MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING
Sixty-seventh Session
April 5, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order by Chairman Vivian L. Freeman at 1:15 p.m., Monday, April 5, 1993, in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Chairman
Mr. John B. Regan, Vice Chairman
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Ms. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Peter G. Ernaut
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mr. Robert M. Sader
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
Ms. Stephanie Smith
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman John Marvel
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dean Rhoads
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director
OTHERS PRESENT:
Barbara Curti, Nevada Farm Bureau; Charlie Fisher, Private Citizen; Michael Turnipseed, Nevada State Engineer; John Hengen, Western Mining Council; Russ Fields, Nevada Department of Minerals; Hugh C. Ingle, Jr., Commission on Mineral Resources; Jeff Harris, Clark County; Rich Haddock, Santa Fe Pacific Minerals Corp.; Willie Molini, Nevada Department of Wildlife; Tom Atkinson, Nevada Department of Wildlife; Mike Geary, Pegasus Gold; Dave W. Parkhurst, Mining Consultant; M. Douglas Miller, Miller Mineral Exploration; Pam Wilcox, Nevada State Lands; Steve Waller, Soil Conservation Service; Stephanie D. Licht, Nevada Wool Growers Association; Robert Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties; Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Freeman. She notified the committee there would not be a meeting on Wednesday, April 7.
ASSEMBLY BILL 189:
Exempts from regulation certain uses of hazardous substances.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO RESCIND THE ACTION OF DO PASS ON A.B. 189 OF MARCH 29, 1993.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
Mr. Carpenter said amendments to A.B. 189 (Exhibit C) were provided to the committee. He suggested another amendment be made changing the wording in line 2, from "hazardous substance" to "anhydrous ammonia." Mr. Carpenter advised the committee all concerned with A.B. 189 had agreed to the amendments.
Ms. Smith said as a main opponent of A.B. 189 previously, she "hardily endorses the bill in its present amended form."
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 189.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
Mrs. Freeman said it would be the committee's intent to move A.B. 189 as quickly as possible on the floor.
ASSEMBLY BILL 301:
Revises definition of "package plant for sewage treatment" to exclude certain septic systems.
Mr. Jeff Harris, Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning, said A.B. 301 was a Clark County bill. The bill would clarify definitions of what was or was not a package wastewater treatment plant. He said the original bill draft request would exclude septic systems and leach fields from the definition of a package plant. Mr. Harris noted after talking to the Clark County Sanitation District, two amendments needed to be proposed. The first amendment would be at the end of section l, subsection 2, (a), after "5,000 gallons" the words "per day" should be added. The second amendment would be to add a new subsection to section l, subsection 2, and add (c), "systems which are operated for the pretreatment of industrial wastewater prior to disposal to a publicly owned treatment works." He said as more companies were seeking to relocate to the area they would be required to have a pretreatment process by the municipal wastewater treatment prevailers.
Chairman Freeman asked if anyone wished to testify as a proponent or opponent of A.B. 301. She asked Mr. Harris to bring the written amendments to the committee as soon as possible and the committee would act on the bill.
ASSEMBLY BILL 419:
Revises provisions governing construction of dams.
Mr. John Carpenter, Assembly District 33, said he had introduced A.B. 419 for soil conservation districts. The height of a dam would be doubled from 10 feet to 20 feet and it would double the acre-feet of water which could be stored behind the dam. The change would bring Nevada dam requirements into accord with surrounding states. Mr. Carpenter suggested an amendment should be made on page l, line 11, changing "upstream" to "downstream."
Mr. Mike Turnipseed, Nevada State Engineer, concurred with Mr. Carpenter's amendment and supported A.B. 419. He suggested the bill would bring Nevada in line with national criteria for dam inspections by the Corp of Engineers. There would be a slight fiscal impact of approximately $2,000 to the general fund.
Mr. Gibbons asked what the current Corp of Engineers' standard was for height in dam construction. Mr. Turnipseed said on the national dam inventory it was 25 feet high or 50 acre-feet of volume. Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Turnipseed what happened above 50 acre feet. Mr. Turnipseed replied on the national dam inventory it would be a requirement for the states to inspect the dams periodically. Nevada had the statutes required for a very sophisticated dam safety program but did not have the personnel. Mr. Gibbons questioned what the most important criteria would be, height or volume of content. Mr. Turnipseed said both were important, but he explained a dike could be fairly low but carry a large volume of water. Mr. Gibbons stated not always doubling the height of the dam would double the storage capacity, and Mr. Turnipseed agreed.
