada will have to wait until September to receive benefits from a popular free food program designed to cover kids during summer vacation.

Earlier this year, Nevada signed up for the first new federally funded nutrition program in decades, which established a permanent summer nutrition assistance program for children out of school for the summer.

The new federal nutrition program, known as Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (SEBT), will provide families with $40 in food benefits per eligible child, per month, for the three month summer period. 

But those summer benefits won’t make it to Nevada households until September, according to the Nevada Division of Welfare and Supportive Services, which runs the program.

State health officials said the program was delayed until September, because the agency has not yet secured the state funding needed to run the program. However, the Nevada Division of Welfare and Supportive Services said they are confident the $6 million needed to cover the program’s administrative costs will be approved by lawmakers during the Interim Finance Committee in June. 

“We just need to get our funding approved first,” said Kristle Muessle, a public information officer for the Nevada Division of Welfare and Support Services. “Once we have that, we’ll be able to get the system updates going, and get those contracts going.”

Although the program is largely funded by the federal government, states need to pay half the cost of administering the program.

Payments will be distributed in one lump sum to eligible households with children from Pre-K through the 12th grade. State health officials estimate that 350,000 children in Nevada will be eligible for the summer food benefits program.

The first round of summer benefits starting in September will automatically be distributed to children living in households already participating in other income-based federal assistance programs, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or Nevada Medicaid.

Households with children identified by the Nevada Department of Education (NDE) as eligible for the free and reduced lunch program will also automatically receive benefits in the first round of payments in September.

Those benefits will be deposited on existing SNAP or TANF cards as part of a household’s monthly benefits. State officials noted that not all children will receive their benefits at the same time.

For families who do not receive SNAP or TANF benefits, pre-loaded SEBT cards will be sent by mail starting in mid-September. SEBT cards will be mailed to the last known address the parent or guardian provided when enrolling their child in school. 

Parents who have recently moved will need to contact the school their child is currently enrolled in, prior to June 10, 2024, and provide them with a current address or mailing address to ensure they receive the summer food benefits when they are finally available in September, warned the Nevada Division of Welfare and Supportive Services.

Children in households that are not already participating in other income-based federal assistance programs will receive their summer benefits at a later date. However, that later date has not been determined yet, according to the Nevada Division of Welfare and Supportive Services.

Nevada also has several nutrition food programs for families who need assistance over the summer.  The Clark County School District (CCSD) announced it will serve breakfast and lunch meals to all students through the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) at several locations throughout southern Nevada. A list of locations can be found here.

Summer meals served by CCSD schools will be available from May 21 to June 14, before returning from June 17 to July 17. Due to the terms of the CCSD Summer Food Service Program, all meals provided by CCSD must be consumed on-site. 

The Food Bank of Northern Nevada’s also offers free breakfast and lunch meals  to children 2-18 years old throughout summer break. A list of locations can be found here. 

The Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (SEBT) is a much needed boost for states that have seen food insecurity rise in recent years. 

Earlier this month, data released by Three Square Food Bank revealed that food insecurity in Clark, Nye, Esmerelda and Lincoln counties rose from 12% in 2022 to 14.7% in 2023. An estimated 14.6% of Clark County residents were food insecure, up from 12% the previous year. 

The highest rates are among Esmeralda and Nye counties, at 18.4% and 17.3% respectively. Both counties had a 13.9% rate the previous year.

The report also found that rates among children spiked from 17.8% in 2023 to 22%. Roughly one in five children, about 115,000 children, live in food-insecure households.

While Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed a bill in 2023 that would have provided universal free lunch for K-12 students, the SEBT program will provide much needed additional funding for childhood nutrition programs.

Last month, Democratic lawmakers also criticized Lombardo for pressuring the legislature to fund the states administrative costs related to the SEBT program from an emergency contingency account, rather than reallocating unspent American Rescue Plan Act money.

Using the emergency contingency fund for the EBT programs’ $6 million administrative needs would leave the fund with an $11 million balance–considered too low by lawmakers.

During the legislative session, $9 million in ARPA funding was set aside for the universal free lunch program, which was ultimately left unspent after Lombardo vetoed the free school lunch bill. 

Lawmakers said they intended to use part of the $9 million in unspent ARPA funds to cover the $6 million needed for administrative costs related to the SEBT program.

The post Summer EBT won’t go out until September appeared first on Nevada Current.

FERC's chairman said construction of the high voltage transmission lines that help get power to where it’s needed has slumped to a record low. (Photo: Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

A divided Federal Energy Regulatory Commission this week issued a long-awaited overhaul of how regional electric transmission lines are planned and paid for, a move cheered by clean power groups but blasted by a conservative commissioner who said it was driven by “special interests” and exceeds the commission’s authority.

