MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 2, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:06 a.m. Wednesday, June 2, 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:

 

      Ms. Chris Guinchigliani,

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mrs. Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst.

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of Nevada Farm Bureau; Mr. Charles Frey, President of Truckee Carson Leasing Authority; Ms. Sonya S. Johnson, Lahontan 2000; Mr. Norman Frey, representing himself as a farmer; Mr. Bjorn P. Selinder, Churchill County Manager; Mr. Graham Chisholm, Nature Conservancy; Ms. Sue Oldham, Director Governmental Affairs for Sierra Pacific Power Company; Mr. Ross de Lipkau, Reno Attorney on behalf of Las Vegas Valley Water District; Mr. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer;  Mr. William Molini, Director Department of Wildlife; Ms. Tina Nappe, Coordinator of Lahontan Wetlands Coalition; Ms. Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands and Division of Conservation; Mr. Tom Tatro, Acting Administrator of Purchasing Division; Mr. Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas;

 

Chairman Garner requested committee introduction of the following bill draft requests:

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 4-1606 - Precludes admission in evidence of proceedings and records of committees for review of medical or dental care except under certain circumstances.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 20-2090 - Authorizes formation of district to defray cost of improving airport.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 18-1356 - Makes various changes related to administrative law.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 22-1096 - Makes various changes concerning low-income housing.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 37-1941 - Names veterans' cemetery in southern Nevada the Ken Brown Veterans' Memorial Cemetery of Southern Nevada.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST C-1808 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to enable consolidation of Clark County and City of Las Vegas.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-2011 - Authorizes water resource development fee to support Southern Nevada Water Authority.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 4-1606, B.D.R. 20-2090, B.D.R. 18-1356, B.D.R. 22-1096, B.D.R. 37-1941, B.D.R. C-1808 AND B.D.R. S-2011.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

Chairman Garner reminded committee members of bills to be presented on the floor.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 633 - Requires establishment of plants as ground cover before approval by state engineer of change in manner or place of use of water used for irrigation.

 

Assemblyman de Braga, District 35, testifying as a proponent of AB 633,, stated she had held a meeting the previous night with various concerned entities and they had drafted a proposed amendment to the bill (Exhibit C), which she briefly reviewed. 

Mrs. Lambert asked who would pay for establishing the ground cover.  She assumed the growth such as tumbleweeds would be eradicated and only the desired ground cover would be kept.  Mrs. Lambert felt it would be fairly expensive to maintain.

 

Mrs. de Braga stated there were a number of studies being done, it might be fairly costly but she felt it could be included as part of the cost of purchase.

 

Chairman Garner asked if the people who would be testifying had been provided with copies of the amendments.

 

Mrs. de Braga indicated they had received copies that morning, but the testifiers had been at the meeting the previous evening and were aware of what the amendment proposed.

 

Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of Nevada Farm Bureau, testified in support of AB 633 (Exhibit D).

 

Mr. Charles Frey, President of Truckee Carson Leasing Authority, testifying in favor of AB 633 stated the Authority was made up of a group of concerned citizens which came together to address Public Law 101.618.  He said the group was very concerned about the impact of 50-90 percent of the water in Churchill County possibly going to wetlands and permanently moved off the farmlands.  He stressed his group strongly supported AB 633 as Public Bill 101.618 did not address revegetation of farmland or the environmental devastation which could be caused by blowing weeds and sand.  He remarked the main concerns were for the people and farmers who stayed in the area and felt a sufficient quantity of water should be retained so the land could be properly revegetated.  Mr. Frey also pointed out the costs to revegetate would probably be a very serious consideration but he felt it was immaterial in relation to the environmental problems which would be created if revegetation was not done.

 

Ms. Sonya S. Johnson, Lahontan 2000, testified in favor of AB 633 (Exhibit E).

 

Mr. Norman Frey, representing himself as a farmer, testified in favor of AB 633, indicating besides weed control he would also like included rodent and insect control.  He stated weed control could cause fire hazards but was also a place to harbor insects and rodents and if he could not control those problems on the land bordering his, they could cause major damage to his farm.  He pointed out several other items which could be handled by AB 633, including eliminating old structures no longer in use.  He also felt there would be a decline in real property values if the aesthetic aspects were not maintained.  Mr. Frey indicated he would like to see all of the water left on the land until the revegetation effort and removal of obstructions and structures was complete. 

 

Discussion ensued regarding insect depredation and the retention of 100 percent of the water on the land for revegetation.

