Connect with us

Nevada

Is Clark County’s $80M settlement with Red Rock developer the new model for land use disputes? – The Nevada Independent

Published

on

Is Clark County’s M settlement with Red Rock developer the new model for land use disputes? – The Nevada Independent


When Clark County commissioners unanimously agreed earlier this month to an $80 million settlement with an aggrieved developer hoping to build thousands of homes across from Red Rock National Conservation Area, they closed the book on a yearslong string of litigation that had threatened to bankrupt the county.

For roughly two decades, the county was locked in legal battles over a proposed large-scale housing development atop Blue Diamond Hill, home to Blue Diamond Mine and directly across from Red Rock — one of Nevada’s natural crown jewels.

That litigation has stemmed from the vision of Southern Nevada developer Jim Rhodes, who, since the early 2000s, has pitched the idea of converting the mine site — which overlooks arguably some of the most scenic vistas in the county, if not the state — into thousands of houses.

Rhodes was not the first developer to propose building houses at the site, but he has been the most persistent. And after years of back and forth with the county, he’s finally won.

Advertisement

Facing potentially $2 billion in damages from a jury trial that was set to begin in July, county commissioners earlier this month unanimously agreed to settle with Rhodes’ Gypsum Resources, approving a master-planned community and commercial development on more than 2,000 acres in what is currently a rural open land zone. The property is bordered on three sides by Red Rock Canyon Conservation Area and directly across from the developed portion of the park that draws more than 3 million visitors per year.

The county cited a recent land use case decided by the Nevada Supreme Court as a major reason for settling, as well as fear of financial insolvency for the county. Instead of filing for bankruptcy, Clark County will instead search for ways to account for the $80 million, which is being taken out of its capital improvements budget. 

The settlement “is the best we can do under these circumstances,” Commissioner Jim Gibson said during a June 18 meeting to vote on the matter. “We join you in being disappointed.”

Project opponents disagree it is the best the county can do.

More than 52,000 people signed a petition or emailed county commissioners opposing the settlement, citing concerns for the wild character of Red Rock and the rural community that surrounds it. 

Advertisement

With towering red and white sandstone cliffs reaching thousands of feet into the sky, Red Rock Canyon is a hiker and rock climbers’ paradise. Perched a couple thousand feet higher than downtown Las Vegas, its shady canyons are home to lush plant life and surprising desert waterfalls; bighorn sheep and wild burros can be found in the more remote corners of the park.

Beyond the effects on Red Rock, opponents fear what the settlement portends for future contested development projects.

“Local governments in Nevada believe they cannot tell developers ‘No’ on what they want to do on properties they already bought,” Vinny Spotleson, chair of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, said after the meeting. “If we can’t engage in basic community planning in this state, this is a huge crisis.”

Read more: Dealmaking, lobbying and delays: Inside the political fight over homes at Red Rock

Jim Gibson during a Clark County Commission meeting on June 6, 2023. (Jeff Scheid/The Nevada Independent)

Cutting county spending to recoup the funds

Advertisement

One of the nation’s most populous counties, Clark County’s annual budget is staggering — the county’s general fund was nearly $2 billion in the 2024 fiscal year, about a fifth the size of the entire two-year state budget. 

Over the next five years, the county’s capital improvement budget — earmarked for one-time uses such as construction of parks and fire stations and the same pot of money the county will pull from to pay the settlement — contains $4.03 billion in potential projects. The cost to construct and equip a new fire station, for example, is approximately $15 million — roughly a fifth the cost of the settlement.

In an interview, Clark County Manager Kevin Schiller told The Nevada Independent that the county is “still identifying those projects” that will be affected by the $80 million loss of funds — only a fraction of what the county estimated it would have needed to pay had it gone to trial with Rhodes and lost, but still sizable.

Clark County officials say damage experts, speaking on behalf of Rhodes, were expected to present $2 billion in damages to jurors at the July trial. In a court filing earlier this month, Rhodes testified that county officials had told him if a judgment of that size was entered against the county, they would seek special legislation to allow the county to file for bankruptcy as “a judgment of this size would financially ruin the county.”

