Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition
Report on Nevadans’ Priorities and Opinions on Affordable Housing, Public Transportation, Extreme Heat, and Water
Prepared by Public Communication Initiative, housed in UNLV’s Greenspun College of Urban Affairs.
Written by Dr. Emma Frances Bloomfield, Rachel J. Wuester, and Alexa B. Romero
Spring 2025
Table of Contents
Affordable Housing
Survey-takers predominantly lived with family (520 respondents, 48.6%), while 26.9% (288 respondents) were renters and 15.5% (166 respondents) were homeowners.5 Affordable housing was by far survey-takers’ number one priority, with 43.9% of respondents (470) listing it first out of the four topics. Many respondents shared hardships they have endured because of issues with affordable housing. These concerns included rent increases, rising utility costs in the summer, and concerns about being able to potentially own a home in the future.
Many survey and listening session participants shared growing concerns about the rise of rent and housing prices, saying that they have “increased dramatically,” “skyrocketed,” and are “way too expensive.” The survey defined “utility costs” as electricity, gas, and water bills. 18% of respondents (53) reported paying more than $400 per month in the summer for utilities, 40.7% (120) reported paying between $201-$400 monthly for their monthly summer utility bills, and 34.6% (102) reported paying $200 or less monthly.6 This issue was prevalent across the state. A Humboldt County survey respondent shared, “It is hard to find affordable housing” (89445). Meanwhile, a Washoe County survey participant stated that “rent has increased dramatically in 5 years” (89523). A Clark County listening session participant shared a similar thought, noting, “From experience, rent has risen after the pandemic…they raised my rent to $300 more from $1400 to $1700 per month” (December 4, 2023). Another Clark County listening session participant shared a more extreme jump in their rent, stating that their “two-bedroom doubled from $1,000 to $2,000 in four years” (February 21, 2024).
The issue of rising rent costs is further exacerbated by many residents’ inability to do anything to change their situation. One survey respondent wrote, “We had to give up our home because it was getting to[o] expensive and we had to choose between my moms [sic] health or being able to pay rent on time” (Clark County, 89102). Another survey respondent shared a related issue, writing, “Sometimes I have to choose between paying rent or getting groceries” (Clark County, 89122). One respondent from Yerington stated that residents were often stuck in a difficult situation because: “People here can barely afford rent or house payment so not taking care of yards and homes depreciates property values and people leave to find better communities” (February 26, 2024). These responses reinforce the challenge of affordability while showing that solutions, especially for more vulnerable populations are limited.
Five survey respondents explicitly wrote that the cost to buy or rent has outpaced minimum wage. For example, one wrote, “Rent has increased way too much and not evenly with income and minimum wage pay. Its unaffordable and is a hard ship” (Clark County, 89147). Rural Nevadans also related to this sentiment, with one Churchill County resident stating, “The cost to buy homes and the towns minimum wage isn’t enough to afford to buy a home or let alone afford the income requirements to rent a home and the available homes to rent” (89406). This gap between minimum wage and housing affordability was described as unduly impacting vulnerable Nevadans who were then even more at risk of being unhoused.
The issue of rising rent costs is further exacerbated by many residents’ inability to do anything to change their situation. One survey respondent wrote, “We had to give up our home because it was getting to[o] expensive and we had to choose between my moms [sic] health or being able to pay rent on time” (Clark County, 89102). Another survey respondent shared a related issue, writing, “Sometimes I have to choose between paying rent or getting groceries” (Clark County, 89122). One respondent from Yerington stated that residents were often stuck in a difficult situation because: “People here can barely afford rent or house payment so not taking care of yards and homes depreciates property values and people leave to find better communities” (February 26, 2024). These responses reinforce the challenge of affordability while showing that solutions, especially for more vulnerable populations are limited.
Five survey respondents explicitly wrote that the cost to buy or rent has outpaced minimum wage. For example, one wrote, “Rent has increased way too much and not evenly with income and minimum wage pay. Its unaffordable and is a hard ship” (Clark County, 89147). Rural Nevadans also related to this sentiment, with one Churchill County resident stating, “The cost to buy homes and the towns minimum wage isn’t enough to afford to buy a home or let alone afford the income requirements to rent a home and the available homes to rent” (89406). This gap between minimum wage and housing affordability was described as unduly impacting vulnerable Nevadans who were then even more at risk of being unhoused.
- (5) 4.2% of respondents (45) selected “other” for their living situation and wrote that they were living in a dorm or were unhoused.
- (6) Only 275 responses were included in this calculation because the word “monthly” was added to the survey question on April 9, 2024. Before then, we cannot distinguish in the data between respondents who selected their monthly or full summer utility expenses.
A related issue for individuals were the hikes in utility prices during the summer months. The issue of summer utility costs is compounded because “The rate of utility cost is so high” (White Pine County, 89315). Many respondents shared that, at times, paying their utility bills came at the cost of buying groceries and other essentials. Survey-takers were asked whether they ever had to cut back on groceries or other essentials due to utility costs. 50.4% (539 respondents) reported that they had, while 44.7% (478 respondents) reported that they had not. Rising summer utility costs were especially apparent in Clark County responses. One listening session participant shared that they were thinking of dating again so that they could share their electricity bill (Clark County, March 13, 2024). A survey respondent wrote that their electricity is often turned off every summer and consequently, “Food can go bad [and] there’s no access to lights” for their family (Clark County, 89122).
A few respondents specifically commented on air conditioning bills, with one noting, “my utilities cost get[s] higher each year,” and even when they turn the AC completely off “to hopefully minimize costs, [I] still get expensive bills” (Clark County, 89141). Relatedly, a listening session participant shared a story about ways they keep cool, stating that they “keep bottles of water in the freezer and put them in my bed at night to cool down the mattress” (Clark County, April 3, 2024). Although this method works for the participant, continuing to do so or running out of money to continue this method could potentially lead to more dire consequences during the summer heat. Additionally, respondents often reported experiences of fear and anxiety surrounding their air conditioning lasting through the heat stating, “The air conditioning in my home worked overtime, and I was constantly worried about it breaking down” (Clark County, 89104) and another was worried about “the cost of cooling the house, making sure the AC doesn’t break” (Clark County, 89015).
These increases in utility costs during the summer forces many households to spend more money or to find alternative ways to stay cool, often at the expense of their comfort, safety, or financial stability, highlighting the need for more accessible and affordable cooling solutions in the summer.
Rent and utility costs were growing concerns for Nevada residents, but another worry was being scared they would never be able to afford a house in Nevada in the future. One respondent reported feeling “scared” to move out of their family home due to increased prices (Clark County, 89031). In a listening session, one participant noted that young adults were in an especially difficult situation stating, “On top of student loans, college students can’t afford to work a full time job and pay rent with roommates” (Clark County, November 8, 2023). Similarly a listening session participant from Clark County explained that, “I think it’s harder. I foster kids and raise teens. It’s harder to [get] them out of my house. Not because they don’t want to leave. They move out in a shack for $2k per month” (April 3, 2024).
Other survey respondents echoed the lack of availability of affordable housing options due to “private companies … buying hundreds of houses at once” and taking them off the market (Clark County, 89122). In particular, survey respondents discussed how “locals are being pushed out” (Washoe County, 89502) by new “out-of-state residents” (Churchill County, 89406) who are able to pay more and thus inflate the cost of housing. One respondent discussed that “Las Vegas housing is not affordable with entry level jobs. This economy … does not support single or single parent households (Clark County, 89121).
Those who were able to find affordable housing lamented that the quality was poor, using words such as “subpar” (Churchill County, 89406) and “decrepit” (Washoe County, 89502). As one participant from Clark County stated, “Affordable housing is unlivable” (April 3, 2024). As a whole, residents are ultimately scared and feel uncertain about the future as a result of housing issues.