The commission’s final rule on transmission planning and cost allocation, intended to prod utilities and grid operators across the country into more forward-looking, comprehensive and cost-effective planning of large electric transmission lines and better account for the broad benefits those wires provide, was nearly three years in the making. It passed on a 2-1 vote, with the commission’s two Democratic appointees voting yes and the lone Republican opposed.

FERC Chairman Willie Phillips said an aging grid, increasing severe weather, demand growth from new manufacturing, data centers and increasing electrification as well as a changing generation mix all threaten reliability at a time when construction of the high voltage transmission lines that help get power to where it’s needed has slumped to a record low.

“This rule cannot come fast enough. There is an urgent need to act to ensure the reliability and the affordability of our grid,” Phillips said. “We simply will not be able to address these converging challenges and continue to supply the reliable, abundant and affordable power the American people depend on without taking a clear-eyed, long term, forward-looking approach to transmission planning.”

But Commissioner Mark Christie, a conservative former Virginia utility commissioner, vehemently dissented to the rule, calling it “a pretext to enact a sweeping policy agenda that Congress never passed” and one that will “facilitate a massive transfer of wealth from consumers to for-profit special interests.”

Christie has long opposed transmission cost allocation schemes that he claimed would force customers in some states to pay for the pro-renewable policies of their neighbors. “I was perfectly prepared to vote for this final rule if it were a bipartisan compromise, if it preserved the state role that everyone sitting up here voted for two years ago,” he said.

The genie and the bottle

The sprawling rule requires transmission operators to conduct transmission planning at least every five years, looking out along a 20-year horizon using “best available data to develop well-informed projections” of needs, according to a staff presentation. To identify those transmission needs, providers need to consider state laws and regulations, utility planning documents, fuel cost trends, power plant retirements, requests from developers looking to connect to the grid as well as “policy goals and corporate commitments.” They also must consider “grid-enhancing technologies,” a suite of potentially cost-saving tools common in other countries that have been slow to take root in the U.S., despite years of prodding from advocates, as well as identifying opportunities to upgrade existing lines, called “right-sizing.”

Transmission providers, including utilities and the organizations that manage the grid in much of the country, are also required to use a list of seven economic and reliability benefits as they evaluate and select long-term regional transmission projects as well as establish an evaluation process with transparent selection criteria that are not “unduly discriminatory or preferential, aim to ensure that more efficient or cost-effective long-term regional transmission facilities are selected and seek to maximize benefits accounting for costs over time without over-building transmission facilities.”

Christie criticized those “mandated inputs” and said states have no ability to consent to those criteria.

A major big problem FERC is trying to fix is that even as construction of large transmission projects has nearly ground to a halt, utilities in many parts of the countries are on a building spree of smaller — potentially duplicative and inefficient — projects that are easier to get approved and paid for, increasing customer bills.

“The absence of this type of regional transmission planning is resulting in piecemeal transmission expansion that addresses relatively near-term transmission needs,” the staff presentation reads. “The status quo approach results in transmission providers investing in relatively inefficient or less cost-effective transmission infrastructure, with the costs ultimately recovered through commission-jurisdictional rates. This dynamic results in, among other things, transmission customers paying more than is necessary or appropriate to meet their transmission needs, and customers missing out on benefits that outweigh their costs, which results in less efficient or cost-effective transmission investments.”

For example, proponents of the new rule point to hundreds of millions of dollars in transmission costs that will result from the closure of a Maryland power plant in the region overseen by PJM Interconnection, the nation’s largest grid operator, as an example of poor planning.

“It is hard to imagine the region could not have found a more cost- effective solution had it begun planning for that retirement along with other anticipated shifts further ahead of time,” said Democratic Commissioner Allison Clements, who took Christie to task over his dissent. She said he was pushing the commission to take a “fraught voyage” to decide which public policies are appropriate for creating transmission demands.

“All transmission needs are inherently influenced by state policies of all stripes,” she said. “The truth is that enormous sums of money are going to be spent on transmission investment regardless of whether or not it’s done within the framework of this new rule.”

She argued that the new rule will protect customers from the pricey, fits-and-starts transmission buildout happening in much of the nation now.

“Not everything is about politics,” she said. “It is not the commission’s job to try and force the genie that is the energy transition back in the bottle. It is our legal responsibility to protect consumers in light of whatever is going on in the world around us.”

Neil Chatterjee, a Republican former FERC chairman, posted on X that he would have voted for the rule if he was still on the commission.

“Today’s @ferc rule was voted out 2-1 but that does NOT mean it’s a partisan rule making,” he wrote. “Had I authored this rule as chair would it have looked exactly like this? Of course not. But it would have been in the range. Regulatory rule making is hard.”

‘Benefit of having a big grid’ 

Competitive transmission providers and clean energy groups were celebrating Monday. Organizations ranging from the American Council on Renewable Energy and the National Audubon Society to the Conservative Energy Network and Americans for a Clean Energy Grid issued statements applauding the order.

