There is broad agreement that it’s too difficult for veterans to get the disability benefits they earned and need. After valiantly serving, our nation’s heroes are forced to navigate a complex, bureaucratic and adversarial claims process at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, where they are frequently denied benefits or receive lower disability ratings than deserved. That makes it particularly hard to understand why state lawmakers are considering legislation that would make it even more difficult for Nevada veterans to get help in navigating this process.

Assemblymen Reuben D’Silva, D-North Las Vegas, and Ken Gray, R-Dayton, have introduced Assembly Bill 145 with the well-intended goal of protecting veterans from unscrupulous private companies seeking to take advantage of those who apply for their benefits. Unfortunately, AB145, which was debated in a recent Assembly committee hearing at which I testified, is drafted far too broadly and would make it illegal for veterans to get advice or assistance from any private companies, including ethical services that are working hard to help veterans. It is a classic example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I can attest to the value provided by some of these private services based on my personal experience. After serving in the Air Force for eight years, including a deployment in the Gulf War, I left the military suffering from PTSD, breathing issues and other service-related conditions. I first tried working with a free Veteran Service Organization to apply for benefits. Despite having all of my medical records in hand, I received a 0 percent disability rating from the VA. Years later I would try again, but was told by my VSO representative that I should “go online and figure it out” for myself.

Finally, almost three decades after leaving the military, I reached out to a private service for help. They carefully examined my case, helped me reassemble my claim and, within months, I received an accurate rating from the VA and the benefits I deserve. I was happy to pay a fee for that service and would do so again.

Proponents of AB145 argue that veterans shouldn’t have to pay for a service they can get for free from a VSO. But from my experience, you often get what you pay for. Many VSOs are doing great work and that avenue should remain available for veterans. But if veterans choose to hire a private company to get additional attention and guidance in filing their claim, they should be allowed to do so. As veterans, we raised up our right hand and took an oath to fight for that freedom, among many others. It is simply wrong to take away our freedom of choice now.

There is a better way to resolve this issue. Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in Washington that would establish strict guardrails to protect veterans from bad private companies and fraudsters, imposing fee caps, transparency requirements and privacy protections, while allowing good private companies, such as the one I worked with, to become accredited by the VA and continue serving veterans. In other words, it legislates against the bad behavior, instead of against a specific type of service provider.

Ideally, Congress would move forward with this common-sense legislation and put this issue to rest. In the meantime, similar legislation has been introduced in at least 27 states and has already been enacted in Louisiana. The Legislature should reject AB145 or amend it to include similar provisions that protect veterans while preserving their choice. By doing so, Nevada can send a clear message that our top priority is to ensure veterans have access to the help they need to get the disability benefits they deserve.

Leo Garcia is a U.S. Air Force veteran. He writes from Boulder City.

Data centers are flooding into Northern Nevada so quickly that Reno’s planning commission has asked the city council to hold off on approving more until it can fully understand all possible effects.

The city council in February approved its first data center in the North Valleys. The city argued the Webb Data Center has low water usage, but the development plans to use 28.5 megawatts of power, which is enough to power 17,000 homes on average

Proponents say data centers will provide significant government revenue and diversify the economy, while opponents say they stress the region’s resources and receive undeserved tax breaks.

Nevada has already reported 40 data centers as of October, and more coming with the PowerHouse center breaking ground in Storey County.

What is a data center?

A data center is a dedicated facility designed to house collections of computer servers that store and manage data, and provide services to other computers.

Melanie Sheldon of the Nevada Governor’s Office of Economic Development told the RGJ that data centers are there to support healthcare, real estate, finance, professional services and transportation organizations. 

Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter Director Olivia Tanager told the RGJ that because these data centers are running many computer servers, they require loads of energy and power. They also use power for the cooling, ventilation and fire suppression systems to keep the technology from overheating.

The U.S. Department of Energy reports that data centers consume 10 to 50 times the energy per floor space as a typical commercial office building.

Why are they coming to Nevada?

Heather Wessling Grosz of the Western Nevada Economic Development Authority said Nevada has a lot of open land where data centers can be built away from residential areas.

“I think it’s a positive, especially in some of the rural communities where there is land to be able to develop a large data center,” Grosz said.

However, it’s also the tax incentives that drive businesses like data centers into Nevada.

Data centers in Nevada can receive a 75% personal property tax abatement for 10 or 20 years and a sales tax reduction of 2% for 10 or 20 years, according to Sheldon. 

The data center would submit an abatement application, then go in front of GOED’s board for approval. If approved, they would have a contract with the state and undergo a two- and five-year audit by the county assessor and the Department of Taxation.

“I think a lot of people think we’re giving away taxes, but we are not,” Grosz said. “Nevada really is standing apart by being more affordable in the long run, but not really putting itself at higher risk by putting a grant up in front.”

For example, Grosz said it’s like getting a discount on something at the store — the product is still being bought, but the discounted rate encourages customers to come to their store.

Tanager argued this tax abatement is too much when Sparks, Reno and Washoe County are expecting deficits in the new year due to lower tax revenue. 

