MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 5, 1993

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:20 a.m., May 5, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Val Z. Garner, Chairman

      Mr. Rick C. Bennett, Vice Chairman

      Mrs. Kathy M. Augustine

      Mr. Douglas A. Bache

      Mrs. Marcia de Braga

      Mr. Pete Ernaut

      Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman

      Mr. Lynn Hettrick

      Mrs. Erin Kenny

      Mrs. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. James W. McGaughey

      Mr. Roy Neighbors

      Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom

      Mr. Wendell P. Williams

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Dana Bennett, Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Joe Build, Nevada Cattleman's Association and Santa Fe Pacific Minerals; Ms. Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General; Mr. Brian Chally, Sr. Deputy Attorney General; Mr. Larry Miller, Fallon area rancher; Ms. Sonya Johnson, farmer; Mr. Bill Shepard, rancher; Mr. Mel Schwake, Jr., Carson Valley rancher; Mr. Doug Busselman, former vice president of Nevada Farm Bureau; Mr. Dan Hickey; Ms. Stephanie Licht, Nevada Wool Growers Association; Mr. Normal Evans, Washoe Valley rancher; Ms. Pam Wilcox, State Department of Conservation; Mr. Bob McQuivey, Nevada Department of Wildlife; Ms. Maddy Shipman; Mr. Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities.

 

Assembly Bill 542 -     Requires state agencies and political subdivisions of state to take certain precautions to avoid taking of private property.

 

Assemblyman Marcia de Braga, District 35, presented AB 542 along with background information as noted in Exhibit C.  Ms. de Braga referenced Exhibit D in her testimony.

 

Mr. Joe Guild, Attorney at Law representing Nevada Cattleman's Association and Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, et al., supplemented Ms. de Braga's testimony with a map, Exhibit E.  He pointed out Delaware was not indicated on the map as having passed the legislation.  He maintained the legislation was strongly supported in both Washington and Arizona by Association of Realtors, the Chambers of Commerce in the major metropolitan areas of both states, and similar groups.

 

Mr. Guild elucidated the key points of the bill for the committee.  He defined governmental action as:  "Adoption of a regulation that could limit the use of private property, its imposition of a limitation on private property use as a condition for obtaining a license or permit or it is requiring a dedication or an exaction from a property owner."

 

Mr. Guild emphasized this bill was not dealing with new, uncharted territory.  If the bill passed, the Attorney General would have guidelines to follow.  According to Mr. Guild, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12630 in March of 1988.  This was the genesis of the property rights movement.  Under the executive order was a requirement to promulgate guidelines to assist agencies in assessing their actions.

 

Mr. Guild distributed Exhibit F to the committee.  He explained this was the Taking Implication Assessment (TIA) used by Department of Interior in a regulatory situation when there was no physical invasion of land. 

 

Mrs. Freeman questioned Ms. de Braga regarding the fiscal note of AB 542.  Ms. de Braga responded the estimates for the agencies were:  Department of Wildlife, $250,000 in fiscal year 1993-94 and $250,000 in fiscal year 1994-95; Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, $555,000 each year of the biennium; State Lands approximately $500,000; Division of Environmental Protection, $1.43 million fiscal year 1993-94 and $1.6 million fiscal year 1994-95.

 

Ms. Freeman inquired whether a problem existed in Nevada, therefore, the introduction of the bill, or was Nevada following suit of other states.  Ms. de Braga indicated there were many problems in Nevada, especially rural Nevada.

 

Ms. Segerblom asked when the bill would go into effect.  Mr. Guild stated the Attorney General would have until July 1, 1994, to promulgate the guidelines to assist the agencies affected.

 

Ms. Augustine commented she believed most property takings had been with the BLM at the federal level.  Mr. Guild confirmed it was the federal level; however, he did not believe it was the BLM.

 

Ms. Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, distributed her testimony, Exhibit G.  Ms. Del Papa challenged Mr. Guild's statement, "This is not a problem to be solved--there is not a problem to be solved by this bill--we are already doing this."  She maintained that statement alone indicated this piece of legislation was not necessary.

 

Mr. Brian Chally, Sr. Deputy Attorney General, commented the Arizona Attorney General, unlike Nevada, did not have to invest substantial amounts of staff time in enforcing or implementing this law because substantial support was shown to force a vote in 1993.  Mr. Chally pointed out the breakdown of the fiscal note attached as part of Exhibit G.  Mr. Chally asked Exhibit H be entered into the record.

 

Mr. McGaughey asked Ms. Del Papa to define briefly the type of advice the Attorney General's office gave to agencies with regard to the fifth and fourteenth amendments pertaining to property.  Ms. Del Papa responded their responsibility was to give the best possible legal advice.  She emphasized they did not single out any particular areas.