Some renewable power organizations had privately wondered whether a drive for a unanimous vote might produce a more watered-down rule to get Christie onboard. That might have left states with big renewable power goals paying for all the transmission costs necessary to accommodate them, as New Jersey is doing for its planned offshore wind buildout, even though that power generation could mean cheaper, cleaner electricity for its neighbors, also, along with other benefits.

The U.S. Department of Energy has found a “pressing need” for new transmission infrastructure across the country to alleviate congestion and improve reliability. Grid congestion costs electric customers billions of dollars a year, according to some reports. And because of the more diffuse nature of renewable power, getting it from where it’s produced to where it’s needed, as in the vast amount of wind power in the Great Plains, can require large, multi-state transmission lines.

“Families and businesses are paying the price for utilities’ and grid operators’ failure to address our critical electricity infrastructure needs,” said Heather O’Neill, president and CEO at national clean power business association Advanced Energy United. “Building more multi-state transmission lines unclogs the traffic jams on America’s electricity superhighways and unlocks our ability to keep up with our growing energy needs.”

Justin Vickers, a senior attorney for the Sierra Club, said the rule appears to be firmly within FERC’s jurisdiction, despite Christie’s concerns to the contrary.

“I think the commission is on very strong footing here,” he said. “This is a way of maximizing the benefits of living in a big country. We can send power around the country. It increases reliability and it lowers price. That’s the benefit of having a big grid. .. Let’s take advantage of it.”

The Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, said it was “disappointed” that FERC declined to include a “right of first refusal” policy for some transmission projects, which would have given their members first crack at some of the lines. The organization also said the rule lacked “regional flexibilities for evaluating project benefits.”

“A one-size-fits-all approach does not work, as different regions have different needs and different states have different policies,” said Phil Moeller, an executive vice president at the institute.

The post New federal rule will overhaul transmission planning as electric grid strains  appeared first on Nevada Current.

(Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

As local governments in Nevada have used one-shot federal recovery relief dollars toward mental and behavioral health services, city and county officials stressed the importance for state lawmakers to figure out a sustainable funding source.

During Monday’s Interim Committee of Health and Human Service, officials from Clark County, Washoe County, the City of Las Vegas and rural Nevada updated lawmakers on successes and failures of efforts to connect people experiencing mental health crises to behavioral health services. 

The options for people needing emergency mental health services largely have been for them to go to the emergency room or be arrested and jailed. 

Jurisdictions have been able to use dollars provided by the American Rescue Plan Act, a relief package signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2021, to begin setting up regional crisis stabilization centers, operating mental health courts and expanding mobile outreach programs as an alternative. 

Those funding operating many of those programs is finite. 

Clark County Commissioner Justin Jones noted the county was able to use ARPA dollars to purchase a psychiatric hospital to turn into a crisis stabilization center. 

“The state has provided fantastic funds for many programs such as the funding for a crisis stabilization center,” Jones said. “In order to make that facility or any facility viable, there has to be a dedicated funding stream for years to come.” 

Many jurisdictions across the country that are able to offer more robust mental health services have access to stable and consistent funding sources that Nevada does not, Jones added.

“In San Diego County, they benefit from a millionaire tax,” he said. “In Miami-Dade County, they collect a 1% sales tax on food and beverage for homeless programs that support mental health services.” 

Local governments during Monday’s hearing highlighted various efforts in recent years to fund a 988 crisis line and expand mobile crisis teams that come to meet people in help

UMC, which Clark County is working with for its crisis stabilization center, is in the process of contracting a mental health provider to administer and staff it. 

The center is expected to start taking patients starting late December. 

“We don’t think one crisis stabilization center is going to meet the entire needs of Clark County,” said Abigail Frierson, the deputy county manager with Clark County. “We believe we need three or four.”

Officials said additional types of care are needed when people leave the crisis stabilization center. 

“Where do people who are unhoused go to continue their care once they’ve been stabilized?” Frierson asked. 

The City of Las Vegas is looking to expand its Recuperative Care Center, which  offers medical services for the unhoused population, to also offer mental and behavioral health.

Sabra Newby, the deputy city manager with the city of Las Vegas, said the city contracts with the federally qualified health center, Hope Christian Health Center, to operate the facility within the Corridor of Hope, the area downtown where homeless services are located. 

The center currently has 40 beds. The expansion would increase the number of beds to 76. 

“That would add the crisis stabilization unit to the facility and let us service the type of patient that we currently can’t serve that may be both recovering from sort of injury or illness or surgery but may have a higher level of mental health need,” Newby said. 

Newby said the city was awarded a $10 million grant from the state, which came from the ARPA dollars, for the expansion. It is taking an additional $7 million from the city’s share of ARPA funding.