“That’s a really big problem because at the Legislature every other year, we’re rubbing pennies together trying to get basic funds,” Tanager said. “We never have any money, and so this bringing a new industry here and abating basically anything that they would pay into the state is a giant problem.”

However, Sheldon said abatements are always limited and will generate “ongoing” revenue through property taxes, sales taxes and other forms of business taxation.

“In Nevada, a tax abatement does not fully eradicate a company’s tax liability. The data center (or other company) will still pay taxes despite a reduction,” Sheldon said in an email.

The Apple data center parcel in Washoe County, for example, pays the highest amount of real property tax in the county, according to spokesperson Bethany Drysdale.

Water, electricity usage

Tanager’s primary concerns are with energy and water usage, as she believes data centers will take valuable energy and water from residents.

Assistant Director of Development Services Angela Fuss told the council at last month’s meeting that Reno’s incoming Webb Data Center’s plan uses less water than other Reno developments and uses less power than other Nevada data centers.

The Webb Data Center uses 2 acre-feet per year, which is more than a single-family home at 0.5 to 1 acre-foot per year, but much less than an average casino which uses 300 acre-feet per year, according to Fuss. The Truckee Meadow Water Authority confirmed these numbers are accurate.

TMWA also told the RGJ that the requirement for water service is the same for data centers as any other development: developers are required to obtain water rights on the open market and dedicate them to the water authority.

Developers are also assessed for the fees needed to activate the water and are required to pay for any new infrastructure needed such as pipes and pumps.

“This ensures existing customers do not pay for growth,” TMWA spokesperson Danny Rotter said by email.

Rotter also confirmed there isn’t a notable difference in growth now compared to the last few decades, and their resource plan expects there will be sufficient water resources for decades.

As for energy, Fuss called the Webb Data Center a “boutique” data center in comparison to larger-scale centers like Switch that use much more energy than the Reno center is planning to.

NV Energy spokesperson Meghin Delaney told the RGJ via email that NV Energy has a planning process that projects the numbers for Nevada’s future load growth, or increased demand for electricity. This takes into account the state’s projected economic growth, residential growth, increased use of electric vehicles, data centers and other large projects.

“Our planning is designed to meet the projected load forecast to ensure the company can accommodate new customers without sacrificing service to existing customers,” Delaney wrote.

She added that any change in rates will have to be considered by the Public Utilities Commission before it shows up on a customer’s bill.

NV Energy currently serves approximately 25 data centers.

What are the positives?

Grosz told the RGJ some economic advantages she believes data centers can provide include:

• Increased construction and electrician jobs during the building phase.
• More high-paying jobs for a center’s long-term operations.
• Increased tax revenue for the government from occupying the land.
• More security for businesses who store their data in local centers.

What are the fears?

Tanager told the RGJ the cons are going to be more damning than the pros:

• Data centers may not use 100% renewable energy, increasing fossil fuel or coal reliance.
• Nevada, the driest state in the U.S., may lose valuable water to water-intensive centers and cooling systems.
• Concern for future power impacts including increases in blackouts and higher customer rates.
• Fear of potential wildfire if safety measure technology is flawed or fails.
• Loss of revenue for cities and the state with such a large tax abatement.

Jaedyn Young covers local government for the Reno Gazette-Journal. Her wages are 100% funded by donations and grants; if you’d like to see more stories like this one, please consider donating at RGJ.com/donate. Send your story ideas and feedback to Jaedyn at jyoung@rgj.com.

Rep. Dina Titus is taking another swing at ending the federal “handle tax” on sports bets.

Titus, D-Nev., and Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R-Pa., co-chairs of the bipartisan Congressional Gaming Caucus, reintroduced legislation to repeal the 0.25 percent excise tax placed on all legal sports bets first enacted in 1951 to counter illegal gambling, which she said is no longer relevant.

Titus and Reschenthaler have attempted to repeal the handle tax in 2019, 2021 and 2023, recognizing the economic importance of sports betting since its legalization in 2018.

She pointed out that illegal bookmakers don’t pay the tax, giving them an advantage over legal sportsbooks in 38 states and Washington D.C., including Nevada and Pennsylvania.

“Illegal sportsbooks do not pay the 0.25 percent sports handle tax and the accompanying $50 per head tax on sportsbook employees, giving them an unfair advantage,” Titus said. “I once asked the IRS where the revenue from the handle tax went in the federal budget and they didn’t even know. It makes no sense to give the illegal market an edge over legal sports books with a tax the federal government does not even track.”

In past years, the Discriminatory Gaming Tax Repeal Act didn’t gain enough traction to get through House committees.

Sports books are in the midst of one of the busiest times for sports wagering. The American Gaming Association estimated that $3.1 billion would be bet on the NCAA “March Madness” basketball tournament that began earlier this week. That’s up from the $2.7 billion estimated to be wagered in the 2024 tournament.

In Nevada, the state’s 66 legal operators took $8.26 billion in sports wagers, generating revenue of $481.3 million and gaming taxes of $32.5 million.

The biggest sports-betting market, New York, had 19 legal operators taking $19.18 billion in bets, generating $1.7 billion in gross gaming revenue and producing $862.6 million in tax revenue.

Contact Richard N. Velotta at rvelotta@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3893. Follow @RickVelotta on X.