 

Mr. Bjorn P. Selinder, Churchill County Manager, testified in support of AB 633.  Mr. Selinder pointed out with the recent passage of Public Law 101.618, a number of unique and special conditions could be created in Churchill County with the possible transfer of up to 50 percent of their water rights; including but not limited to problems with weeds, blowing dust from non-tilled or non-irrigated soils and soil erosion.  He felt the dust was a rather unique problem as it was not only a hazard to the farmer but also a general nuisance and would impact air quality and every resident in the community.  He felt devaluation of the land and the potential of altering the quality of life would also be involved.

 

Chairman Garner asked since Public Law 101.618 was a federal law, what effect would passage of AB 633 have on the law.

 

Mr. Selinder replied he was not seeking to change the provisions of the federal law but attempting to make the buyer/seller relationship a more responsible one.

 

Mr. Norman Frey commented Public Law 101.618 required the federal government to follow state law and state water law regarding the removal of the water rights; therefore, he felt Public Law 101.618 would provide for this type of legislation.

 

Mr. Graham Chisholm, Nature Conservancy, testifying in opposition to AB 633, stated the Conservancy had made a commitment that its participation in the water acquisition program under federal law would be done in a manner which worked well for the local community.  He indicated he had been involved with people at the local level and would like to remain involved with the writing of AB 633.  Mr. Chisholm felt it was important to come up with a bill which would not prevent the water acquisition program from going forward.  He also stressed the importance of ensuring the potential negative impacts of the water acquisition program were addressed in a responsible fashion.  Mr. Chisholm requested further opportunity to study the proposed amendments to AB 633 as there were a lot of unanswered questions. 

 

Ms. Sue Oldham, Director Governmental Affairs for Sierra Pacific Power Company, testified she received a letter from Janet Carson she wished to read into the record (Exhibit F entered under Ms. Oldham's signature).  She asked the committee to consider the fact the amendments might be trying to define the public interest for the State Engineer, which was already part of his responsibility.

 

Mr. Ross de Lipkau, Reno Attorney on behalf of Las Vegas Valley Water District, testified in opposition to AB 633.  He indicated as originally written, AB 633 would be statewide and he did not believe AB 633 was a good bill as it had a multitude of problems.  Mr. de Lipkau indicated he was in receipt of two amendments and as it was his understanding AB 633 as amended would only apply in Churchill County downstream of Lahontan Reservoir, the Las Vegas Valley Water District would withdraw its objection to the bill.

 

Mr. Neighbors said Mr. de Lipkau alluded to problems with AB 633 if it was statewide and asked about some of the problems.

 

Mr. Neigbors and Mr. de Lipkau discussed aspects of the problems related to AB 633 if it went statewide.

 

Mr. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, testified the bill, even as amended, would put him into an area where he had no jurisdiction or responsibility.  Mr. Turnipseed stated there would be involvement with public law; EPA; the environmental impact statement associated with the water rights to be transferred to Stillwater or Carson Lake Pasture; a federal decree, and the duties of the Federal Water Master responsible for delivery of water to the lands.  He did not think a state law would sway the federal court to change its mind on distribution of water in the Newlands Project.  Mr. Turnipseed referenced the Alpine Decree transfers and indicated his only jurisdiction there was to either approve or reject the change applications.  One of the administrative provisions of the Alpine Decree was the water would be stripped from the land at 2.99 acre feet per acre, regardless of whether it had a duty of 4.5 acre feet for the benchlands or 3.5 acre feet per acre for the bottomlands.  He said there was no latitude for taking any other fraction of acre feet off and leaving some of the water on the land.  He further stated he did not have the resources to handle the insects, rodents, barns and fences.

 

Mr. William Molini, Director Department of Wildlife, testified he was concerned about the implications of AB 633 for the water rights acquisition program.  He commented he would like greater opportunity to review the proposed amendment to fully assess its implications.  He stated his concern was the ongoing water right acquisition program (on which $2 million of the $5 million from the Question 5 Bond bill had been spent to-date for wetlands) would be severely impacted by the provision of leaving 25 percent of water on the land.  He indicated his willingness to work with Assemblyman de Braga and others to find a better way to address the problems.