While the city is still determining the exact costs of the project, Newby said early estimates indicate the city will be short about $5 million. 

Similar to efforts in Southern Nevada, a crisis stabilization is in the process of opening in Washoe County later this year, in partnership with Renown Regional Medical Center. 

Steve Shell with Renown said ARPA dollars are being used to renovate the space and cover operating expenses in the first year.

“I want to stress we really have to think beyond the first year at sustainability,” he said. “It’s great to stand up centers like this but we are going to really need to make sure they can sustain for the long haul. I don’t think anyone wants to stand up a new model that can’t continue beyond a certain time.”

Aside from a sustainable funding source to operate facilities, health officials also named other issues hindering access to behavioral health services, including low Medicaid reimbursement rates for providers and the lack of mental and behavioral health providers within the state. 

The post One-shot federal funding for NV behavioral health services is winding down. Now what? appeared first on Nevada Current.

Black bear in Lake Tahoe Basin (Photo: California Fish and Wildlife Department)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

The Nevada Wildlife Commission voted Saturday to allow hunters to kill 42 bears a year, more than twice the number permitted to be slaughtered in the first decade of the hunt, which began in 2011. 

The move is the latest in a series of decisions that have prompted criticism of the commission for failing to represent the interests of a plurality of Nevadans, who prefer to coexist peacefully with animals, according to studies, including the Nevada Department of Wildlife’s own survey.  

Advocates for allowing more bears to be killed note the population has not declined since the inception of the hunt. But critics complain no one knows how many bears are in Nevada. 

NDOW estimates the black bear population in Nevada at between 239 and 740 with 95% confidence, and growing at a rate of 5% annually. 

“That’s a real wide gap of confidence when we’re trying to estimate the population,” said Commissioner David McNinch, the lone member of the board charged with representing conservationists, who took issue with NDOW using 700 bears, the high end of the range, in its calculation for increasing the quota. “Not sure why we wouldn’t equally land on 240.”  

“A 95% confidence level that varies by several hundred animals means you have no confidence level at all,” Dr. Donald Molde of the Nevada Wildlife Alliance said via email. ”Pick a number.”

Molde says estimating populations of any species is not easy. “That means to me they must be conservative in their choice of numbers.”

The mortality rate under the new hunting regulation is projected at 1.9% to 2.7% of the population. NDOW biologists say up to 14% of the population could be killed each year without compromising the species. 

Fred Voltz of the Nevada Wildlife Alliance told commissioners the “selective information” presented by NDOW raises “more questions instead of providing complete answers regarding wildly fluctuating bear population guesstimates.” 

Voltz noted that NDOW reported 74 bear deaths from all sources in 2021 and 71 in 2022, when 20 bears could be killed by hunters. Yet the department’s report justifying the increased hunting quota failed to include sources of mortality other than the hunt. 

“These numbers don’t reflect bears that are orphaned and killed by other species, hit by cars and die in the woods. and other sources” not counted by NDOW, Voltz told the commission. 

‘How many times…’ 

NDOW, which is entrusted with conservation of the state’s wildlife, says it manages species, not individual animals.  

“Is it fair to think of animals only as part of a larger population, not as an individual whose suffering is very real?” Cathy Smith of No Bear Kill Nevada asked commissioners during public comment. “I think not, and I  think most of you know that animals suffer, and humans can and do increase that suffering.”

The new regulation limits hunters to killing no more than 14 females, one-third of the quota, each season. Last year, almost half of the bears killed – nine of 19 – were female, including one that was still lactating and another with young cubs. 

Hunters have defended the practice of hounding – using dogs to chase bears up a tree – as a means of determining gender before the kill. 

McNinch, referring to the almost 50/50 gender split among hunted bears last year, called the notion that hounding spares females from being killed “malarkey.” 

Only 13% of Nevadans condone hounding, according to NDOW’s own survey. 

“How many times will you have to listen to members of the public like myself before you take us  seriously?” No Bear Hunt Nevada’s Kathryn Bricker asked commissioners.

Bricker recalled a video posted to social media by a houndsman of “his hounds at the base of a tree in the Mt. Rose forest. A two-year-old female was looking down. The look on her face, and her vocalizations of sheer terror will haunt me until I die. She was not even old enough to have had cubs of her own. I and others only pray that she was dead when she hit the ground and not still alive to be mauled by the dogs.” 

Hunters speaking in favor of increasing the bear hunt quota asked the commission to eliminate restrictions on killing female bears. 

“Do we even need hounds at that point?” asked Commissioner Alana Wise, the only member of the board charged with representing the public. “Can we eliminate them?”

The unpopular method, which is illegal in California, has spawned a growth industry in Nevada of guides and houndsman, who are paid thousands of dollars to lead tag winners on their quest. 

The commission quickly moved to approve the amendment as drafted, keeping intact the limit on killing females and the ability to hound. 