Ms. Barbara Curti, Nevada Farm Bureau, supported A.B. 419 and spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit D).
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 419.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.
*******
ASSEMBLY BILL 422:
Requires making and recording of specified affidavit for certain mining claims and increases fees imposed on filing certain documents relating to mining claims.
Mr. John Marvel, Assembly District 34, explained A.B. 422 was a request from the Department of Minerals and the mine association. He said the last Congress had changed the method of filing for mining claims. Rather than doing proof of labor miners were now required to post $100 per claim. The small weekend type prospector would not be able to afford to keep claims. Many claims were being dropped which would have a significant impact on funding of the Department of Minerals. Mr. Marvel said no general fund money went into the Department of Minerals and over the years the department had been successful in funding itself with a self imposed fee from the mining and prospecting industries.
Mr. Russ Fields, Executive Director, Nevada Department of Minerals, spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit E) and provided the committee with a one page summary of A.B. 422.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Fields to explain the wording on page 3, subsection 4 and asked if the wording was accurate. Mr. Fields replied the wording would make the filing of the document consistent with the law for filing a proof of labor or affidavit of assessment work. Mr. Fields used as an example the proof of labor document, and explained the work would be done during the assessment year which would begin at noon, September 1 and end September 1 at 11:59 a.m. of the year following. The proof of labor would be filed after the fact when the work was done. The affidavit for intent to hold would be kept on the same schedule as the assessment year, stated Mr. Fields.
Mr. Carpenter asked if the forest service had anything to do with mining claims. Mr. Fields replied the Bureau of Land Management administered the 1872 Mining Law Program. The serial number would be assigned by the Bureau of Land Management even on Forest Service land. Mr. Carpenter asked if the Department of Minerals received any funding from oil operations in Nevada. Mr. Fields said in 1992 the department collected approximately $156,000 from oil and gas assessments which were earmarked specifically for oil and gas regulation and related operations in the Department of Minerals. GeoThermal permit fees for 1992 amounted to about $12,000, however last fall the Commission on Mineral Resources adopted new regulations which would generate approximately $60,000 per year and pay for the cost of administration.
Mrs. Freeman asked what the total budget for the Department of Minerals would be. Mr. Fields said it currently was $685,000 per year with 11 positions.
Mr. Bob Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, supported A.B. 422 and felt it would be a user- friendly bill maintaining an important record base. The amendment (Exhibit F) from Washoe County was a change in existing law and clarified how money was handled within the county. Mr. Hadfield had talked to Mr. Fields and he did not have a problem with the way the counties handled the collected fees. The amendment would clean up the language and put into law what was being done.
Mr. Gibbons asked if the amendment would cost counties extra funds for accounting and recording charges. Mr. Hadfield did not believe there would be a change in cost. Washoe County had been operating in this manner.
Mr. Neighbors stated the Nye County Recorder had said there was only one mining claim recorded for the month and it appeared claims were being dropped by the hundreds. The Department of Minerals would be losing revenue.
Mr. Hugh Ingle, Jr., Mining Engineer and a member of the Commission on Mineral Resources, supported A.B. 422 and said the Commission on Mineral Resources had drafted the bill. Normally Mr. Ingle was against new taxes but he felt the fees were being raised for a specific purpose and would not increase the budget. Mr. Ingle praised the Department of Minerals for the help given to the small miner. Mr. Fields took a poll of miners for facts and figures on what the 12 1/2 percent royalty tax would do to Nevada. The results were reported to the Governor, and on Friday Mr. Dini received the information, Monday the Resolution was through the Assembly, Tuesday it was through the Senate, and on Wednesday Mr. Dini, Mr. Fields and the Governor flew to Washington, D.C. Mr. Ingle said the state of Nevada with its few numbers had an effect.
Mr. Richie D. Haddock, Santa Fe Pacific Minerals Corporation, supported A.B. 422. Santa Fe Minerals was the holder of approximately 15,000 claims in Nevada. In August a payment would be due of $3 million if all claims were held. The goal was to drop 50 percent of the claims. The exploration crew had worked to decide which claims to drop and which claims to keep. With the new holding fee, money previously spent to bring claims into development would now be sent to the government. To maintain exploration work and hold claims previously held would double the amount of money spent each year. Mr. Haddock stated funding for the Department of Minerals needed to be increased to maintain the department. The mining industry needed the Department of Minerals. Santa Fe Pacific Minerals owns 2 1/2 million acres of land in Nevada through the original railroad grant for the Southern Pacific right-of-way.
