Red Rock swap

When the boundaries of national parks, conservation areas and other preserves are first established, some thought usually goes into creating “buffer zones.” Motorists thus enter the boundaries of the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone national parks miles and miles from the most scenic areas.

The old gypsum mine owned by developer Jim Rhodes on Blue Diamond Hill, overlooking Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area to the west of Las Vegas, lies outside the buffer zone created to preserve the scenic site.

Blue Diamond Hill is 2,600 acres of private land, and Mr. Rhodes should be free to develop it in any manner compatible with general planning and zoning rules. His most recent proposal – at a time when the valley is starved for construction work – includes 4,700 homes and space for businesses.

In alliance with elected officials, environmentalists have fought Mr. Rhodes’ proposals to build on his land since he first proposed developing the hill in 2003. When restrictions were put in place, Mr. Rhodes has sued – and won.

Clark County Commissioner Susan Brager proposes to break the impasse by trading Mr. Rhodes some comparable, developable federal land in exchange for the hill. On Tuesday, the County Commission voted to support such a swap. Ms. Brager says the next step is to enlist the support of Nevada’s congressional delegation and approach the federal Bureau of Land Management with the idea.

Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani was the sole vote against the proposal, expressing suspicion that a land swap had been Mr. Rhodes’ plan all along. After the meeting, Mr. Rhodes said the county approached him with the idea. Ms. Brager confirmed that. “Why buy a piece of property and wait 10 years for this?” Mr. Rhodes asked, noting that no one has even told him where the replacement land may be.

Under the resolution, his land, including the gypsum mine on the site, would become part of the conservation area.

If all parties are happy with the swap, fine. The next challenge will be establishing comparable value between dissimilar parcels. Mr. Rhodes will doubtless point out what he could charge for large homes with views of the city and Red Rock Canyon. Federal negotiators, clinging to their misguided “no net loss of federal acreage” doctrine, likely will respond that installing infrastructure on an old mining site would have been a high-cost, years-long venture. They’ll want the developer to accept land with an equal or smaller footprint.

Private developers can usually take care of themselves in such negotiations. But the ultimate goal here should be boosting local development, jobs and property tax rolls by sharply reducing Nevada acreage controlled by the federal government. If accomplishing this also satisfies the folks who believe more home construction will spoil Red Rock Canyon, then it’s a win for everyone.

Nevada’s congressional delegation should get to work and make it all happen.