‘Brain dead’

During the meeting, McNinch told his colleagues of a number of incidents, primarily in Northern Nevada, that prompted calls from irate residents. 

In one instance a deer was snared in a legally set trap. In another, a person shot a deer with a bow and arrow in a residential neighborhood. 

“Apparently it was not the first one,” he said of the illegal shooting. 

McNinch went on to describe an incident in which a Wyoming man intentionally ran over a wolf in that state with a snowmobile, then tortured the animal before shooting it. 

Animal advocates see little distinction between the suffering of the wolf, the two-year old bear chased up a tree to her death, or a deer ensnared for days in a trap. 

“These are the types of things that happen when we don’t tend to our business – when we don’t have strong laws that say these activities are not condoned, but they’re condemned, and we’re going to do something about it,” McNinch told his colleagues. “We’re primed for those same things happening in Nevada.”

Tommy Caviglia, the commission chairman, called the perpetrator of the wolf incident “brain dead.” Caviglia supports the increase in the bear hunt quota and has repeatedly defended coyote killing contests, in which prizes are awarded for racking up the most dead coyotes.

McNinch, the only commissioner to vote against allowing more bears to be killed and an opponent of killing contests, says he’s at a loss to describe his colleagues’ embrace of what critics call wanton killing. 

“You’d have to ask them,” he said during an interview. “I’m struggling with this more and more. I don’t understand the commitment to that mind set.” 

Caviglia did not respond to requests for comment.

The post Regulators approve killing twice as many bears as originally allowed in Nevada hunt appeared first on Nevada Current.

A half-dozen Republicans voted with all the Democrats to send Amodei's bill back to committee. (Photo: Richard Bednarksi/Nevada Current)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

Nevada’s lone congressional Republican suffered a blow this week after six members of his own party joined Democrats to block a bill he authored to address a court ruling adopting a stricter interpretation of the 150-year-old General Mining Law.

Mining developers looking to extract minerals in Nevada are grappling with the aftermath of a 2022 U.S. appellate court ruling that essentially restricted mining companies from dumping waste on federal lands.

While federal mining law allows companies to mine on federal land where economically valuable minerals are present, the federal court decision ruled that companies are not guaranteed the right to use adjacent federal land without valuable minerals for related purposes – such as waste rock disposal or running power lines.

The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024 — introduced by Nevada Republican Rep. Mark Amodei —would respond to the ruling by removing a provision in an 1872 federal mining law that mining companies must show a mineral deposit is present before building roads and other support facilities at a potential site.

However, the legislation died on the House floor Wednesday after a 210-206 vote to send the bill back to the House Natural Resources committee. Amodei’s office did not respond in time for publication. 

Six hard-line Republicans — Andy Biggs and Eli Crane of Arizona, Dan Bishop of North Carolina, Bob Good of Virginia and Matt Gaetz and Anna Paulina Luna of Florida — voted with all Democrats to block the bill.

During floor debate, Republicans argued the bill was needed to clarify a 2022 federal appeals court decision that blocked approvals for mining support facilities at an Arizona copper mine.

“The decision limited the ability of the Forest Service to approve necessary mining support facilities and activity, which is necessary for mining operations,” Minnesota Republican Pete Stauber said Wednesday. The decision “put virtually every new domestic mining project in jeopardy.”

In Nevada, the appellate court ruling has the potential to send mining projects — years in the making — back to square one.

In the case of a planned molybdenum mine by Nevada-based developer Eureka Moly LLC, a district court judge vacated the 2019 Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the project after ruling the developer did not have the right to dump waste rock on federal land without valuable mineral deposits.

The new stricter interpretation of the 150-year-old General Mining Law, also affected what may potentially become the largest lithium mine in the United States, the Thacker Pass project south of the Nevada-Oregon border. Last year, a district judge cited the Arizona ruling when determining that federal land managers violated federal law when they approved the mine developer’s plan to bury 1,300 acres of public land under waste rock.

Prior to the court decision adopting a stricter interpretation of the 150-year-old General Mining Law, mining companies had been dumping mining waste on neighboring federal lands without issue for decades. 

House Democrats argued Amodei’s bill would only benefit the mining industry by making it easier for companies to develop sites without documented mineral deposits. On the House floor, Democrats said the bill would give too much power to — and provide too little accountability for — mining companies that already work in a favorable regulatory environment.

New Mexico Democrat Melanie Stansbury said mining companies operate under an 1872 law that provides nearly unfettered access to lands that other extractive industries “could only dream of.”

Congress should be improving environmental protections to the 19th-century law, but the bill considered Wednesday would only weaken existing protections, she said.