In terms of who is affected more, “rural and frontier communities” were hard-hit by having limited incomes compared to urban Nevadans (Churchill County, 89406). One respondent specifically mentioned “immigrant households” needing to live together because they cannot afford multiple homes on limited funds (Clark County, 89015). Even though multiple-family residences can only be a cultural norm, this respondent also spoke about the practice being necessary in order to save money.
Water
The survey defined “reliable drinking water” as clean and safe drinking water that is accessible when everyone needs it. Water was ranked as the second-highest priority among respondents, with 24.1% (258) selecting it as their top concern.
Survey participants expressed widespread concern, alarm, and pessimism about water availability, with 53.2% (569) feeling somewhat or strongly concerned. Meanwhile, 18.4% (197) were neutral or indifferent about water availability, and only 18.9% (202) were somewhat or strongly positive and optimistic. Additionally, 40.6% of respondents (434) felt that Nevada is running out of reliable drinking water, while 13.5% (144) reported believing that the state is not, and 36.4% (389) were unsure.
Many survey respondents feared that water availability in the state could not “keep up” with population growth, with one respondent warning that, “exponential growth with communities threaten our water supply” (Washoe County, 89441) while another wrote, “There is not enough water locally for the population growth” (Clark County, 89052). This fear extended into long-term viability of living in the state, with one respondent writing that, “We are running out of water and need other resources” (Clark County, 89148). In fact, one participant explicitly noted, “There is definitely a level of uncertainty of water shortage in the near future” (Clark County, 89031). While some survey participants mentioned that Nevada already engages in strong water conservation practices, others had intense concerns about waste and misuse, particularly by industries and neighboring states.
Many survey respondents feared that water availability in the state could not “keep up” with population growth, with one respondent warning that, “exponential growth with communities threaten our water supply” (Washoe County, 89441) while another wrote, “There is not enough water locally for the population growth” (Clark County, 89052). This fear extended into long-term viability of living in the state, with one respondent writing that, “We are running out of water and need other resources” (Clark County, 89148). In fact, one participant explicitly noted, “There is definitely a level of uncertainty of water shortage in the near future” (Clark County, 89031). While some survey participants mentioned that Nevada already engages in strong water conservation practices, others had intense concerns about waste and misuse, particularly by industries and neighboring states.
Many survey respondents pointed to industries such as mining as a key contributor to water shortages. One participant noted, “the mining industry is pumping and abusing water in the north in large scales” (Washoe County, 89523). Another wrote, “bringing back mining in a big way (uses significant water and is a huge pollutant)” (Washoe County, 89502). Others blamed neighboring states, particularly Arizona and California, for taking more than their fair share of water from the Colorado River. One survey respondent wrote, “I do believe we are running out of water because of all the states that also use the Colorado River” (Clark County, 89138), and another added, “As time goes on, the Colorado River has less water available for Nevada, especially considering our split of water received is less than that of other states” (Clark County, 89123).
Other participants focused on wasteful landscaping practices, such as overwatering, public medians, or the excessive use of water by golf courses. One respondent declared, “Expansive golf courses that take up gallons to maintain, the opulent water features meant for tourists to ooh and ahh at, don’t serve the average Nevadan” (Clark County, 89113). Agricultural water use was also a major concern, particularly among northern Nevada residents, where prior appropriation laws required farmers to use their allocated water or risk losing their rights. One listening session participant explained, “The problem is the farmers in NN [northern Nevada] are on prior appropriation and are on a use it or lose it system. My main concern is them using a lot of water” (Clark County, February 21, 2024). Another participant in the same session pointed specifically to water-intensive crops: “Agriculture is one of the largest contributors to the water crisis. Especially alfalfa farming. Maybe we could not farm as much water intensive crops” (Clark County, February 21, 2024).
Other participants focused on wasteful landscaping practices, such as overwatering, public medians, or the excessive use of water by golf courses. One respondent declared, “Expansive golf courses that take up gallons to maintain, the opulent water features meant for tourists to ooh and ahh at, don’t serve the average Nevadan” (Clark County, 89113). Agricultural water use was also a major concern, particularly among northern Nevada residents, where prior appropriation laws required farmers to use their allocated water or risk losing their rights. One listening session participant explained, “The problem is the farmers in NN [northern Nevada] are on prior appropriation and are on a use it or lose it system. My main concern is them using a lot of water” (Clark County, February 21, 2024). Another participant in the same session pointed specifically to water-intensive crops: “Agriculture is one of the largest contributors to the water crisis. Especially alfalfa farming. Maybe we could not farm as much water intensive crops” (Clark County, February 21, 2024).
Beyond scarcity, respondents also raised concerns about water quality. One respondent noted that once “clear” mountain water “reached rural farm lands,” it can become “murky and green” from toxins, causing people to have an “allergic reaction” to what is in the water (Churchill County, 89406). Others pointed to issues with hard water stating, “It doesn’t taste like [it] is safe” (Washoe County, 89512), “we have significant arsenic and other toxic chemicals in the water” (Churchill County, 89406), and “I do not trust Nevada’s tap water and do not drink it personally”(Clark County, 89138). Together these quotes highlight how even with the resources that are available, water is still a concern.
Survey respondents were asked to select from a list who they felt is responsible for ensuring Nevadans have a sustainable drinking water source for the long-term future.7 734 respondents (68.6%) marked State elected officials as responsible, 716 (66.9%) marked the federal government, 671 (62.7%) marked water utilities, 597 (55.8%) marked local community/municipality, 504 (47.1%) marked large businesses and corporations, 417 (39%) marked “you, yourself, as an individual,” and 371 (34.7%) marked “ordinary Nevadans.”
- 7 Most respondents selected more than one answer for who is responsible, meaning that the total number of responses exceeds the total number of respondents.
The uncertainty surrounding Nevada’s water future evoked strong emotional responses from survey participants. Some expressed frustration and fear, such as one listening session participant who explicitly stated, “I’m scared and I’m angry and frustrated…I’m pissed!” (Clark County, February 29, 2024). Others conveyed their concerns more implicitly, with one respondent stating, “How we’re using water, we need to conserve a lot more. All the politicians think about is money. They need to be more considerate of our environment here” (Lyon County, February 26, 2024). A survey respondent from Clark County summed up the urgency of the issue with the desperate plea: “WE NEEEEEEED TO SAVE WATER NOOOOOOOW” (89119, emphasis as written).
Overall, the survey revealed that while water conservation efforts are appreciated, many Nevadans remain deeply concerned about the future of the state’s water supply. The combination of scarcity, inequitable distribution, quality concerns, and uncertainty about long-term sustainability has left residents feeling frustrated, anxious, and, in some cases, hopeless. Addressing these concerns will require systemic changes that balance conservation efforts, economic interests, and the basic needs of all Nevadans.
Overall, the survey revealed that while water conservation efforts are appreciated, many Nevadans remain deeply concerned about the future of the state’s water supply. The combination of scarcity, inequitable distribution, quality concerns, and uncertainty about long-term sustainability has left residents feeling frustrated, anxious, and, in some cases, hopeless. Addressing these concerns will require systemic changes that balance conservation efforts, economic interests, and the basic needs of all Nevadans.
- 7 Most respondents selected more than one answer for who is responsible, meaning that the total number of responses exceeds the total number of respondents.
Public Transportation
The survey defined “public transportation” as buses or RTC on-demand services and excluded ride-share services like Uber or Lyft. A majority of survey respondents did not use public transportation, with 56.8% (608 respondents) reporting that they “never” use public transportation. Only 8.6% of respondents (92) reported using public transportation daily, while 10.1% (108 respondents) use it once or multiple times a week, 2.7% (29 respondents) monthly, and 10.7% (115 respondents) less than once per month.8 11.3% of respondents (105) listed public transportation as their number 1 priority, making it the third highest priority after affordable housing and water for survey-takers.