 

Ms. Tina Nappe, Coordinator of Lahontan Wetlands Coalition, testified in opposition to AB 633.  She indicated the Coalition was an organization formed of a variety of sportsmen and conservation agencies assisted by federal and state people who had facilitated passage of Public Law 101.618.  Ms. Nappe stressed strong support of the water for wetlands acquisition bill.  She pointed out the formation of her organization in 1988 was designed not only to provide water for the wetlands but also expressed concern for the community of Lahontan Valley and the fisheries.  Ms. Nappe stressed there was a great deal of concern for this legislation and her organization would like an opportunity to consider the proposed amendments in greater detail.

 

Ms. Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands and Division of Conservation, testified in opposition to SB 633.  She indicated the Division of State Lands acted as an agent for the Department of Wildlife in acquisition of property rights and one of the major concerns was the question of delays in the acquisition process.  She said the Division generally bought water but not land, the water was moved to the wetlands and the land remained in private ownership.  Ms. Wilcox pointed out it would be difficult to judge how the bill would affect acquisition.  If the Division could only move 75 percent of the water, or none at all for a few years, it would be unwilling to put the taxpayers money at risk by paying for water which it could not guarantee ever being able to put on the wetlands.  She also felt the bill would decrease the amount of water the Division could put on the wetlands for the amount of money available. 

 

Ms. Wilcox agreed this was a serious problem and there would be economic impacts on the community both from the federal and the state programs of water acquisition.  She also pointed out the experimental research revegetation being done by the Navy and Soil Conservation Service had only just begun so the initial efforts if the bill passed would mean quite a bit of experimental revegetation done at public expense.

 

Ms. Wilcox said she could not disagree with Assemblyman de Braga's concern of waiting another two years as during that period of time much additional water would be transferred and land would be left fallow with negative consequences to the community.  She indicated a desire to have additional time to review both the bill and the proposed amendment and felt testimony needed to be heard from the local conservation district which would bear implementation responsibility under the amended bill.

 

Mr. Charles Frey indicated he had just heard and was very concerned about the environmental impact statement being prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service, which was not independent with respect to the people purchasing the water rights.  He felt this bill was for the people who wished to stay on the land.  He reiterated his concerns and previous comments.

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner stated he would take the concerns voiced under advisement and closed the hearing on AB 633.

 

Mr. McGaughey commented he felt there needed to be a starting point and if a law was put on the books the people affected would find a way to implement it and resolve the problems.  He indicated he would like to see AB 633 processed with the amendments and with the end of session so close, he would like this to be considered an urgent matter.

 

Chairman Garner replied there were many concerns and questions which needed to be addressed before any action was taken.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 646 - Exempts certain purchases by specified state agencies from provisions of State Purchasing Act.

 

Assemblyman Kathy Augustine, District 12, testified as a proponent of AB 646.  She briefly reviewed the origin of the bill, stating she had received calls from several state employees expressing their frustration at being unable to purchase individual emergency office supply items.  The employees felt there was a waste of money and product in some cases by having to go through the State Purchasing Act and contract for items.  For instance, they indicated in order to obtain one or two typewriter ribbons they had to purchase an entire case.  Mrs. Augustine supplied the committee members with copies of the 1991 17th Edition of the State Administrative Manual which included a list of items which could be bought directly by an agency. 

 

Mrs. Augustine indicated she had spoken to Mr. Tom Tatro about an amendment to increase the exemption to $100 and he had been amenable to that increase; however, upon further examination he felt the state's ability to forecast usage of items for contracting purchases and to commit to a state contract would be reduced.  Ms. Augustine indicated she would withdraw her proposed amendment to increase the exemption to $100.

 

Mr. Tom Tatro, Acting Administrator of Purchasing Division, testified in past years the Purchasing Division had been given direction by the Legislature and the Governor's office to ensure adequate internal controls were in place.  He indicated there had been a number of recent events which made the Purchasing Division take a fresh look at their obligations, and the Division had adopted an attitude geared more toward customer service rather than internal control.  Mr. Tatro provided further testimony as provided by Exhibit G.

 

Extensive discussion ensued between committee members and Mr. Tatro.

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 646.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 411 - Authorizes creation of local taxing districts to defray cost of improving business within those districts.

 

Chairman Garner referenced the amendments to AB 411 (Exhibit H) indicating this was the companion bill which would put into place the mechanics for the Fremont Street Experience project (AB 433).

 

Mr. Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas, reviewed the amendments to AB 411 (Exhibit H). 

 

Mr. Bache indicated he had a specific concern to the reference in several areas to the district being "coterminous" or "noncoterminous," and the references to "contiguous" and "noncontiguous" on Page 9, Section 12 of the amendment.  He was concerned the district was not totally coterminous or contiguous and requested an explanation of the language.