“This bill removes the one frail safeguard that we have,” she said. “Under this bill, any American — or frankly any American subsidiary of a foreign company, including those that are located in adversarial countries — can put four stakes in the ground and on open public lands pay less than $10 an acre per year to have exclusive rights to that land, forever. Forever. This bill would create a free-for-all on our public lands.”

Both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Senate have described the federal appeals court decision as “a significant departure from long-held mining practices.” Last year, Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto has proposed a similar bill — the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act — that would make it legal to use part of a mining claim for mining related purposes on land without valuable minerals, including waste rock disposal.

States Newsroom reporter Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

The post Amodei’s mining bill fails to pass Republican-controlled House appeared first on Nevada Current.

Nevada's tax on insurance premiums is the nation's second highest. (Photo: Ronda Churchill/Nevada Current)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

Nevada’s general fund revenue is  5% higher so far in fiscal year 2024 than  earlier forecasts from the state’s Economic Forum, Legislative fiscal analyst Michael Nakamoto told legislators Monday. 

Nakamoto told the Joint Standing Committee on Revenue the state’s general fund, projected year-to-date at $3.7 billion, is up approximately $64.1 million from two months ago, and $159.7 million more than forecasted by the Economic Forum, a panel of experts that provides forecasts used by the governor to plan his budget.  

Nakamoto cited three revenue sources responsible for the current numbers.

The state tax on insurance premiums, generating approximately $22.5 million above the forecast for the first two quarters of the fiscal year, Nakamoto said. 

Auto insurance rates are rising nationally — in the last year alone auto insurance increased by 18.9%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the only state with a higher insurance premium tax rate than Nevada’s 3.5% is Hawaii, at a little more than 4%. The tax on insurance premiums in the overwhelming majority of the rest of the states is closer to 2%, and often less. 

In Nevada, the tax on insurance premiums is the fourth largest source of state general fund revenue.

The modified business tax, a 1.17% levy on wages over $50,000, after the cost of health benefits are deducted, generated $21.3 million more than forecasted.

Interest income generated by the Treasurer’s office was $116.6 million through March, compared with $41.5 million a year ago.

“It’s a good environment for what we do from a rate perspective and our investment team is doing a great job. The investment team is four people and me,” Treasurer Zach Conine told the Current via email. “We have now generated more in investment returns in the last five years than since the formation of the state.”

Sales and use taxes tempered the increase, coming in $29.5 million less in the first seven months of the fiscal year than forecasted.  

Other general fund revenue is approximately $80.8 million above the forecast, Nakomoto said, crediting in part a fine imposed by gaming regulators.

“Back in July, the Gaming Control Board levied a $10 million fine against Steve Wynn that we were not accounting for in the forecast,” Nakamoto said. “So that number is going to stay at about $10 million above the forecast for the entire fiscal year, barring any other penalties that may be imposed by the board.”

The Economic Forum, which last met in December 2023, will meet again on June 10.

The post Insurance tax helps state revenue exceed projections appeared first on Nevada Current.

Tourism congestion on SR 28 on Nevada's side of Lake Tahoe. SR 28 is one of the main roads needed for evacuation. The posted speed limit is 45 mph - but tourists jump out of their cars routinely and walk along the road. (Photo: Pamela Tsigdinos)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

Overtourism, conflicts of interest, developer-initiated blight, vast pollution combined with microplastic contamination, and the lack of a comprehensive Tahoe basin evacuation plan are just some of the public safety and environmental problems raised by Tahoe residents during public comment at this year’s first two interim Nevada legislative oversight committee hearings.

Unfortunately, members of the Legislative Committee for the Review and Oversight of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the Marlette Lake Water System have so far failed to pose any probing questions about these critical issues or move to have these topics explored in more detail on a future agenda. Furthermore, emails obtained in April by a resident through a public records request demonstrate an alarming chumminess between the oversight committee chair staff and the TRPA government affairs manager.

Correspondence leading up to the first two meetings reveals that the oversight committee leadership has little interest in TRPA accountability or supervision—in other words the actual job of oversight. There was, however, an extended email discussion ahead of the March 8 legislative meeting held offsite at TRPA headquarters in Stateline, NV, about snacks and lunch as part of a pre-meeting bus tour of recent tourism and development projects arranged for committee members, TRPA staff and their tourism “partners”’

During that meeting, legislators and staff barely glanced up or engaged in any way with resident-initiated topics about serious issues, including the lake’s health and the Tahoe basin’s increasing degradation and environmental threats. Some checked their email; others kibbitzed with one another and sometimes shared a private laugh. It was as if public comment was merely something to be endured.

The legislative committee’s response to agenda presenters was an entirely different story. Committee members exhibited an unusually friendly rapport and served up softball questions.  After multiple references to a gathering earlier in the day it became apparent to Tahoe residents (post-tour) that Tahoe tourism presenters benefited immensely from their previous interactions.