Gibson echoed those comments during the June commission meeting, saying the issue was no longer about the development’s proximity to Red Rock but rather the “undoing of the financial capacity of the county to function.”

Advertisement

“This is not about we have options and we’re going to fight to the end,” he said. “We’ve fought to the end.”

Gibson did not return calls from The Nevada Independent. 

Todd Bice, attorney for Rhodes, said the damage experts explored various models that in some cases showed the damages as much as $2.5 billion. 

“Any number approaching what Gypsum was seeking would bankrupt them (the county) and result in an impact upon public services, including health and safety,” he told The Nevada Independent. “They were imploring Mr. Rhodes to not do that to the county.”

The $80 million settlement is a small piece of the larger equation for Gypsum, he added.

Advertisement

“Where Gypsum will recoup its losses is in the form of development. Eighty million does not make much of a dent in the harm to Gypsum.” 

Postponing or reconfiguring projects is more palatable to the county than a potential bankruptcy, according to county staff. And there is one thing Schiller is sure of, something he’s repeated frequently  since the settlement was announced — the money used to pay the settlement won’t affect county employees, wages or hiring.

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area and the community of Blue Diamond border Blue Diamond Hill. (Courtesy Google Maps)

Badlands

Environmentalists and fans of Red Rock are less worried about the county’s capital projects budget and more concerned with how the settlement and the commission’s justification for it may set a precedent.

Before voting, Commission Chair Tick Segerblom said the Nevada Supreme Court’s recent Badlands decision — ordering the City of Las Vegas to pay $48 million to the owner of a shuttered golf course who was blocked from converting the course into housing — weighed heavily on his decision.

“What the Badlands decision says to me is, if the developer says, ‘This is what we’re going to do’ — then we have to let them do that,” Segerblom said at the June 18 meeting. “So, I really want the Supreme Court to look hard at what they’re telling us … What they are basically saying is that if the landowner has the right to build something, we have no ability to ask the neighbors if they want that, and that’s not the way it should be.”

Advertisement

In a follow-up call with The Nevada Independent, Segerblom called the court’s decision “devastating and inappropriate.” 

In the Badlands case, which also spanned multiple years and lawsuits, the city cited public opposition and concerns from surrounding residents as reasons for rejecting development applications.

But Supreme Court Justice Douglas Herndon wrote in the ruling, “When a governmental agency acts in a manner that removes all the economic value from privately owned land, just compensation must be paid.”

Schiller and other county staff declined to comment on the Badlands case and how it influenced the county’s decision to settle, citing additional pending litigation.

Multiple legal experts from UNLV contacted by The Nevada Independent also declined to weigh in on the Badlands case and how it may have influenced the county’s decision to settle with Rhodes. 

Advertisement

To Spotleson, the Sierra Club chair, Segerblom’s justification paves the way for developers to steamroll their way into building future unpopular projects.

“I didn’t realize how bad the Badlands deal was for the state,” Spotleson said. “What happens the next time a developer wants to do something? What happens to sustainability planning?”

A semitruck travels to the Blue Diamond Hill Gypsum Mine on June 7, 2021. (Jeff Scheid/The Nevada Independent)

History of the project

The proposed development’s size has changed over the years — rather than the more than 5,000 homes a previous board approved, just 3,500 homes will now be permitted. Under the settlement agreement, traffic will be rerouted off Highway 159 and onto Highway 160, pending a right-of-way approval by the Bureau of Land Management. If that access is not secured within two years, the county will pay Rhodes up to an additional $6 million.

Prior to moving dirt, Rhodes still will need to jump through multiple other hoops, starting with a July 3 county zoning meeting but also including obtaining building and grading permits and completion of a drainage study. 

That permitting will continue to draw out the process — litigation over development of Blue Diamond Hill dates back two decades.

Advertisement

In 2002, John Laing Homes proposed a project that would add 8,400 homes on 3,000 acres of the mine site, drawing public opposition because the development would be visible from Red Rock Canyon. The project fell apart when Laing Homes couldn’t get zoning approval, and the following year, Rhodes purchased just over 2,000 acres for $50 million.

