Bill Overview
Title: Apex Area Technical Corrections Act
Description: This bill makes amendments to the Apex Project, Nevada Land Transfer and Authorization Act of 1989, which provided Clark County, Nevada, with the option to acquire certain federal land referred to as the Apex Site for use as sites for industries that generate hazardous materials (including the Kerr-McGee site). The Department of the Interior shall grant utility and transportation rights-of-way to the city of North Las Vegas and the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association for the connection of existing electric power, water, natural gas, telephone, railroad, and highway facilities to the Kerr-McGee site and the other lands conveyed in accordance with this bill. Interior shall also grant to the city of North Las Vegas and the Apex Industrial Owners Association such rights-of-way on public lands as may be necessary to support the development as a heavy use industrial zone of some or all of the lands authorized for sale by Interior within the Apex Site that lie outside the boundaries of the Kerr-McGee site. Transfers by the United States of any additional lands or interests in lands within the Apex Site or rights-of-way issued pursuant to this bill shall be conditioned upon compliance with applicable federal land laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The withdrawal of the lands within the Apex Site shall continue in perpetuity for all of the transferred lands.
Sponsors: Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in Clark County, Nevada
Estimated Size: 2300000
- The bill impacts the Apex Site in Clark County, Nevada, facilitating industrial development on previously federal lands.
- Individuals and communities around North Las Vegas may experience changes due to increased industrial activity, which could affect air quality, traffic, and local economies.
- Companies operating in and around the Kerr-McGee site, as well as their employees, will be directly affected through new rights-of-way for utilities and transportation.
- Residents of Nevada, particularly those in the Clark County area, could experience economic and environmental changes.
- The bill stipulates compliance with federal laws, which may provide checks on environmental impacts, thereby indirectly impacting communities concerned with environmental protection.
Reasoning
- We need to account for the diverse demographics present in North Las Vegas and surrounding areas, including differing levels of impact based on proximity to the industrial zone.
- Only certain subgroups such as industrial workers, local business owners, and environmental activists would experience significant effects from the policy.
- Considering the budgetary constraints in the first year, real effects may be limited to planning and initial setup costs rather than full-fledged industrial changes.
- The policy's environmental stipulations could mitigate the negative impacts to some extent, making some residents' wellbeing relatively stable.
- Given the localized nature of the policy's direct effects, many residents of Clark County will likely remain unaffected or see long-term rather than immediate impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Consultant (North Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the increased industrial activity leading to environmental degradation.
- Proper compliance with federal environmental laws must be enforced.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Construction Worker (North Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could mean more jobs and infrastructure improvements, which is good for me.
- I hope it helps improve local facilities and roads.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Henderson, Nevada)
Age: 57 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As long as it doesn't affect the local environment too much, I don't mind the changes.
- Economic growth can be beneficial but not if it spoils my peace.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased industrial activity might bring more people to the area, which could help my business.
- I'm concerned about potential increases in rent and traffic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Factory Worker (North Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could help modernize facilities, improving work conditions.
- Worried about potential environmental impacts on health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Teacher (Boulder City, Nevada)
Age: 52 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems focused on industrial areas, not sure how it affects education or my daily life.
- Hoping the policy has educational funding as a secondary effect.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Environmental Activist (North Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am wary of any policies that increase industrial activity without clear environmental safeguards.
- We need more green spaces, not more factories.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
City Planner (North Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy allows us to development more strategically.
- Our department needs sufficient budget to monitor compliance with environmental laws.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Real Estate Agent (Paradise, Nevada)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased industrial development could boost real estate in certain areas.
- Residential development might be impacted by perceived environmental risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Local Business Investor (North Las Vegas)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm looking at investing more if the infrastructure grows and population rises.
- Policy has potential, but execution must be careful to prevent overindustrializing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 3: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 100: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Key Considerations
- Environmental compliance and impact assessment might delay project timelines or increase costs.
- Strong community support and partnerships are vital to minimize opposition and streamline development processes.
- Potential economic growth through industrial development could enhance local employment and tax bases.