The agenda omitted tour details so I queried the committee chair, Democratic Sen. Skip Daly, asking if the tour was an open meeting law violation. The chair never responded. The public records request provided evidence that there was email discussion about how the public might be involved, but the pre-meeting tour was never publicly noticed.

Mind you, Nevada taxpayers provide several million dollars to TRPA’s operating budget. (TRPA also derives hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government and California.) However, legislative oversight agendas to date have been shaped to accommodate and highlight economic interests, tourism revenue and attractions, and whatever TRPA prioritizes as part of its expansive development and public relations plan.

In the late 1960s, Nevada and California governors (Paul Laxalt and Ronald Reagan) worked together to protect Lake Tahoe. But it was the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, ratified in 1969 by Congress, that paved the way for what was supposed to be Lake Tahoe’s guardian angel: a one-of-a-kind environmental super-agency. Challenges ensued. It took a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2002 to keep it functioning as a check on development.

More than 20 years ago in a piece headlined Fighting for Tahoe’s Life, The Los Angeles Times wrote: “the ruling is monumental in a broad sense because it upholds the power of state, federal and local government to restrict land uses to protect the environment.”

Today, TRPA’s original mission now seems flipped on its head. In 2010, environmentalists and residents first raised the alarm about a disturbing shift taking place at the agency. Scientists employed by TRPA specializing in air, soil and vegetation got laid off. Developers are now considered TRPA’s “customers,” and the agency acts to accommodate and facilitate big-money interests that buy Tahoe land promising trophy luxury projects in Nevada and California. Two particularly egregious examples sit astride the state line in North Lake Tahoe: the former Tahoe Biltmore and Tahoe Inn. Both are now owned and controlled by private equity investor developers. Today, the properties are boarded up, blighted eyesores with none of the much touted community enhancement and environmental promises delivered.

By definition, a governmental oversight committee should flag important issues, act as a fiscal watchdog and ensure the public interest is served – particularly when key issues regarding public safety, the environment, and water quality are at stake. Some friction between an oversight committee and the agency it oversees is natural and expected. This dynamic should provide necessary checks and balances — not act as a rubber stamp or an enabler.

Furthermore, Nevada’s legislative committee is the only body with the power to exercise any sort of accountability for TRPA. California’s assembly does not have an equivalent counterpart, although nearly two-thirds of the lake sits inside our western neighboring state. There is no such federal oversight committee despite the U.S. Congress sanctioning and funding the agency.  The March legislative oversight committee meeting took place before TRPA and its ‘partners’ headed to Washington D.C. to lobby for the more federal funding tied to the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act now up for reauthorization.

There are four Nevada legislative meetings left in this calendar year. The next one is May 3. Tahoe residents urge the oversight committee to refocus TRPA on what should be its core functions: protecting and restoring the now polluted lake and shorelines and enforcing codes against environmental malfeasance and overdevelopment. It should not be a tool for gluttonous developers eager to amass and hold property.

The singular natural beauty of Lake Tahoe and its surrounding basin environment — unique in its designated federal, state and local recognition and funding — should be a model for environmental protection, sustainability, water quality, and ensuring the safety of residents and visitors in the event of another catastrophic wildfire or extreme weather event.  

Nevada legislators: please listen to the Tahoe residents who know the lake’s challenges and aren’t paid to give you dog and pony shows about Disney-fying Lake Tahoe.

The post Tahoe planning group exerts outsized influence on legislative oversight committee appeared first on Nevada Current.

Flight delays are shown on a flight information board at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Jan. 11, 2023 in Arlington, Virginia. A new federal rule requires airlines to reimburse passengers faster and with cash, not travel vouchers, when flights are canceled. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

The U.S. Department of Transportation announced on Wednesday new rules that will put refunds quickly back into air travelers’ pockets for canceled or delayed flights.

The agency estimated that the new regulations will save consumers over a half billion dollars every year in airline fees.

Under the new rules, which will go into effect beginning in late October, airlines must issue full refunds including imposed taxes and fees within seven business days for credit card purchases, and within three weeks for other payment methods.

Virginia has nine major airports commonly used by consumers including Dulles International Airport, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Richmond International Airport.

“Clearly our system is broken for consumers when it comes to so many issues around airline travel, and we depend on it,” said Irene Leech, president of the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council. “It’s great that the Department of Transportation is taking some steps to finally do some things for consumers.”

In 2022, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares joined his counterparts in other states in urging Congress to pass legislation that would authorize state attorneys general to enforce state and federal consumer protection laws governing the airline industry. That same year, the office said one of the complaints from passengers was that airlines failed to distribute required credits to passengers who could not travel during the pandemic.

In an effort to support consumers, DOT launched in 2023 a dashboard that provides consumers with details on the services airlines provide when flights are disrupted or canceled.