Rhodes is a well-known name in the Southern Nevada development scene. He has planned, built, and sold more than 11,000 homes in 173 communities and is the force behind developments such as the 9,000-residential unit Rhodes Ranch golf course community and Southwest Ranch’s 3,500 residential units and retail and office spaces.

He’s also been involved in numerous lawsuits and filed for bankruptcy multiple times, including losing his namesake company, Rhodes Homes, to bankruptcy proceedings in 2009.

In 2003, the Legislature passed a law expanding the Red Rock Conservation area to prevent large-scale development in the area. The county followed with an ordinance echoing the state’s bill. Rhodes, who had already purchased the mine site, filed a lawsuit against the county and state, and a court ruled in his favor.

The county responded by settling with Rhodes; the state continued its litigation, eventually losing.

Advertisement

Rhodes told the Las Vegas Sun at the time that development might be preferable to continued mining, but that one of his main priorities was the “restoration and reclamation of this wonderful area,” and in 2011, he received county approval for residential development.

Development stalled, and the county, Gypsum and Save Red Rock became embroiled in another lawsuit — including accusations of quid pro quo between Save Red Rock and then-Commission Chair Steve Sisolak — over whether the original county decision approving construction had expired.

The attorney representing Save Red Rock, Justin Jones, was later elected in 2018 to the Clark County Commission, where he moved to deny a waiver for the project in early 2019. The commission unanimously agreed, and Rhodes sued.

In the lawsuit, Jones was accused of deleting texts in 2019 related to the development. After Rhodes’ lawsuit was rejected in federal court,he refiled in district court, which ruled in favor of Rhodes earlier this year.

Jones, who still serves on the commission, recused himself from voting on the settlement.

Advertisement
Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area on April 12, 2024. (Amy Alonzo/The Nevada Independent)

The future of Red Rock

Red Rock’s significance was first recognized in 1936 by Congress, when it designated the land as part of the Desert Game Refuge (now the Desert National Wildlife Refuge).

In the 1960s, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) withdrew some of the canyon from mining and other development, and in 1967 designated 62,000 acres as Red Rock Canyon Recreation Lands. Over the years, the amount of protected land grew, and now nearly 200,000 acres are protected.

It was the state’s first national conservation area and is now one of the BLM’s most visited areas.

Most of the park’s several million visitors funnel through a visitor center and loop road that features a dozen or so scenic vistas, picnic areas and trailheads, but the boundary of the conservation area extends much further.

When the current protections around the land were put in place in 1990, housing developments weren’t creeping toward the park’s perimeter. The same year the conservation area was established, construction was just starting on Summerlin, and the Las Vegas Beltway and Spaghetti Bowl didn’t exist yet. But as sprawl has crept further north and south, the conservation area’s boundaries are now just a few miles away from houses and shopping centers.

Advertisement

Just across the highway from the Red Rock Visitor Center sits Blue Diamond Hill Gypsum Mine. The visitor center and mine are bisected by Highway 159, designated a “Nevada Scenic Byway” for its outstanding views of the sandstone cliffs and a popular course for road cyclists and runners.  

The mine has been active since 1902, with the Blue Diamond Co. taking ownership of the Gypsum mine in the 1920s and building corporate housing for its workers — which is now the rural community of Blue Diamond, home to several hundred people.

Having a mine across from a conservation area is not ideal, but having houses, commercial development, nighttime light pollution and heavy traffic will mark the end of the area’s treasured rural character, according to those trying to protect Red Rock.

“You can’t contain the effects of urban development on top of a mountain in the middle of a canyon. Every big house that has a view of the canyon or view of the city, if that house can see the canyon and the city, the canyon and city can see that house,” said Heather Fisher, president of Save Red Rock. “You’ll be able to look across and see the development, and for the next how many years, you’ll be able to hear the beeping and see the construction and the dust.”

There are protections in place for the conservation area, including the Red Rock Overlay, designed to maintain the area’s rural character and minimize additional traffic. While the Overlay mandates no more than one house every 2 acres, Rhodes is exempt from that requirement.

Advertisement

Now with the settlement in place, thousands of houses are slated for construction atop the hill.