- (8) 3.3% of respondents (35) noted that public transit is not available or accessible where they live.
- (9) Roughly equal percentages of respondents ranked public transportation as a top priority. In other words, the frequency of a respondent’s public transportation use did not seem to influence the ranking. 11.4% of respondents (9) who use public transportation daily listed it as their number one priority. Respondents who used public transportation “never” or wrote that it was not accessible to them listed public transportation as their number 1 priority at 13.8% and 17.1%, respectively. Presumably, respondents who use public transportation a lot consider it a priority, but also those who use it less or do not have it available to them also feel it is a priority to make public transportation more accessible.
19.3% of survey respondents (207) reported that public transit always or often meets their commuting needs, while 18.3% (196) reported sometimes, 15% (161) responded rarely, and 33.9% (363) responded never. A repeated comment was that public transportation was not reliable, so people had to make use of other options. For example, one survey respondent wrote that they now carpool to work because they could not “rely on using [public transportation] daily” (Clark County, 89131).
One respondent wrote that the buses are only reliable “on the Strip,” but the farther out one goes they are “unreliable” (Clark County, 89052). This respondent consequently concludes that public transport is built for tourists and not for locals. In addition to unaligned priorities, respondents also discussed issues with bus arrival times. For example, one participant from Clark County wrote that “buses are often early to their stops and leave early causing people to miss the bus” (89102). Conversely, other participants complained about delays that impacted their ability to use public transit for work and necessities. One respondent wrote that they do not use public transportation because “the bus is always late” (Clark County, 89031). While most respondents noted that they do not use public transit regularly, 17.6% of respondents (188) reported that having to rely on public transit limits their job opportunities or daily activities.
Overall, a quarter of survey respondents (24.9%, 267) had a positive or somewhat positive view of public transportation. Some respondents praised RTC’s “game day services,” which provide specific routes to Las Vegas athletic events, and the “transit app … to help me get to my destination” (Clark County, 89119). However, the remaining participants, 39.5% (423 respondents), had a neutral/indifferent view of public transit, and 27% (289), a somewhat negative or negative view.
One respondent wrote that the buses are only reliable “on the Strip,” but the farther out one goes they are “unreliable” (Clark County, 89052). This respondent consequently concludes that public transport is built for tourists and not for locals. In addition to unaligned priorities, respondents also discussed issues with bus arrival times. For example, one participant from Clark County wrote that “buses are often early to their stops and leave early causing people to miss the bus” (89102). Conversely, other participants complained about delays that impacted their ability to use public transit for work and necessities. One respondent wrote that they do not use public transportation because “the bus is always late” (Clark County, 89031). While most respondents noted that they do not use public transit regularly, 17.6% of respondents (188) reported that having to rely on public transit limits their job opportunities or daily activities.
Overall, a quarter of survey respondents (24.9%, 267) had a positive or somewhat positive view of public transportation. Some respondents praised RTC’s “game day services,” which provide specific routes to Las Vegas athletic events, and the “transit app … to help me get to my destination” (Clark County, 89119). However, the remaining participants, 39.5% (423 respondents), had a neutral/indifferent view of public transit, and 27% (289), a somewhat negative or negative view.
Many respondents expressed a strong desire to use public transportation but felt that the routes were not expansive enough to cover travel needs. One Nevadan from Clark County wrote, “I want to take public transportation!” but the service “does not meet my needs” (89031). Others pointed to significant gaps in availability, particularly in rural and suburban areas. A respondent from a “very rural” location noted that even when transportation should be available, “there’s no bus,” implying that routes are either unreliable or not consistently followed (Churchill County, 89406). Another rural resident emphasized that “public transportation in rural areas is almost non-existent” and having a personal form of transportation is especially necessary as “…the closest town is over 60 miles away” (Churchill County, 89406).
Beyond geographic limitations, respondents also raised concerns about transit availability at different times of the day. Some areas, even within large cities such as Las Vegas, experience restricted service hours, leading one participant to state, “I feel like I’m being punished… because buses don’t run late at night. Why can’t we get around 24 hours a day?” (Clark County, February 29, 2024). Others pointed to the long distance between bus stops and residential areas as a major detriment. One listening session participant shared, “I used to live on Lake Mead and Hollywood, so I’d have to walk 40 minutes to use the bus. I didn’t want to walk and had to use Uber” (Clark County, March 14, 2024).
When using public transportation, inefficient routes and long travel times remain a major frustration. One survey respondent questioned why it should take “an hour to go 10 minutes,” underscoring how public transportation can significantly extend travel times compared to driving (Washoe, 89523). Another survey respondent echoed this concern, explaining that because of their location, “bus rides are an hour or more to get from one place to another” (Clark County, 89122).
Accessibility concerns extended beyond geography and scheduling to include the needs of disabled riders. Some respondents with physical disabilities noted difficulties in planning their transportation, as one paratransit user at a community listening session explained, “Sometimes, I’m really bad at making my paratransit transportation more than 24 hours in advance so I unfortunately have to use RTC. While I’m so appreciative of the services, there are lots of changes I’d like to see happen” (Clark County, February 29, 2024). Others with sensory sensitivities voiced concerns about the unpredictability and noise of public transportation, with one listening session participant sharing, “I have autism and I have sensory issues. Public transit is really loud and unpredictable and stressful. I would rather take it but instead I drive” (Clark County, February 21, 2024).
Despite some positive views on public transportation, the number of negative comments highlighted significant barriers related to accessibility, efficiency, and reliability. Whether due to geographic isolation, long travel times, limited service hours, or accessibility challenges, many respondents found public transportation insufficient for their needs, reinforcing the necessity of structural improvements to better serve the community.
Beyond geographic limitations, respondents also raised concerns about transit availability at different times of the day. Some areas, even within large cities such as Las Vegas, experience restricted service hours, leading one participant to state, “I feel like I’m being punished… because buses don’t run late at night. Why can’t we get around 24 hours a day?” (Clark County, February 29, 2024). Others pointed to the long distance between bus stops and residential areas as a major detriment. One listening session participant shared, “I used to live on Lake Mead and Hollywood, so I’d have to walk 40 minutes to use the bus. I didn’t want to walk and had to use Uber” (Clark County, March 14, 2024).
When using public transportation, inefficient routes and long travel times remain a major frustration. One survey respondent questioned why it should take “an hour to go 10 minutes,” underscoring how public transportation can significantly extend travel times compared to driving (Washoe, 89523). Another survey respondent echoed this concern, explaining that because of their location, “bus rides are an hour or more to get from one place to another” (Clark County, 89122).
Accessibility concerns extended beyond geography and scheduling to include the needs of disabled riders. Some respondents with physical disabilities noted difficulties in planning their transportation, as one paratransit user at a community listening session explained, “Sometimes, I’m really bad at making my paratransit transportation more than 24 hours in advance so I unfortunately have to use RTC. While I’m so appreciative of the services, there are lots of changes I’d like to see happen” (Clark County, February 29, 2024). Others with sensory sensitivities voiced concerns about the unpredictability and noise of public transportation, with one listening session participant sharing, “I have autism and I have sensory issues. Public transit is really loud and unpredictable and stressful. I would rather take it but instead I drive” (Clark County, February 21, 2024).
Despite some positive views on public transportation, the number of negative comments highlighted significant barriers related to accessibility, efficiency, and reliability. Whether due to geographic isolation, long travel times, limited service hours, or accessibility challenges, many respondents found public transportation insufficient for their needs, reinforcing the necessity of structural improvements to better serve the community.
Safety concerns were also a recurring theme among respondents, with many expressing that public transportation is “not safe” (Clark County, 89131) and that “the atmosphere isn’t usually the safest, especially at night” (Clark County, 89012). While some participants did not specify the reasons for their unease, others pointed to fights breaking out on the bus, inebriated individuals, and unhoused populations using the bus.