John Breyault, a native of Virginia and vice president of public policy, telecommunications and fraud with the National Consumers League, said the league, along with other consumer and passenger advocacy organizations, are pleased with the rules after advocating for them for several years.

“We think that it will provide relief to consumers who unfortunately have to jump through far too many hoops in order to exercise the rights that they already have,” Breyault said.

Under the new rules, airlines must provide automatic cash refunds to passengers when flights are canceled or significantly delayed. It defines a significant delay as three hours for flights within the U.S. and six hours for international flights. The refund rule will also cover fees for checked bags and other services, such as Wi-Fi, if the airline does not provide the service a passenger purchased.

The effort follows an executive order from President Joe Biden that directed  the transportation agency to promote fairer, more transparent and competitive markets.

“Passengers deserve to know upfront what costs they are facing and should get their money back when an airline owes them — without having to ask,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a statement, adding that the rules will save passengers time and money, and also prevent headaches.

The agency said the rule would eliminate the “patchwork of cumbersome processes” consumers now go through to request a refund online or by phone. The rule will also cut back on airlines giving passengers travel credits and vouchers eliminating a “cumbersome” process to rebook a flight, although passengers may still request such credits.

Airlines and ticket agents will also be required to tell consumers all the fees they are being charged for such items as bags and reservations. The agency said extra fees, like checked baggage and change fees, have been a growing source of revenue for airlines — and frustration for passengers.

“Anything that DOT can do to make it easier for consumers to do apples-to-apples comparisons will help,” Breyault said.

DOT is also considering rules that ban family seating junk fees, allowing parents to sit with their children for no additional cost.

The agency is also considering proposals to mandate airlines compensate passengers when flights are delayed or canceled with such things as snacks or places to stay and require airlines meet rigorous standards for accommodating passengers with disabilities safely and with dignity.

The proposal to expand the rights of wheelchair passengers will mandate enhanced training for airline employees and contractors who physically assist passengers with disabilities and handle passengers’ wheelchairs, and specify actions that airlines must take to protect passengers when a wheelchair is damaged during transport.

Leech said the agency’s actions mark a “good start for now” adding that she’s pleased with the progress and looks forward to what’s next in terms of protecting air travelers.

“If we can actually put this into play and actually benefit, then that would be wonderful and a step in the right direction,” Leech said.

The post Feds require airlines to automatically refund passengers for canceled or delayed flights appeared first on Nevada Current.

A Department of Labor final rule means millions of salaried workers who are employed in the executive, administrative or professional industries will become eligible for overtime pay. (Getty stock photo)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor Tuesday announced a final rule that means millions of salaried workers who are employed in the executive, administrative or professional industries will become eligible for overtime pay.

The rule will affect roughly 4 million workers in the first year of implementation and will be broken into two checkpoints. The first will be on July 1, with an impact on 1 million workers, and another on Jan. 1, 2025, affecting 3 million workers, Wage and Hour Division Administrator Jessica Looman said on a call with reporters previewing the regulation.

On July 1, the agency will update standard salary levels using an existing methodology developed under the Trump administration, Looman said. The salary level at which salaried employees are exempt from overtime will rise at that point from $684 per week to $844 per week, which is the equivalent of $43,888 per year.

On Jan. 1, the agency will move to a new methodology that will set the standard salary level to the 35th percentile of “full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage census region, which is the South,” Looman said.

That will result in an exempt salary level of $1,128 per week, or the equivalent of $58,656 per year.

“The strength of these protections continues to decline over time, and sometimes workers are working excessive hours with no additional pay,” Looman said, adding that some workers are exempt from protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

President Joe Biden, in a video, said, “We’re putting more money in the pockets of millions of American workers. Because you earned it.”

The Department of Labor has typically updated the salary requirement levels every five to nine years since 1938, but after 1975, those updates have been more unpredictable. Salary levels have not been updated in at least four years.

Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda said on the call with reporters that DOL has tried to “strike the right balance between the salary level and the duties,” and that “striking the wrong balance means that lower-paid salary workers don’t get the overtime protections that they should under the act.”

Future updates to the salary level will occur every three years, and will apply “up-to-date wage data to the salary and compensation methodologies in the regulation at the time of the update,” Looman said.

The next update will take place on July 1, 2027.

The Labor Department included exemptions to the new standards, including in U.S. territories.

“The final rule does not finalize proposals to raise the salary threshold for workers in the four U.S. territories that are currently subjected to the federal minimum wage, which are Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,” Looman said. “The rule also doesn’t finalize updates to the special salary levels for American Samoa and the motion picture industry in relation to the new standard salary level.”

DOL will address those updates in a future final rule, she said.

“The final rule announced today restores and extends overtime protections to lower paid salary workers and prevents a future erosion of overtime protections while ensuring greater predictability,” Looman said.

The post Millions of salaried workers to become eligible for overtime under new Biden rule appeared first on Nevada Current.