By:  Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

In a state so dominated by public lands it is difficult for a number of Nevadans to get their minds around the concept of private property.  In a place where 90 percent of the land “is our land” the notion that somebody else has the ability to call what is theirs – “theirs” runs counter to the viewpoint that a number of people can grasp.

Because private property is such a limited item, those who have “it” hold on to their rights with a fervor that other property owners, in more private-based states, can relate to.  As someone who grew up in a state where the majority of the property in the state was privately owned, it took a major shift and exposures to conflicts to recognize the dynamics of how things play themselves out here.

Along with the amount of lands under the control of federal land managers, Nevada also has a lot of people who work for the agencies, managing those lands.  This too plays a role in the manner in which conflicts unfold regarding private land.

On one occasion, attending a workshop on riparian management, the group I was part of (standing on federally managed lands) was directed to look across the fence at private property and the “needs” that could be addressed.  Never mind the significantly larger part of the stream on the lands under their management (and needing as much – if not more – attention) the biggest challenge in the minds of the government land managers was what they couldn’t (or weren’t suppose to) get under their control.

When I came to Nevada 20-plus years ago, the rough calculation of percentages held that 85 percent of the state was under the management of federal agencies.  The additions of public lands have been expanded through a variety of methods, primarily through land sales of Bureau of Land Management property in Southern Nevada.  With the proceeds of the sales of small tracts of public lands, “environmentally sensitive” private lands have been acquired in the name of “protection”.

As part of the culture, calling itself “environmentalism,” property subject to federal land management is alleged to be better cared for, in spite of evidence which does not uphold this philosophy.  In too many cases this linkage is predicated on the notion that public lands can be protected by not allowing man to make use of the land under “protection”. 

Private property tends to be used for the benefit that the property owner believes to be best.  This approach does not fit within the belief system that those who seek expansion of public control.

Throughout the country, including states where private lands are almost the exclusive ownership pattern regulatory agencies are expanding their intrusive reach to command and control private property.  Nevada private property is also subject to these challenges.

Along with the other elements that we’ve highlighted – the ability to use lands under the management of federal land managers; and, having water available for agricultural production – protection of private property rights (in all its nuances) needs to be part of the cause we champion for Nevada agriculture.