Safety was also a gendered issue, with women in particular voicing concerns about harassment and vulnerability while using public transportation. One respondent explicitly stated she did not feel safe “as a woman,” suggesting the presence of gender-based harassment (Clark County, 89147). Another participant, speaking on behalf of his girlfriend, shared that she was unable to attend the listening session because “the bus wouldn’t have been able to take her. She doesn’t feel safe taking the bus at night” (Clark County, February 21, 2024). Other women echoed similar fears, describing experiences of hugging their backpacks tightly while riding at night or relying on friends, Uber, or Lyft instead of public transportation. In particular, one young woman noted, “As a young gal, it’s scary taking the bus at night… My boyfriend takes [the bus] later at night and has shared safety stories with me. Someone’s beating someone up and it’s scary” (Clark County, February 29, 2024).
Respondents also highlighted broader safety risks associated with taking public transportation. A lack of bus stops often necessitated walking in unsafe conditions, with one survey respondent commenting that “pedestrian walking is dangerous” (Clark County, 89122). Others cited discomfort due to the presence of the unhoused population, particularly in downtown areas, and inebriated individuals on or near the bus. One listening session participant explained, “Things that make me feel unsafe are downtown where people have been drinking or they are an unhoused population, making snap judgements, and they’re looking at my stop” (Clark County, February 29, 2024). Another listening session participant simply stated that public transportation felt “unsafe due to unhoused and drunk people” (Clark County, April 3, 2024). These concerns suggest that perceptions of safety on public transit are shaped by both personal identity and the surrounding social environment, reinforcing the complexity of the issue.
Safety was also a gendered issue, with women in particular voicing concerns about harassment and vulnerability while using public transportation. One respondent explicitly stated she did not feel safe “as a woman,” suggesting the presence of gender-based harassment (Clark County, 89147). Another participant, speaking on behalf of his girlfriend, shared that she was unable to attend the listening session because “the bus wouldn’t have been able to take her. She doesn’t feel safe taking the bus at night” (Clark County, February 21, 2024). Other women echoed similar fears, describing experiences of hugging their backpacks tightly while riding at night or relying on friends, Uber, or Lyft instead of public transportation. In particular, one young woman noted, “As a young gal, it’s scary taking the bus at night… My boyfriend takes [the bus] later at night and has shared safety stories with me. Someone’s beating someone up and it’s scary” (Clark County, February 29, 2024).
Respondents also highlighted broader safety risks associated with taking public transportation. A lack of bus stops often necessitated walking in unsafe conditions, with one survey respondent commenting that “pedestrian walking is dangerous” (Clark County, 89122). Others cited discomfort due to the presence of the unhoused population, particularly in downtown areas, and inebriated individuals on or near the bus. One listening session participant explained, “Things that make me feel unsafe are downtown where people have been drinking or they are an unhoused population, making snap judgements, and they’re looking at my stop” (Clark County, February 29, 2024). Another listening session participant simply stated that public transportation felt “unsafe due to unhoused and drunk people” (Clark County, April 3, 2024). These concerns suggest that perceptions of safety on public transit are shaped by both personal identity and the surrounding social environment, reinforcing the complexity of the issue.
Extreme Heat
The survey defined extreme heat as “days when the outdoor temperature exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit.” Only 9.8% of respondents (105) listed heat as their number 1 priority, making it the last priority compared to affordable housing, public transportation, and water. Despite this low ranking, heat was consistently reported as an issue for people’s physical and mental health, daily routines, and finances.
42.1% of survey-takers (450) reported that extreme heat had caused health problems for themselves or someone in their household. Survey takers noted health risks such as dehydration, sunburn, heat exhaustion, dizziness and fainting, heat stroke, heart palpitations, heat poisoning, difficulty breathing, headaches, and skin cancer. Many participants in the listening sessions echoed the survey takers’ experiences. One Clark County listening session participant mentioned they get frequent nose bleeds due to the dry heat in the summer (April 3, 2024), while another participant stated that they had been “severely dehydrated to the point where I need to seek out medical assistance” (March 1, 2024). A few survey respondents mentioned that they or a family member has epilepsy, for which extreme heat can trigger seizures.10 A survey respondent from Clark County noted that the heat impacts “our ability to function” (89104), while a Washoe County resident wrote, “If there is a heat wave coupled by a power outage, people will die” (89509).
In terms of mental health, respondents discussed how heat can lead people to get “temperamental” because they are stuck inside all day (89148). One Clark County survey respondent noted, “Summer is claustrophobic – always indoors” (89144). Another Clark County respondent wrote, “The elevation of heat drastically changes the mood in my household because it doesn’t allow people to be able to self regulate as it would be if it were to be colder outside” (89011).
In terms of mental health, respondents discussed how heat can lead people to get “temperamental” because they are stuck inside all day (89148). One Clark County survey respondent noted, “Summer is claustrophobic – always indoors” (89144). Another Clark County respondent wrote, “The elevation of heat drastically changes the mood in my household because it doesn’t allow people to be able to self regulate as it would be if it were to be colder outside” (89011).
- (10) See https://www.nationalepilepsytraining.co.uk/temperature-induced-seizures/ for more information on the relationship between temperature and seizures.
In addition to physical and mental effects, one of the primary ways heat impacted Nevadans was disruptions to their daily routines and ability to work. 31.1% of survey-takers (333) reported that heat has impacted their ability to work. 21.8% of survey respondents (233) reported that they work outdoors and their employers provide heat protections (defined in the survey as water breaks, shade, education/training on the signs of heat-related illness and injuries, or other means of protection). However, some workplaces do not enforce these protections, with one Clark County listening session resident sharing that they work for a construction company, and the people there, “give us training at my company on heat-related stuff, but people don’t listen. The booklets are there, but unfortunately, people don’t listen” (December 4, 2023). 8.7% of respondents (93) reported that they work outdoors and do not receive the listed protections from their employers. One Clark County listening session participant said they worry about the construction workers in their immigrant family, stating that “Every time it gets hot we worry about them fainting or not getting breaks at work” (April 3, 2024).
In addition to work, participants’ also worried about the heat impacting their vehicles and transportation. A few respondents mentioned the difficulty in using public transportation when it’s hot. For example, one respondent wrote that the “hardest time” to use public transportation is during the summer “because the heat waves are so threatening for our health” (translated from Spanish, Clark County, 89109). Another respondent echoed these concerns stating that the buses are difficult to use “when it’s hot,” because of the need to walk and wait outside (Clark County, 89144). A Clark County resident went on to write how, “lots of stops for public transportation don’t have shaded areas which seems like a necessity in Nevada” (89123). Personal vehicles were also cited as being difficult to use during the summer. For example, some survey respondents mentioned how the heat affects vehicles, with one stating, “The inside of my car is unbearable and the seat belt has caused burns” (Clark County, 89102). Another noted, “I worry that the car overheats” (Clark County, 88901). Whether public or private, Nevadans’ mode of transportation is often a concern due to the extreme heat.
Participants have noted having to avoid the outdoors altogether. A Clark County resident said in a listening session that extreme heat comes at the cost of recreational activities for their family, stating that, “I take care of my nephew during the summer time, there’s really nothing I can do to keep him engaged because it’s too hot outside” (February 29, 2024). Additionally, one listening session participant in Clark County warned to “check on your elders. A lot of us don’t go outside until night time” (April 3, 2024). Together, these responses highlight how people often must change their daily routines due to the extreme heat, going as far as staying inside and not leaving the house. However, as noted above, sometimes this option is not available as many people have jobs and other responsibilities which require them to go outdoors in the heat.