Mr. Mike Geary, Chairman, Public Lands Committee, Nevada Mining Association, and Environmental Coordinator for Pegasus Gold, helped write the bill and supported A.B. 422. Mr. Geary had a standing ovation in the Churchill County Courthouse approximately three weeks ago as he filed mineral claims. They were the first claims filed since November. He had completed a phone survey for Barbara Vucanovich, House of Representatives, and approximately 72,000 mining claims would be dropped.
Mr. Dave Parkhurst, member of the Miners and Prospectors Association and the Nevada Mining Association, had worked both with the small and large miners on state and federal issues. Their input from the associations had not been considered until the state of Nevada supported mining at the U.S. level. Mr. Parkhurst said he had worked with Mr. Fields and felt records of claims must be kept in the counties. Comparing state figures with Bureau of Land Management figures was entirely different. The Bureau of Land Management had many dead claims on file and currently showed 402,000 active mining claims in the state of Nevada. Mr. Fields and Mr. Parkhurst reported 286,000 active mining claims in the state of Nevada. He knew of 4,200 claims not renewed before the fees became effective. Mr. Parkhurst and his partner had dropped over 150 claims last year, they could no longer afford to keep them. Last fall it would have cost $724.50 to do all of the recording, and the cost would have been $24,260 to do the recording this year. Mr. Parkhurst supported A.B. 422.
Mr. Douglas Miller, President, Miners and Prospectors Association, and stockholder in Miramar Mining Corporation has $34 million invested in Nevada in 12,000 claims and two areas of patent claims. The stockholders had suggested their investment in Nevada was a liability and had already moved a great deal of the operation elsewhere and joint ventured into Cuba. Russia would be a contender for mining before long, stated Mr. Miller. A.B. 422 was supported by Mr. Miller and the Miners and Prospectors Association.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 422 TO INCLUDE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NEVADA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES REPRESENTATIVE OUTLINED ON THE 8 1/2 x 11 SHEET OF PAPER.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.
********
SENATE BILL 123:
Revises provision for issuance of duplicate tags for hunting.
Mr. Willie Molini, Director, Department of Wildlife, noted S.B. 123 did two things. The first section would make a change in statute as it had applied in the past. In the past the department had issued duplicate tags for mule deer which were diseased and unfit for human consumption. The provisions of section l, subsection l would include all big game mammals, including big horn sheep, elk, antelope, rocky mountain goats in addition to deer. Subsection 2 would be a list of requirements for the commission to follow and reparation for a diseased animal. Mr. Molini said the bill did not come from the department but from a coalition for Nevada's Wildlife which was a substantial group of sportsmen and conservation organizations, and the department supported the change. Section 2 proposed to increase the fee for a duplicate tag which had not been received in the mail or had been destroyed. A duplicate could be received by signing an affidavit and paying the required fee. This fee would be increased from $1 to $5 to cover the cost of issuance.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Molini to point out in the bill where a person shooting a diseased or unfit deer would be issued a duplicate tag. Mr. Molini remarked the statute originally stated the intent but now the intent would be for the commission to promulgate regulations. Mr. Sader asked if section l, subsection 2, (d), gives the commission authority to promulgate regulations which would allow the department to issue a duplicate tag as part of reparation. Mr. Molini felt it would give the commission authority. Mr. Sader asked what else would the commission give as reparation. Mr. Molini replied the head, hide or other parts of the mammal. Mr. Atkinson stated other circumstances could arise, as an example a hunter drawing an antelope tag would be required to wait five years before applying again. There would be the bonus point system for drawing tags which could become involved. If a person brought in a diseased animal on the last day of the season they could not be issued a tag in the same season. The examples would be issues where reparation would be needed. Mr. Sader understood the possibilities but was disturbed by the term reparation. Reparation normally meant money, said Mr. Sader. Mr. Molini would not have a problem with changing terminology and indicated a tag would be an option as well as other potential relief if an animal was diseased. The old language was clear, and Mr. Sader believed the new language was unclear. Mr. Molini indicated the department would work with the coalition to clarify the language.
Mr. Carpenter had a problem with section 1, subsection 2, (d), and the use of the word "may." He felt a person should be given another tag and questioned the cost of $5 for a new tag when the loss of the tag was not the fault of the hunter. Mr. Molini felt they were valid points but the department would only be recovering its cost. He stated the department was liberal in issuing tags for diseased animals, however, there were times when an animal looked diseased and was not.