 

Ms. Lambert questioned whether Ms. Del Papa had a problem with page 4, Section 12 of the bill.  Ms. Del Papa asserted there was not a problem to be solved by this bill.  The bill was not needed.  Ms. Del Papa reinforced her earlier testimony and felt the section was problematic.

 

Mr. Chally interjected comments directed toward the possibility of problems with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding Section 12.

 

Ms. Augustine asked for definition of staff size in the Attorney General's (AG) office.  Ms. Del Papa replied there were 83 deputy AG's located in 14 different locations.  She detailed the needs of the AG relative to staff.

 

Ms. de Braga voiced her disagreement with the statement "there is not an existing problem."  She believed regulations increasingly were taking away property on which people were making a living.  Ms. Del Papa defended her statement by expressing it was an all-encompassing statement.  She explained further and concluded by saying she believed this bill would increase litigation.

 

Mr. Larry Miller, Fallon area rancher, stated he was personally impacted by this bill.  He expressed support for AB 542 by citing personal example.

 

Ms. Sonya Johnson, Fallon area farmer, and Mr. Bill Shepard, Fallon area rancher, maintained support for AB 542.  Ms. Johnson stated her belief this was one of the most important bills in the United States at this time.  She also cited personal examples. 

 

Mr. Shepard's main concerns surrounded the taking of water rights.  He provided testimony concerning his personal experiences with the state engineer.  He believed this bill would solve problems similar to his.

 

Ms. de Braga inquired whether a precedent had been set because water rights were previously established.  Mr. Shepard explained this was the case; however, the law expressly excluded residences on government projects, i.e. Fallon, Nevada.

 

Mr. Mel Schwake, Jr., Carson Valley rancher, indicated support for AB 542 and thanked the sponsors of the bill.

 

Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, expressed support of passage for AB 542.  His testimony was presented to the committee as Exhibit I.  Exhibit J, consisting of nine letters of support for AB 542, was provided to the chairman of the committee.

 

Mr. Dan Hickey, farmer, testified in support of AB 542.  He verbalized the impact to the state and Douglas County.

 

Ms. Stephanie Licht, Executive Secretary, Nevada Wool Growers Association, showed support for AB 542 and called attention to Exhibit K.  She reinforced her testimony with an account of a civil rights case.  She concluded by urging passage of the bill.

 

Mr. Norman Evans, Washoe Valley rancher, addressed the committee in support of AB 542.  He expressed disappointment with Ms. Del Papa's testimony.

 

Mr. Ernaut expressed to the committee his agreement with Mr. Evans' testimony. 

 

Ms. Pam Wilcox, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, read her prepared statement, Exhibit L, to the committee.

 

Mr. Bob McQuivey, Nevada Department of Wildlife, believed the taking initiative presented unique challenges to the Department of Wildlife, primarily because they were charged with the responsibility to manage the wildlife resources of the state, which were a public resource knowing no political boundaries.  This bill had a strong impact on the Department of Wildlife.  It would create a tremendous increase in workload.  He opposed the bill.

 

Mr. McGaughey questioned Ms. Wilcox regarding Section 11 of the bill and asked how many requests were anticipated.  Ms. Wilcox responded she did not have an answer at this time.  She stated she had never had an inquiry regarding takings.

 

Ms. Augustine asked Ms. Wilcox why her fiscal note was lower than the previous amount quoted by Mr. Guild for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.  Ms. Wilcox stated Mr. Guild's fiscal note included a cost of publishing legal notices in newspapers.  Her requirement was very conservative and was prepared two years ago.

 

Ms. de Braga inquired whether the respective agencies of Ms. Wilcox and Mr. McQuivey did anything to comply with constitutional provisions to protect private property.  Mr. Mcquivey said they did.  Ms. Wilcox added that agencies must implement all provisions of both federal and state constitutions plus lengthy statutes.

 

Mr. Tom Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, and Ms. Maddy Shipman, Chief Deputy Attorney, City of Reno, testified in opposition to AB 542.  Mr. Grady questioned Mr. Guild's statements to the committee.  Ms. Shipman addressed local issues regarding AB 542.  She stated the local governments understood and appreciated the problems this bill attempted to address.  Ms. Shipman used examples to supplement her testimony.  Her major concerns surrounded Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the bill.

 

 

Chairman Garner announced the committee was out of time for testimony.  There was no action taken on AB 542.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOTIONED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 18-1199.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:31 a.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      LINDA BLEVINS

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

May 5, 1993

Page: 1