In addition to work, participants’ also worried about the heat impacting their vehicles and transportation. A few respondents mentioned the difficulty in using public transportation when it’s hot. For example, one respondent wrote that the “hardest time” to use public transportation is during the summer “because the heat waves are so threatening for our health” (translated from Spanish, Clark County, 89109). Another respondent echoed these concerns stating that the buses are difficult to use “when it’s hot,” because of the need to walk and wait outside (Clark County, 89144). A Clark County resident went on to write how, “lots of stops for public transportation don’t have shaded areas which seems like a necessity in Nevada” (89123). Personal vehicles were also cited as being difficult to use during the summer. For example, some survey respondents mentioned how the heat affects vehicles, with one stating, “The inside of my car is unbearable and the seat belt has caused burns” (Clark County, 89102). Another noted, “I worry that the car overheats” (Clark County, 88901). Whether public or private, Nevadans’ mode of transportation is often a concern due to the extreme heat.
Participants have noted having to avoid the outdoors altogether. A Clark County resident said in a listening session that extreme heat comes at the cost of recreational activities for their family, stating that, “I take care of my nephew during the summer time, there’s really nothing I can do to keep him engaged because it’s too hot outside” (February 29, 2024). Additionally, one listening session participant in Clark County warned to “check on your elders. A lot of us don’t go outside until night time” (April 3, 2024). Together, these responses highlight how people often must change their daily routines due to the extreme heat, going as far as staying inside and not leaving the house. However, as noted above, sometimes this option is not available as many people have jobs and other responsibilities which require them to go outdoors in the heat.
Many participants also expressed concerns for children and navigating school during the summer. One Clark County survey respondent worried about their daughter “getting heat exhaustion” on her way to school and that “there’s nowhere for kids to play” (89144). Another participant from a Clark County listening session stated that both her and her daughter suffered from the heat as “I had a heat-related illness last summer. My daughter walking from school at 16 years old came home feeling dizzy and agitated the day the bus didn’t make it to their school” (December 20.6% of survey respondents (220) reported that heat has impacted their own ability to go to school.
Participants often spoke about having to attend class during the summer or walking to and from the school bus stop in the heat. For example, one survey respondent wrote, “My top concerns are for the younger members in my family who leave school at later times when the heat tends to be the highest. Especially since the school is at a walking distance from the house, this can mean that they are interacting with high heat levels” (Clark County, 89031).
Lastly, survey-takers expressed concerns for their pets, noting that the extreme heat is “dangerous for pets” and that the sidewalks can “burn my dog’s paws” (Clark County, 89014). One participant recommended specific times to walk their dogs, writing, “If you have pets only walk them in the morning or after the sun goes down, or they need dog shoes. Stay hydrated” (Clark County, 89123). Other participants discussed trying to balance higher bills to keep their pets comfortable when they were not home as they often worried about “ensuring safety of our pets & keeping up with power bills” (Clark County, 89166).
Overall, while extreme heat was ranked as a low concern among survey respondents, its effects on healthy, daily life, and community well-being were undeniable. From health risks to disrupted routines, the burden of heat is widespread yet uneven as seen in particular concerns for outdoor workers, elderly, young people, and pets. While some participants noted staying indoors or in the shade as a way to cope, addressing extreme heat is complex, requiring not just infrastructure and policy changes, but also equity-driven solutions that prioritize vulnerable populations.
Participants often spoke about having to attend class during the summer or walking to and from the school bus stop in the heat. For example, one survey respondent wrote, “My top concerns are for the younger members in my family who leave school at later times when the heat tends to be the highest. Especially since the school is at a walking distance from the house, this can mean that they are interacting with high heat levels” (Clark County, 89031).
Lastly, survey-takers expressed concerns for their pets, noting that the extreme heat is “dangerous for pets” and that the sidewalks can “burn my dog’s paws” (Clark County, 89014). One participant recommended specific times to walk their dogs, writing, “If you have pets only walk them in the morning or after the sun goes down, or they need dog shoes. Stay hydrated” (Clark County, 89123). Other participants discussed trying to balance higher bills to keep their pets comfortable when they were not home as they often worried about “ensuring safety of our pets & keeping up with power bills” (Clark County, 89166).
Overall, while extreme heat was ranked as a low concern among survey respondents, its effects on healthy, daily life, and community well-being were undeniable. From health risks to disrupted routines, the burden of heat is widespread yet uneven as seen in particular concerns for outdoor workers, elderly, young people, and pets. While some participants noted staying indoors or in the shade as a way to cope, addressing extreme heat is complex, requiring not just infrastructure and policy changes, but also equity-driven solutions that prioritize vulnerable populations.
Rural and Urban Similarities and Differences
One of the initiatives NEJC hoped to analyze was the similarities and differences between urban and rural counties across Nevada. For the purposes of this comparison, Clark and Washoe Counties are considered urban counties and the remaining counties in Nevada are considered rural counties. This section breaks down urban and rural community inputs across the four themes.
Rural and urban Nevadan populations shared similar concerns regarding affordable housing; namely, Nevadans shared that access to affordable housing is difficult. One Fallon resident shared that it’s “nearly impossible to find affordable housing. Need to pull 2 jobs minimum to support a household” (February 27, 2024), while another person shared that they “don’t know if [they will] ever own a home in Fallon” despite having what is typically considered a ‘good’ paying job (February 27, 2024).
A Pahrump resident summarized the issue by saying, “affordable housing is a critical need. Especially in rural areas” (Nye County, 89060). These responses highlight the similarities that rural and urban Nevada communities are facing regarding affordable housing. The similarities suggest that, unlike the other three areas of concern, barriers to affordable housing, including rising costs, access to affordable homes, and the increase of luxury housing, are affecting people across populations in Nevada. Consequently, issues of affordable housing are a statewide issue rather than just an urban or rural problem.
A Pahrump resident summarized the issue by saying, “affordable housing is a critical need. Especially in rural areas” (Nye County, 89060). These responses highlight the similarities that rural and urban Nevada communities are facing regarding affordable housing. The similarities suggest that, unlike the other three areas of concern, barriers to affordable housing, including rising costs, access to affordable homes, and the increase of luxury housing, are affecting people across populations in Nevada. Consequently, issues of affordable housing are a statewide issue rather than just an urban or rural problem.
Water concerns varied by region, with Las Vegas residents often blaming large corporations, neighboring states, or landscaping practices. Participants, particularly in southern Nevada, criticized the disproportionate water use of casinos and resorts, with one respondent arguing, “They save the water for the resorts and casinos. They give us a couple of bucks to rip out the grass. And they charge us more for water” (Clark County, April 3, 2024). Other respondents focused on broader regional disputes, emphasizing that Arizona and California were unfairly draining Nevadan’s water resources. One listening session participant described this as unfair to Nevada because, “I know Nevada actually does a lot of water conservation but other states like Arizona and California don’t,” which affects Nevada’s water resources (Clark County, 89031).
In northern Nevada, residents were already experiencing the effects of water scarcity firsthand, leading to heightened fear and anxiety. One participant from Winnemucca shared, “We get our water from a well. Our well is drying up, just like everybody else” (Humboldt County, February 25, 2024). In the Yerington listening session, one respondent stressed the essential role of water: “Water for me is the top critical issue. Water is life. We can’t have communities, agriculture, and economy without water. I know my water level in my well has gone down due to drought” (Lyon County, February 26, 2024).
Fallon residents voiced concerns about both the functional and recreational consequences of water shortages. One listening session participant explained, “My family relies on the fish in the water. They had no idea about the mercury in the water” (Churchill County, February 27, 2024). In the same session, another participant stated, “My niece can’t swim in the lake and she breaks out into rashes if she swims” (Churchill County, February 27, 2024).
Ultimately, rural and urban populations shared general concerns about water scarcity concerns; however, urban areas including Clark County shared their concerns about corporate and external overconsumption of water, while rural populations including those in Fallon, Winnemucca, and Yerington, shared their concerns about well depletion, ecological impacts, and recreational impacts.