“It’s problematic. It’s not like [it’s] down in the canyon. It’s overlooking the canyon. It’s on the one mountain that separates the canyon from the city,” Fisher said. “You leave Las Vegas, you go around the corner, and you don’t see Las Vegas anymore. [The mountain is] a natural barrier.”

As part of the settlement, the county will be able to purchase 192 acres of environmentally sensitive land, protecting tortoise habitat and a rare cactus.

That tradeoff isn’t worth it to Fisher.

“If the whole thing has to be developed for that to become public land, we don’t want it,” she said. “If you can’t protect your crown jewel, what can you protect? There’s a lot of random desert you can build in, but only one Red Rock.”

Advertisement



Source link

Nevada

Brewing Better Health: How data shapes public health

Published

on

Brewing Better Health: How data shapes public health


With another cup of Turkish coffee poured, the Brewing Better Health series continues, this time turning to a conversation about data, trust and how people make sense of changing information.

In Episode 5 of Brewing Better Health, Matt Strickland, Ph.D., joins Dean Muge Akpinar-Elci, M.D., MPH, to talk about how data, communication and evolving evidence shape the way people understand health and make decisions.

Strickland is a professor and chair of the Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Environmental Health at the University of Nevada, Reno School of Public Health. He studies how environmental exposures, such as air pollution and wildfire smoke, affect population health. That research often relies on large data sets, tracking outcomes like asthma, cardiovascular health and emergency department visits across entire communities.

But, as he explains, the work is never just about numbers.

Advertisement

“We are so used to working with big data sets, we can forget that those entries in the data sets are people,” Strickland said. “These are families.”

That perspective took shape early in his career while working with a birth defects surveillance system. Listening to families helped him see that public health data is not just about analysis. It is about answering real questions, helping people understand what lies ahead and making information useful in their daily lives.

“We are so used to working with big data sets, we can forget that those entries in the data sets are people,” Strickland said. “These are families.”

As they continue talking, Akpinar-Elci and Strickland reflect on how this work connects to decision-making. Much of the research contributes to the evidence used to set air quality standards under the Clean Air Act, helping identify which pollutants pose the greatest risk and where action can make the most difference.

In Nevada and across the western United States, that focus increasingly includes wildfire smoke, dust and other environmental challenges shaped by climate and geography. While the health risks tied to air pollution may seem small at the individual level, Strickland explains that they look very different across a population.

Advertisement

“When everybody is breathing air, those tiny little increases in risk add up day after day,” he said.

As the conversation turns to trust, Akpinar-Elci raises a challenge many in public health are facing right now: how to communicate science as it changes.

“Science is constantly changing right now,” she says. “But when the message is not connected, that creates not trusting the results.”

Strickland sees that shift as well.

“Maybe part of the loss of trust in science is our fault as scientists,” he said. “People often have to rely on authority because they don’t always have the tools to evaluate the information themselves, and who people trust has changed over time.”

Advertisement

With so many voices and perspectives, knowing who to trust is not always straightforward. For both, the challenge is not just producing good science, but helping people understand how and why that science evolves over time.

Even with those challenges, Strickland remains optimistic. Looking at long-term trends, he notes that air quality in the United States has improved significantly over time, even as new issues like wildfire smoke continue to emerge.

For him, progress in public health is not about quick wins, but steady, long-term commitment.

“You have to kind of focus on the long game,” he said.

Brewing Better Health features faculty and public health leaders from the University of Nevada, Reno School of Public Health and beyond. Each episode pairs thoughtful conversation with the tradition of Turkish coffee, emphasizing connection, listening and shared understanding.

Advertisement

Watch Episode 5 of Brewing Better Health featuring Matt Strickland, Ph.D., on YouTube or listen on Spotify.



Source link

Continue Reading

Nevada

Nevada, California, Arizona propose water plan pushing cuts to 20%

Published

on

Nevada, California, Arizona propose water plan pushing cuts to 20%


LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Water officials from Nevada, Arizona and California say they will make extra contributions by reducing their use of the Colorado River. Combined with earlier commitments, the proposed cuts add up to a total of about 20% of the states’ water allotments.

The plan, released Friday by the three states, would stabilize the river through 2028, according to a joint news release. It adds an extra contribution of 700,000 acre feet of water to cuts already in place. An acre foot is literally the amount of water it takes to cover an acre of land in water a foot deep. That’s 325,851 gallons, enough water to supply two to three households for a year.