 

Mr. Leavitt explained where Fremont Street was concerned there was no problem; however, when dealing with a side street, there could be a situation where a hotel had agreed to participate because it would benefit but another business might feel it would not profit by the project and did not want to participate, the language would allow the project to include the hotel and exclude the other business which would not benefit from the project.

 

Further discussion ensued between Mr. Bache and Mr. Leavitt regarding the language.

 

Mr. Bache also voiced his concern over Section 2 of the bill which he discussed with Mr. Leavitt.

 

Further discussion between committee members and Mr. Leavitt ensued regarding issues on eminent domain, operating revenue and assessment districts.

 

Mrs. Lambert referenced Section 12 and proposed an amendment to include a notification process for the funding mechanism be included.

 

Chairman Garner proposed to add Mrs. Lambert's amendment to Amendment No. 708 and asked for a motion to amend and do pass.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 411 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 708 AND WITH ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT AND DO PASS.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  Assemblyman Bache opposed.  Assemblyman Kenny was not present for the vote.

 

Chairman Garner requested Mrs. Lambert work with Mr. Leavitt to draft the proposed amendment.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 414 - Makes various changes relating to public works projects.

 

Chairman Garner referenced Amendment 666 to AB 414 (Exhibit I), and requested Dana Bennett review the changes.

 

Mrs. Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst, stated the problem with the previous amendment was it included the listing of subcontractors and the current amendment would remove Section 3 which would take out the reference to listing of subcontractors.

 

Mr. Hettrick referenced line 3 and questioned if it had been decided whether the brackets would be removed from the language "when informed of violations." 

 

Chairman Garner felt it was the intent to leave that in and did not anticipate it would be a problem.

 

Discussion ensued.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AB 414 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 666 AND THE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE BRACKETS ON LINE 3 OF THE BILL AND DO PASS.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN MCGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  Assemblyman Lambert opposed.  Assemblyman Kenny was not present for the vote.

 

Chairman Garner called a temporary adjournment at 9:55 a.m. and reconvened at 10:00 a.m.

 

Chairman Garner requested a motion to do pass AB 646 as everyone had been in agreement with Mrs. Augustine withdrawing her amendment.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 646.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  Assemblymen Ernaut, Williams and Kenny were not present for the vote.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 177 - Makes various changes to requirements for division of land.

 

Mr. McGaughey referenced Amendment No. 636 to AB 177 (Exhibit J), indicating there were originally several bills and it was thought it would be easier to deal with all of the bills if they were combined and AB 177 was the result.

 

Mr. McGaughey stated there were two final issues which had been cleared up.  One dealt with the surveyors.  Mr. McGaughey told the committee he had met with Tom McHenry who represented the surveyors and they went through the amendment page by page.  Mr. McHenry indicated there was one small area of concern and Mr. McGaughey said he told him it should be addressed on the Senate side rather than try to do anything more with the amendment here.

 

Mr. McGaughey pointed out the other area of substantial change was how the taxes were paid.  All taxes on transfers of property had to be paid for the entire fiscal year, so a property which would transfer in August of any given year would have to prepay all of the taxes through June of the following year, which was discriminating because only a certain class of people were  required to do that, everyone else could pay their taxes in installments.  Mr. McGaughey continued with his explanation and indicated he felt the issue had been addressed to resolve those problems.

 

Mrs. Lambert commented she had spoken to a county assessor and felt there were some technical problems involved which would possibly create programming difficulties.  She indicated she would like to have a public hearing on this bill as she had questions on some areas.

 

Mr. McGaughey replied the amendments had been reviewed by all the parties involved and it had been agreed if there were corrections to be made they could be done in the Senate.

 

Extensive discussion ensued among committee members.

 

Chairman Garner entertained a motion to amend and do pass.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN MCGAUGHEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 177.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mrs. Lambert indicated she would vote no as she disagreed with portions of the bill and the public did not have opportunity to provide input.  She disagreed with the way the bill had been handled.

 

Chairman Garner responded he did not believe the bill had been mishandled, there had been hearings held on it in Las Vegas and the bill had undergone more scrutiny than possibly any other bill in committee.  He indicated it came about as a result of an interim study and a great deal of work had been involved in its process.  Chairman Garner disagreed strenuously with the statement the bill had been mishandled.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  Assemblymen Augustine, de Braga, Ernaut, Hettrick, Lambert and Williams opposed.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 a.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      LINDA FEATHERINGILL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

June 2, 1993

Page: 1