In northern Nevada, residents were already experiencing the effects of water scarcity firsthand, leading to heightened fear and anxiety. One participant from Winnemucca shared, “We get our water from a well. Our well is drying up, just like everybody else” (Humboldt County, February 25, 2024). In the Yerington listening session, one respondent stressed the essential role of water: “Water for me is the top critical issue. Water is life. We can’t have communities, agriculture, and economy without water. I know my water level in my well has gone down due to drought” (Lyon County, February 26, 2024).
Fallon residents voiced concerns about both the functional and recreational consequences of water shortages. One listening session participant explained, “My family relies on the fish in the water. They had no idea about the mercury in the water” (Churchill County, February 27, 2024). In the same session, another participant stated, “My niece can’t swim in the lake and she breaks out into rashes if she swims” (Churchill County, February 27, 2024).
Ultimately, rural and urban populations shared general concerns about water scarcity concerns; however, urban areas including Clark County shared their concerns about corporate and external overconsumption of water, while rural populations including those in Fallon, Winnemucca, and Yerington, shared their concerns about well depletion, ecological impacts, and recreational impacts.
While both rural and urban participants voiced frustrations with public transportation in Nevada, the nature of their concerns often differed in relation to their geographic and infrastructural realities. Urban respondents were more likely to critique the reliability and safety of the current system. They cited issues such as buses arriving too early or too late, confusing app updates, overcrowding, and concerns about safety especially at night due the presence of unhoused or inebriated individuals.
Rural respondents, on the other hand, often described a total lack of access to public transportation, rather than frustrations with the system’s quality. Many emphasized that buses simply do not run in their communities or that scheduled services are inconsistent, making them effectively unstable. One participant from Fallon, Nevada wrote that even when a bus is supposed to come, “If the Rez bus driver is absent, there’s no bus” (Churchill County, 89406), while another explained that the nearest town, and any form of transit, was “more than 60 miles away” (Churchill County, 89406). For rural Nevadans, car ownership isn’t just preferred, it’s essential. They described public transportation as “non-existent” (Churchill County, 89406) and viewed its absence as a fundamental barrier to mobility and economic opportunity. This gap was sometimes also acknowledged in suburban areas as well, such as Summerlin, where participants noted the infrastructure assumes car access and does not prioritize local transportation.
Despite these differences, a shared frustration across urban and rural areas was that public transportation does not meet people’s everyday needs. Both groups expressed a desire to use public transportation more frequently if it were more accessible, safer, and more efficient. They called for improvements that include expanded coverage, extended hours, and greater attention to marginalized riders’ needs. Together, their voices highlight the complex and varied challenges facing Nevada’s public transit system.
Rural respondents, on the other hand, often described a total lack of access to public transportation, rather than frustrations with the system’s quality. Many emphasized that buses simply do not run in their communities or that scheduled services are inconsistent, making them effectively unstable. One participant from Fallon, Nevada wrote that even when a bus is supposed to come, “If the Rez bus driver is absent, there’s no bus” (Churchill County, 89406), while another explained that the nearest town, and any form of transit, was “more than 60 miles away” (Churchill County, 89406). For rural Nevadans, car ownership isn’t just preferred, it’s essential. They described public transportation as “non-existent” (Churchill County, 89406) and viewed its absence as a fundamental barrier to mobility and economic opportunity. This gap was sometimes also acknowledged in suburban areas as well, such as Summerlin, where participants noted the infrastructure assumes car access and does not prioritize local transportation.
Despite these differences, a shared frustration across urban and rural areas was that public transportation does not meet people’s everyday needs. Both groups expressed a desire to use public transportation more frequently if it were more accessible, safer, and more efficient. They called for improvements that include expanded coverage, extended hours, and greater attention to marginalized riders’ needs. Together, their voices highlight the complex and varied challenges facing Nevada’s public transit system.
Extreme heat had similarities and differences between urban and rural populations’ concerns. In general, rural populations noted that heat is becoming a concern for them as temperatures rise, with one listening session participant sharing, “Heat is a concern. I noticed it getting hotter. Last summer was so hot” (Humboldt County, February 25, 2024). The rise in temperature has caused rural populations to share concerns that reflect those of urban populations. A Fallon survey respondent shared a story similar to one that a respondent from Clark County shared, stating, “I have relatives that work outside and they need to have precautions to prevent them from lasting effects of heat sickness” (Churchill County, 89406).
The infrastructure in rural areas was a unique concern for rural Nevada residents. A Fallon resident shared that they are seeing “a lot of these changes in extreme temperatures and heat and we don’t have the infrastructure to deal with those changes, especially in rural homes and old areas” (Churchill County, February 27, 2024). As a result, the heat affects populations disproportionately, and respondents are aware and subsequently concerned. One respondent wrote, “Heat impacts elderly and low income disproportionately in rural areas with limited acess [sic] to resourse [sic] that address these issues” (Churchill County, 89406), while another shared that they, “worry about the elderly and low income families that have to pay so much for their power” (Nye County, 89060).
These responses highlight the unique ways that rural populations in Nevada are experiencing heat, and their uncertainty about how their cities and towns will deal with extreme heat, particularly when the demographics of rural populations are taken into account. One respondent wrote that during the heat, “smaller towns and counties are left to fend for themselves” (Nye County, 89060). While both urban and rural populations are experiencing shared concerns about the heat, rural populations’ experience the consequences of extreme heat more directly because their infrastructure is not equipped to handle extreme heat as well as urban areas.
The infrastructure in rural areas was a unique concern for rural Nevada residents. A Fallon resident shared that they are seeing “a lot of these changes in extreme temperatures and heat and we don’t have the infrastructure to deal with those changes, especially in rural homes and old areas” (Churchill County, February 27, 2024). As a result, the heat affects populations disproportionately, and respondents are aware and subsequently concerned. One respondent wrote, “Heat impacts elderly and low income disproportionately in rural areas with limited acess [sic] to resourse [sic] that address these issues” (Churchill County, 89406), while another shared that they, “worry about the elderly and low income families that have to pay so much for their power” (Nye County, 89060).
These responses highlight the unique ways that rural populations in Nevada are experiencing heat, and their uncertainty about how their cities and towns will deal with extreme heat, particularly when the demographics of rural populations are taken into account. One respondent wrote that during the heat, “smaller towns and counties are left to fend for themselves” (Nye County, 89060). While both urban and rural populations are experiencing shared concerns about the heat, rural populations’ experience the consequences of extreme heat more directly because their infrastructure is not equipped to handle extreme heat as well as urban areas.
Solutions
The following sections detail proposed solutions offered by participants. Many of these solutions align with NEJC’s 2025 legislative priorities, which focus on advancing intersectional climate action and environmental justice. Through grassroots organizing and policy advocacy, NEJC works to ensure that solutions to climate and environmental challenges center justice, sustainability, and community well-being.
Respondents repeatedly stated the need for more affordable housing to be built across the state and for policies to be put into place to ensure new builders are not simply building “lux” housing. One respondent noted, “They say the californians are coming but all we see in terms of construction are mansions in the mountains” (Clark County, February 21, 2024).
Some respondents also emphasized the need to empower individuals and limit corporate influence in the housing market. As one participant put it, “If we had programs to help people become owners, that would help people more and [we should be] limiting corporations being able to purchase homes” (Churchill County, February 27, 2024).
Other respondents encouraged an increase to the minimum wage, and decrease in excess fees, noting that “wages have not kept up with the cost of housing” (Clark County, 89011). A respondent from Washoe County noted that “Companies need to stop using rent fixing algorithms. Non refundable pet deposits are a scam, especially when any pet related cleaning fees still come out of the security deposit” (89506). Similarly, many participants requested rent control policies and AC subsidies to make rent and utilities not only more affordable but also more predictable. One respondent wrote that “having one company control all the energy” means that there isn’t competition for pricing, so there is little that can be done regarding “how high the costs are” (Clark County, 89014).
