News broke last night that a new national monument may be considered in Nevada. The area, known as “Basin and Range,” is a unique landscape with incredible opportunities to hike, hunt, climb and bike, important conservation values, and a nearly completed world-renowned work of art.
While members of the Nevada Congressional delegation like Senator Harry Reid and Representative Dina Titus support the proposal, one representative, Cresent Hardy, was quick to criticize it. He even leaked the draft text of a monument proclamation without noting where it came from.
And yet, Rep. Hardy — who boasted that he “stands with” outlaw rancher Cliven Bundy more than seven months after Bundy made racist remarks to the press — has a series of details wrong in his opposition to the proposed monument.
Here are key facts about the proposed Basin and Range National Monument, including the national security implications of the designation, continued historical uses of the lands, and broad public support.
1) Rep. Hardy’s concerns over national security are explicitly undermined in the draft monument proclamation that he leaked.
Despite claiming to be “appalled and deeply concerned about the national security implications” of the monument, the draft proclamation that Rep. Hardy’s own office leaked directly conflicts with his claims. In fact, it explicitly states that military operations would not be impacted by the monument and would not restrict use of airspace for Air Force military exercises from the nearby Nellis Test and Training Range. The text reads:
“Nothing in this proclamation shall preclude low level overflights of military aircraft, the designation of new units of special use airspace, or the use or establishment of military flight training routes over the lands reserved by this proclamation.”
Despite Rep. Hardy’s claims, there is often a positive relationship between federal land protections and the military. For example, a case study in Arizona found that “the designation of federal lands under [military training routes]…can enhance the long-term viability of a military installation while protecting other important natural, ecological, social, and recreational values.”
2) Prior existing uses will continue unaffected by any national monument designation, a fact which the draft proclamation addresses.
Rep. Hardy billed the proposal as an “executive land grab,” and accused the Obama administration of cordoning off 700,000 acres that will be hitherto inaccessible to the public.
Notwithstanding the fact that the land already is managed by the federal government and therefore cannot be “grabbed,” the draft proclamation explicitly maintains prior uses, allows for livestock grazing, does not alter valid existing water rights, and maintains the authority of the state. Public access will be protected, not restricted, by a national monument.
3) The proposal to permanently protect the Basin and Range area as a national monument is supported by a broad swath of Nevadans.
Rep. Hardy states that the monument proposal is “devoid of meaningful local input” and “smacks of a lack of transparency.”
This claim couldn’t be farther from the truth. Support for Basin and Range spans business leaders, local politicians, leaders in the mining industry, school children who value outdoor education, and concerned community members (to see a full list of dozens of prominent backers, click here.) Such a broad and dedicated coalition is a clear demonstration of “meaningful local input.”
Additionally, Senator Harry Reid held a public meeting with local elected officials in February on this topic. As the Las Vegas Sun reported, the meeting was “filled with supporters in favor of protecting the land.”