Las Vegas relies on the Colorado River for 90% of its water, but recycling has consistently allowed Southern Nevada to use a lot less water than Nevada’s full allotment. Recycled water is returned to Lake Mead, and that is subtracted from the state’s “consumptive use” of the river. After all the math, Southern Nevada uses about two-thirds of its water allotment. Nevada is seen as a conservation and recycling model for other states to follow.

“This proposal is about moving from ideas to implementation,” John Entsminger, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), said in a statement included in the news release.

Advertisement

“It pairs real measurable water contributions with sensible dry-condition operations at Lake Powell and across the Upper Initial Units. Now is the time for every water user in the Basin to double down on water conservation as we face historically dry hydrology.”

John Entsminger, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. (KLAS)

The timing of the announcement comes as the federal government is working on a plan to replace a set of Colorado River rules that expire at the end of 2026. The three states behind the proposal, along with the four states in the Upper Colorado River Basin — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — were unable to reach a consensus agreement. That’s when the federal government said it would put its own plan in place.

The Upper Basin states are asking for mediation, but the new proposal addresses what Lower Basin states see as an urgent need for immediate action — from every state. “The Lower Basin states stand ready to engage in a meaningful process for long-term solutions while encouraging the Upper Basin to step forward now with verifiable water contributions to help stabilize the system and support a near-term, seven-state bridge,” the news release said.

Friday’s plan involves cuts from the Lower Basin states, but those are contingent on actions at Lake Powell and reservoirs farther up the river. Without federal backing, those upstream actions are unlikely to happen. The plan also asks for congressional funding to assist states in making changes.

A low water ring is seen around Hoover Dam on April 16, 2023, in Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Nevada. The flight for aerial photography was provided by LightHawk. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images)

“I think the scariest thing about this proposal is that we are hearing the top water officials on the Colorado River system talk about elevations of Lake Mead going to depths that we have never seen before,” Kyle Roerink, executive director of the Great Basin Water Network, told 8 News Now on Monday.

“It’s no surprise that the leadership of the Southern Nevada Water Authority played a big role in developing this because it focuses on conservation. And the conservation that we are seeing proposed is the type of thing that Las Vegas is built and ready to handle. It also signals that other communities are getting serious about this as well,” he said.

Advertisement

Roerink said Nevada can handle big cuts that are coming, but other states are far behind in adjusting to the realities of drier conditions.

“They’re manageable because we’ve taken on the challenge of turf removal, watering restrictions, septic tank removal, moratoriums on evaporative cooling and data centers. This is why we have the resiliency,” Roerink said.

While every state is conserving some amount of water, the Lower Basin states are doing the hard work of trying to come up with a plan, Roerink said. The Upper Basin hasn’t been a part of that. Instead, those states are “digging in their heels,” he said.

California is by far the biggest user of Colorado River water, which flows through pipes and channels to metro Los Angeles and farmland in the Imperial Valley.

“With this proposal, the Lower Basin is putting forth real action to stabilize water supply along the Colorado River. We’re putting forward additional measurable water contributions for the system. Without that, the system will continue to decline,” JB Hamby, chairman of the Colorado River Board of California, said.

Up to now, Arizona has taken the steepest cuts as the desert Southwest has struggled through a federally declared water shortage since 2022. Farmers in Arizona were the first to have their water supplies reduced.

Advertisement

Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, said the proposal reflects the creativity and commitment of water users across the Lower Basin. “We have shown that collaborative, voluntary efforts and reductions that are certain can produce meaningful water savings,” he said.

Roerink, who acknowledges that this year will likely be “one of the worst ever in recorded history in the Colorado River system,” said the plan from the Lower Basin states could go a long way in preventing hysteria. Making changes now could ensure that Lake Mead doesn’t drop to dangerous levels, he said.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Nevada

Viking preps 63-hole tungsten drilling blitz in Nevada

Published

on

Viking preps 63-hole tungsten drilling blitz in Nevada


Brought to you by BULLS N’ BEARS

Murray Ward

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending