MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
May 27, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:06 a.m., Thursday, May 27, 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
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dana Bennett, Research Analyst
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director
OTHERS PRESENT:
Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer; Susan Oldham, Sierra Pacific Power Company; Brian Herr, Nevada Bell; Margaret McMillan, Sprint-Central Telephone Company; and John Mendoza, Chairman, Public Service Commission of Nevada.
ASSEMBLY BILL 624 - Revises procedures concerning applications for water rights.
Assemblyman Vivian Freeman, District 24, presented testimony as a proponent of AB 624. She indicated this bill was drafted after the hearing on AB 337 which recently passed through the committee. Mrs. Freeman said the particular goal or purpose of drafting AB 624 was to try to prevent speculation on water in Nevada. Mrs. Freeman indicated Fred Welden had worked on the drafting of AB 624 along with the water engineer's participation. Mrs. Freeman then gave a brief review of the bill (Exhibit C).
Chairman Garner wanted to know if the fees in AB 624 would be in conflict with the proposed fees in AB 314 which was on general file. Mrs. Freeman said yes, Fred Welden replied a conflict notice would be distributed as there were two different amendments to the same section of statute. However, the fee change in AB 624 was a different specific fee than the others which were changed in AB 314.
Mr. Garner said his concern pertained to the state engineer's budget. The fees in AB 314 had to be reconciled by the Committee on Ways and Means, therefore, he was curious how the same kind of problem would be resolved in AB 624.
Mr. Neighbors referenced Page 6, line 7, and asked if it applied to public utilities and counties holding applications. Mr. Welden responded the way the bill was currently drafted the language would apply to all applicant holders seeking an extension eight years or more after receiving original approval.
Mike Turnipseed, State Engineer, explained AB 314 amended sections of the law dealing with fees applicable to applications to appropriate water, permit fees and the fee charged to protestants. AB 624 changed a different section of the fee structure in dealing with extensions of time. He said AB 314 had generated a great deal of sentiment in the Senate and the Assembly as it was felt the fees would generate enough money to retain current employees and to rehire the seven employees lost during the last biennium. The fee in AB 624 would add $150,000 to the general fund. Mr. Turnipseed then provided additional comments as he reviewed the legislation with the committee. In conclusion, Mr. Turnipseed stated he supported AB 624 wholeheartedly.
Mrs. de Braga pointed to Page 1, the new language, and asked what kind of situations were covered by the language. Mr. Turnipseed said there was an office in Elko which was partly funded by the Elko stream system account and the general fund. The secretary and the supervising water commissioner were general fund employees. Using an example requiring a field check, Mr. Turnipseed explained why, under current law, it was necessary to send a general fund employee to perform the field check. Humboldt funds could not be used.
Mrs. de Braga next wanted to know for how many years the water could be tied up. Mr. Turnipseed answered, "Since I became state engineer, I have amended our application form (Exhibit D) for an extension of time....This helps us in delineating how much activity has taken place to date, how much money has been expended, how much is expected to be spent in the next year, and how much will be spent before billing out. I think this extension form goes a long way toward helping us to meet the intent of the bill." He then discussed the various projects which required different time frames due to size and said the bill would increase the fees for extensions beyond eight years from the time the original appropriation was made.
Mrs. de Braga next asked what the time frame was from the time a permit was approved until an activity was started and was it possible to lose the permit if one did not act within a certain period of time. Mr. Turnipseed replied, "It is pretty much up to my judgment. It kind of depends on where it is in the state and how much other competition there is for the water." He then gave various examples of factors which contributed to his decisions.
Mrs. Lambert gave an illustration and asked Mr. Turnipseed if he thought it was reasonable diligence. Mr. Turnipseed answered he would have to examine other factors as well, just as he had done in a recent court case with similar circumstances. When asked if he had been upheld in the supreme court for canceling the permit, he replied yes. Continuing, he pointed out how developers were now utilizing a new loophole to get around the extensions of time, but he too had found a way to contract them. When asked if he was doing that under current law, Mr. Turnipseed said yes, but AB 624 might help him on appeal.
Mr. Hettrick drew attention to Page 1, the districts regulated by court decrees, and asked if the language, which was permissive, would present a problem. Mr. Turnipseed stated no, with explanation. He added he was not opposed to the language but it did make him nervous. When questioned if he would prefer to have lines 5 through 8 deleted, Mr. Turnipseed agreed but said he did not want similar language on Page 7, lines 30 through 33 removed.
Mr. Neighbors declared he had water rights pending but he intended to vote in favor of the bill. He then wanted to know if Page 6, line 7, would be retroactive, Mr. Turnipseed answered yes. Further discussion followed regarding the applications filed by Las Vegas Valley Water District and the impact on the state.
Mrs. de Braga asked Mrs. Freeman what was intended by the language on Page 1, lines 5 - 8. Mrs. Freeman replied the goal of AB 624 was to put the onus of due diligence or reasonable diligence onto the applicant and to provide funding for the state engineer to allow him to represent the people who live in the state in terms of water rights. In addition, the legislation would prevent water speculators from moving into a particular area and to take away the water which was available. Mrs. Freeman told the committee she would be willing to make a change if Mr. Turnipseed had a problem with the language.
Mr. Hettrick stated he too had an interest in two entities owning water rights but AB 624 would not affect him differently from anyone else, therefore, he would be voting in favor of the bill.
Mrs. Lambert referenced Mr. Turnipseed's comment pertaining to municipalities holding water for planned growth and asked Mrs. Freeman if that was a reasonable thing for the municipalities to do. Mrs. Freeman said it was not one of the goals of the bill. She asked for the opportunity to sit down with Mr. Turnipseed to discuss language which would be agreeable and return to the committee. When pressed for an answer to the question, Mrs. Freeman answered it might be a reasonable length of time but she needed to review it. Mr. Turnipseed added AB 624 did not stifle holding water but after 8 years it would cost the municipality $500 instead of $100 every year for an extension of time.
Susan Oldham, Sierra Pacific Power Company, asked for an amendment to AB 624. She agreed the objectives of due diligence and protection against water speculation were honorable and should remain in the bill. But the problem she had difficulty with was raising the filing fee after 8 years. She said if the project passed the due diligence requirement there was no reason to raise the fee, adding it would only discourage "doing big things in this state." She next gave examples of different applications which would be affected and said her organization was in opposition to the section on Page 6, regarding the extension of time for filing fees.
Mrs. Lambert queried what the legal difference was between changing the word "must" to "may" on Page 4, lines 2 and 35. Ms. Oldham replied it would provide a greater amount of discretion on Mr. Turnipseed's part. Also, the state engineer needed the ability to consider all of the circumstances, in total, to make his decision, therefore, she was of the opinion it would be appropriate to change the language to "may." To say "must," on appeal, would open the argument the state engineer had to take whatever particular piece of the project into account which he felt, in total, was not reasonable diligence.
Mr. Bache queried if the applications referenced had been approved, Ms. Oldham responded no. A discussion ensued regarding when applications would be affected.
Chairman Garner appointed Mrs. Freeman to the established committee looking into water speculation and asked her to delve into specific differences before bringing AB 624 back to the committee.
Again, Mr. Neighbors stated he did not have a problem with the fees although he would be one of the people who would have to pay the extra $400.
The hearing on AB 624 was closed with no action taken.
SENATE BILL NO. 425 - Extends date upon which public service commission of Nevada must report to legislature concerning alternative plan for regulating public utilities that provide telecommunication services.
Brian Herr, Nevada Bell, supported SB 425 and introduced Margaret McMillan. He said SB 425 extended a legislative report prepared by the Public Service Commission to the dates February, 1995 and 1997. Mr. Herr then gave the committee the background associated with the bill and concluded his testimony by saying there had been no opposition in the Senate.
Margaret McMillan, Sprint-Central Telephone Company (Centel), testified Centel was not under the alternative regulation plan, explaining the reasons why. But she did agree it was important the Public Service Commission continue the reporting because, in the event Centel opted into the plan, Centel would like its experience to be a part of the reporting process. In closing, Ms. McMillan added the Nevada Telephone Association supported the legislation and although Marcia Cobian, Executive Director, was unable to appear to testify, she wanted to go on record as supporting the continued reporting.
John Mendoza, Chairman, Public Service Commission of Nevada, added his voice in support of SB 425.
Mrs. Segerblom asked how many phone companies there were in Nevada. Mr. Mendoza replied 14. When asked if all 14 supported the legislation, Mr. Mendoza said that was his understanding.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED DO PASS ON SB 425.
ASSEMBLYMAN KENNY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (MRS. de BRAGA WAS NOT PRESENT AT TIME OF VOTE.)
Chairman Garner requested committee introduction of Bill Draft Request 19-2044.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 19-2044 - Repeals requirement of notice to customer of financial institution concerning subpena of financial records.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 19-2044.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (MRS. de BRAGA WAS NOT PRESENT AT TIME OF VOTE.)
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:54 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BETTY WILLS
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
May 27, 1993
Page: 1