In addition to fair pricing, participants also argued that housing and utilities needed to be good quality. More specifically, participants during a listening session in Clark County noted that “…a lot of people who are living with old AC’s, and there are a lot of landlords who do not keep up with upgrades. Utility bills cost people more money than people in new homes” while another participant in the same listening session agreed stating, “People are paying outrageous prices ($300-400 per month) due to outdated utilities. There is no incentive for landlords to replace a unit until it is broken” (November 19, 2023). Echoing these sentiments, one survey respondent wrote, “Renting is so expensive. And raising the rent every year is crazy for the same spot with no upgrades” (Clark County, 89014).
Finally, some participants linked housing concerns to broader issues of sustainability and the need for long-term planning. A listening session participant said, “I want to see more attention to long-term sustainability. It’s not just us, it’s our children and grandchildren we need to worry about in the long term… it covers all of these things: water, housing, community growth, it’s all gotta take the long view” (Lyon County, February 26, 2024).
Some respondents also emphasized the need to empower individuals and limit corporate influence in the housing market. As one participant put it, “If we had programs to help people become owners, that would help people more and [we should be] limiting corporations being able to purchase homes” (Churchill County, February 27, 2024).
Other respondents encouraged an increase to the minimum wage, and decrease in excess fees, noting that “wages have not kept up with the cost of housing” (Clark County, 89011). A respondent from Washoe County noted that “Companies need to stop using rent fixing algorithms. Non refundable pet deposits are a scam, especially when any pet related cleaning fees still come out of the security deposit” (89506). Similarly, many participants requested rent control policies and AC subsidies to make rent and utilities not only more affordable but also more predictable. One respondent wrote that “having one company control all the energy” means that there isn’t competition for pricing, so there is little that can be done regarding “how high the costs are” (Clark County, 89014).
In addition to fair pricing, participants also argued that housing and utilities needed to be good quality. More specifically, participants during a listening session in Clark County noted that “…a lot of people who are living with old AC’s, and there are a lot of landlords who do not keep up with upgrades. Utility bills cost people more money than people in new homes” while another participant in the same listening session agreed stating, “People are paying outrageous prices ($300-400 per month) due to outdated utilities. There is no incentive for landlords to replace a unit until it is broken” (November 19, 2023). Echoing these sentiments, one survey respondent wrote, “Renting is so expensive. And raising the rent every year is crazy for the same spot with no upgrades” (Clark County, 89014).
Finally, some participants linked housing concerns to broader issues of sustainability and the need for long-term planning. A listening session participant said, “I want to see more attention to long-term sustainability. It’s not just us, it’s our children and grandchildren we need to worry about in the long term… it covers all of these things: water, housing, community growth, it’s all gotta take the long view” (Lyon County, February 26, 2024).
To address issues with water availability and quality, participants called for cleaner water, to renegotiate Nevada’s water rights to the Colorado River, reduce mining and farming pollution that can affect water, provide proper filtration to rural communities, regulate golf courses and wasteful homes’ water usage, and support the unhoused in getting access to clean water. For example, one survey respondent wrote, “We need to hold businesses accountable for how much water they waste. They should be required to move toward near total water recycling” (Clark County, 89148).
NEJC supports AB 104 – Voluntarily Sell Water Rights, which would allow landowners to voluntarily sell their water rights, helping restore Nevada’s over pumped groundwater basins. Additionally, Assembly Bill 35611 has been put in place to prohibit the use of Colorado River water to irrigate nonfunctional grass on various properties, including golf courses, beginning in 2027, which aims to conserve water resources.
NEJC supports AB 104 – Voluntarily Sell Water Rights, which would allow landowners to voluntarily sell their water rights, helping restore Nevada’s over pumped groundwater basins. Additionally, Assembly Bill 35611 has been put in place to prohibit the use of Colorado River water to irrigate nonfunctional grass on various properties, including golf courses, beginning in 2027, which aims to conserve water resources.
For solutions surrounding public transportation, respondents listed specific routes or services they’d like to see such as a “light rail” and “a subway system.” The overall suggestion was to create more routes, more stops, and increasing frequency of routes, such as “more public transportation on Saturdays and Sundays” (translated from Spanish, respondent did not provide a zip code). Others proposed more support and infrastructure for biking to make it “more accessible and less dangerous” for commuting (Clark County, 89138).
In regard to rural areas, respondents wrote that “especially on reservations or frontier areas” there needs to be a lot more subsidies and investments (Churchill County, 89406). As described in a listening session in Yerington, Nevada, “No public transportation here. Getting more would depend on how its funded. There was a guy who used to run a bus line here and he went bankrupt” (Lyon County, February 26, 2024). Together, participants from rural Nevada noted that there was a need for bus routes in general along with safer transportation across the desert terrain.
On the note of safety, respondents requested safer areas to wait and walk such as shaded waiting spaces and lighted streets. As mentioned previously, some respondents wanted “more safety precautions” while riding public transportation but did not specify how to improve safety (Clark County, 89147). Respondents noted that if public transport were improved, there would be other benefits, such as reducing traffic and would be “better for the environment” (Clark County, 89011).
In response to these concerns, the NEJC has worked to enact the SB 431 – Reforming Live Entertainment Tax to Fund Public Transportation, sponsored by Nevada State Senator Dina Neal. This effort aims to reform Nevada’s Live Entertainment Tax (LET) by requiring sports teams to contribute and allocate 1% of LET revenue to regional transportation commissions. As noted above, this measure works to address public dissatisfaction with unreliable transit services, limited routes, and unsafe waiting areas as it will improve funding and therefore enhance public transportation infrastructure. More specifically, additional funding could increase reliability, safety, and accessibility while reducing commute times and expanding opportunities. In relation to the environment, these improvements to the transportation infrastructure would expand mass transit options thus decreasing reliance on personal vehicles, alleviating traffic congestion, and lowering carbon emissions, contributing to a more sustainable and efficient transportation system across the state.
In regard to rural areas, respondents wrote that “especially on reservations or frontier areas” there needs to be a lot more subsidies and investments (Churchill County, 89406). As described in a listening session in Yerington, Nevada, “No public transportation here. Getting more would depend on how its funded. There was a guy who used to run a bus line here and he went bankrupt” (Lyon County, February 26, 2024). Together, participants from rural Nevada noted that there was a need for bus routes in general along with safer transportation across the desert terrain.
On the note of safety, respondents requested safer areas to wait and walk such as shaded waiting spaces and lighted streets. As mentioned previously, some respondents wanted “more safety precautions” while riding public transportation but did not specify how to improve safety (Clark County, 89147). Respondents noted that if public transport were improved, there would be other benefits, such as reducing traffic and would be “better for the environment” (Clark County, 89011).
In response to these concerns, the NEJC has worked to enact the SB 431 – Reforming Live Entertainment Tax to Fund Public Transportation, sponsored by Nevada State Senator Dina Neal. This effort aims to reform Nevada’s Live Entertainment Tax (LET) by requiring sports teams to contribute and allocate 1% of LET revenue to regional transportation commissions. As noted above, this measure works to address public dissatisfaction with unreliable transit services, limited routes, and unsafe waiting areas as it will improve funding and therefore enhance public transportation infrastructure. More specifically, additional funding could increase reliability, safety, and accessibility while reducing commute times and expanding opportunities. In relation to the environment, these improvements to the transportation infrastructure would expand mass transit options thus decreasing reliance on personal vehicles, alleviating traffic congestion, and lowering carbon emissions, contributing to a more sustainable and efficient transportation system across the state.
For solutions surrounding extreme heat, survey-takers requested planting more vegetation and trees for shade. For example, one Clark County survey respondent noted that more “tree cover” could specifically help “walkers and bikers” (89138). Respondents also recommended investment in “shade structures” and “white rooftops” to offer more cooling throughout the city as a way to combat the urban heat island effect12 (Clark County, 89031). Respondents thought there was too much pavement and that cities like Las Vegas were “hot concrete jungles,” thereby expressing a need to replace pavement and “work harder at planting trees” (Clark County, 89110).
Respondents suggested more “outdoor shade [be] provided in public areas” (Clark County, 89148) and offer more free “indoor activities with air condition[ing]” (Clark County, 89119). A few respondents noted that there are “not a lot of places to go out” [translated from Spanish] and we “don’t have the chance to enjoy outdoor activities” in the extreme heat” (translated from Spanish, respondent did not provide a zip code). One respondent wrote, “I hate that I spend so much time indoors because it is so hot and we don’t have a lot of shaded areas” (Clark County, 89031).
Respondents also wanted access to free water, noting, “There should be Water stations around the city, so people can go to this [these] places to hydrate” (Washoe County, 89506). To offset AC costs, respondents suggested “solar needs to be put on every home complimentary” (Clark County, 89012). On a larger scale, respondents wanted to see city and state regulations on businesses to invest in greening and providing resources to employees, with one noting, “most jobs only care if they legally have to” (Clark County, 89119).
In relation to heat, NEJC is advocating for the Heat Mitigation Planning bill (AB96), sponsored by the Interim Government Affairs Committee. AB96 is a legislative effort requiring local governments to incorporate heat mitigation strategies into their master plans, addressing the growing threat of extreme heat. With climate change and urban development exacerbating high temperatures. More specifically, in 2023 Clark County has seen a staggering 78% rise in heat-related deaths over the past two years, highlighting the urgent need for intervention.13 This bill mandates the establishment of cooling centers, increased shaded areas, drinking water stations, and expanded urban tree canopies to create cooler, more livable environments. The expected benefits include reduced heat-related health emergencies, lower energy consumption, cost savings for local governments, and a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, ultimately fostering healthier and more resilient communities.
- (12) Urban heat island effect as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “occur[s] when a developed area experiences higher temperature than nearby rural areas, or when areas experience hotter temperatures within a city.” This experience is exacerbated by increase in concrete and lack of vegetation. https://www.epa.gov/heatislands
- (13) Southern Nevada Health District. Heat-associated deaths & emergency department visits. (2023). https://media.southernnevadahealthdistrict.org/download/2023-final-heat-report.pdf
Demographics
The vast majority of respondents reported that they lived in Clark County (91.5%, 952 respondents). Other counties represented in the survey were Washoe (5.8%, 60 respondents), Nye (0.9%, 9 respondents), Churchill (0.7%, 7 respondents), Lyon (0.3%, 3 respondents), Elko (.3%, 3 respondents), Ely (0.2%, 2 respondents), Esmeralda (0.1%, 1 respondent), Humboldt (0.1%, 1 respondent), White Pine (0.1%, 1 respondent), and Douglas (0.1%, 1 respondent).
5.4% of respondents (58) have lived in Las Vegas for less than 1 year; 12.6% of respondents (135) have lived in Las Vegas for 1-5 years, 10.3% (110) have lived in Las Vegas for 6-10 years; 37.7% (403) for 11-20 years; 15% (161) for 21-30 years; 6% (64) between 31-40 years; 1.7% (18) between 41-50 years; and 1.3% (14) for more than 50 years.
50.2% of respondents identified as women, 37% of respondents identified as men, and 1.9% selected other, including nonbinary and trans identities. 196 respondents (18.3%) identified as Asian or Asian American, 128 (12%) identified as Black or African American, 325 (30.4%) identified as Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latine/Latinx, 34 (3.2%) identified as Native American, 36 (3.4%) identified as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 413 (38.6%) identified as White, and 6 identified as Arab/Middle Eastern (1%). 25 respondents (2.9%) selected “other” and did not further clarify their racial/ethnic identity. 57.5% of respondents (615) were 18-25 years old, 10.5% (112) were 26-35, 5.6% (60) were 36-45, 5.5% (59) were 46-55, 6% (64) were 56-65, and 4.1% (44) were older than 65.
78.6% of respondents (841) reported that they do not have a disability) and 11% (118) reported having a disability. According to the U.S. Census Bureau “2020 Decennial Census for Nevada,” the total population of Nevada was 331.4 million people.15 Of that population, 1,568,332 were estimated to be male while 1,536,485 were estimated to be female. The average median age for Nevadans was 39 while 16.9% of the NV population was noted as being 65 years or older. In terms of race, there were approximately 43,932 American Indian and Alaskan Natives or 1.1% of Nevada’s total population; 272,703 Asian (6%); 304,739 Black or African American (12.4%); 890,257 Hispanic or Latino (18.7%); 25,011 Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (0.2%); 1,588,463 White (61.6%); 434,009 Two or more Races (10.2%); and 435,757 Some Other Race alone (8.4%). Furthermore, 14.3% of the population of Nevada noted that they had a disability. Together these statistics demonstrate the estimated demographics of Nevada’s population during the US 2020 Decennial Census in comparison to the NEJC participants listed above.
5.4% of respondents (58) have lived in Las Vegas for less than 1 year; 12.6% of respondents (135) have lived in Las Vegas for 1-5 years, 10.3% (110) have lived in Las Vegas for 6-10 years; 37.7% (403) for 11-20 years; 15% (161) for 21-30 years; 6% (64) between 31-40 years; 1.7% (18) between 41-50 years; and 1.3% (14) for more than 50 years.
50.2% of respondents identified as women, 37% of respondents identified as men, and 1.9% selected other, including nonbinary and trans identities. 196 respondents (18.3%) identified as Asian or Asian American, 128 (12%) identified as Black or African American, 325 (30.4%) identified as Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latine/Latinx, 34 (3.2%) identified as Native American, 36 (3.4%) identified as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 413 (38.6%) identified as White, and 6 identified as Arab/Middle Eastern (1%). 25 respondents (2.9%) selected “other” and did not further clarify their racial/ethnic identity. 57.5% of respondents (615) were 18-25 years old, 10.5% (112) were 26-35, 5.6% (60) were 36-45, 5.5% (59) were 46-55, 6% (64) were 56-65, and 4.1% (44) were older than 65.
78.6% of respondents (841) reported that they do not have a disability) and 11% (118) reported having a disability. According to the U.S. Census Bureau “2020 Decennial Census for Nevada,” the total population of Nevada was 331.4 million people.15 Of that population, 1,568,332 were estimated to be male while 1,536,485 were estimated to be female. The average median age for Nevadans was 39 while 16.9% of the NV population was noted as being 65 years or older. In terms of race, there were approximately 43,932 American Indian and Alaskan Natives or 1.1% of Nevada’s total population; 272,703 Asian (6%); 304,739 Black or African American (12.4%); 890,257 Hispanic or Latino (18.7%); 25,011 Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (0.2%); 1,588,463 White (61.6%); 434,009 Two or more Races (10.2%); and 435,757 Some Other Race alone (8.4%). Furthermore, 14.3% of the population of Nevada noted that they had a disability. Together these statistics demonstrate the estimated demographics of Nevada’s population during the US 2020 Decennial Census in comparison to the NEJC participants listed above.
- (14) The total percentage is over 100% because many respondents selected more than 1 race.
- (15) Nevada – United States Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau. (2020). https://data.census.gov/profile/Nevada?g=040XX00US32#populations-and-people Nevada continued double-digit population growth. United States Census Bureau. (2021, August 25). https://www.census.gov/library/stories/state-by-state/nevada-population-change-between-census-decade.html
NEVADA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COALITION
How to join the
NEJC
To be eligible for general membership in the NEJC, an organization must have staff that is based and living in Nevada with a mission and vision aligned with those of the NEJC. All eligible organizations will be invited or can request to be interviewed by the NEJC Executive Director to establish if an alignment of mission and vision exists