Mr. Gibbons questioned what would be required to have an animal "inspected." Mr. Molini could not answer Mr. Gibbons question. Mr. Gibbons also asked if the whole carcass would be needed for an inspection as the language did not state. Mr. Molini said the intent would be for the whole carcass to be inspected and the language should so indicate. If a veterinarian inspected a carcass who would be charged the assessment for the inspection, asked Mr. Gibbons. The intent would be for an authorized employee of the department to inspect the carcass at no cost, replied Mr. Molini. If a hunter did not accept the verdict of a wildlife employee, he could have the animal inspected by a veterinarian at the hunter's expense. If the veterinarian's certificate indicated the animal was unfit for human consumption, the department would accept the certificate. Mr. Gibbons stated an "authorized representative" indicated something different than an "employee of the department." Mr. Molini said the commission would adopt regulations to cover section l, subsection 2 (d) regarding keeping part of the carcass.
Mrs. Freeman placed S.B. 123 in subcommittee. She appointed Mr. Gibbons as chair with Ms. de Braga as a member to meet with Mr. Molini to work out amendments.
SENATE BILL 232:
Extends prospective expiration of provision granting immunity from liability to governmental entity that clears channel of navigable river.
Senator Mike McGinness stated S.B. 232 was a bill former Senator Virgil Getto had authored in the 1989 session. Senator McGinness said the only change would be to extend the immunity for cleanup for three more years to 1996. Cleanup on the Carson River was being organized. Due to the drought the river had not had much water, and sediment and willows had taken over. An application (Exhibit G) explained the need for the extension on S.B. 232. When immunity was being discussed, trial lawyers became involved, but after discussion they approved of the bill.
Ms. Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, deferred to Steve Walker. Mr. Steve Walker, Coordinator for Carson/Walker Conservation Development Area, and Chairman Facilitator for the local coordinator resource management group who developed a management plan for the lower Carson River, defined The Lower Carson River as the river below Lahontan Dam to its terminus in the sink. He said the last three years a group, represented by five federal agencies, eleven local and state agencies over 100 landowners and other groups had met to develop a management plan for the lower Carson river. State funds had been applied for and administered through the Water Engineer's office to implement cleaning of the river channel to pass a twenty-five year flood event or an event which would be equal to the capacity of the Bafford Lane Bridge. Mr. Walker related other cleaning of the river channel would be addressed. Mr. Walker emphasized the need for continuance of the liability issue, S.B. 232, to proceed with the project.
Ms. Pam Wilcox, Division of State Lands and Mr. Mike Turnipseed, Division of Water Resources, represented the two primary agencies who had jurisdiction in the area of S.B. 232. Navigable rivers had been a problem. States throughout the United States owned the beds and banks of navigable rivers but did not actively manage those rivers. Management in most cases had been initiated locally. Ms. Wilcox said since 1973 there had been a state fund in Nevada Revised Statutes 532.220 called the Channel Clearance Surveying and Monumenting Fund which had been administered by the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources. The fund provided state matching funds up to 50 percent of the cost of clearing the channel of a navigable river. The fund had been used sparsely because of local concern for liability. The Carson River was cleared fairly regularly by local interest groups up until the floods in the early and mid-eighties. Since the floods the fear of liability had increased and the process had been at a stand-still. There had been a build up of sediment and beaver dams in the Carson channel and there was a concern regarding flooding potential. In 1989 the Lahontan Conservation Group was successful in having NRS 532.220 amended to include the temporary immunity from liability which sparked local interest to clear the river channel. A plan was ready to go to clear the river but now the window of immunity would be running out and an extension of three years was asked for. Ms. Wilcox noted her office and the State Engineers office did not have a problem with S.B. 232.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 232.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.
********
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 13:
Urges Congress, Bureau of Land Management and United States Forest Service to expedite creation of certain programs for managing population of wild horses and burros on public lands.
Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Senatorial District, stated S.J.R. 13 came out of the Legislative Committee on Public Lands. The Wild Horse Commission was cooperating with the Bureau of Land Management on an experimental method of controlling the population of wild horses and burros on public lands. The horses and burros would be rounded up, the older ones sold and the younger mares would be sterilized and sent back to the range. If successful, this procedure would slow down the wild horse and burro population.
Mr. John Marvel, Assembly District 34, served on the Public Land Committee which Senator Rhoads chaired. The wild horse and burro population in Nevada had gotten out of hand which had detrimental effects on livestock grazing and had been an impediment to good wildlife management. Advocate groups had begun to realize a measure of control was needed. This seemed to be a way for all groups to work together and control the balance of wild horses and burros.
Ms. Barbara Curti, President, Nevada Farm Bureau, spoke from written testimony (Exhibit H) and urged support of S.J.R. 13.
Mr. Joe Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, supported S.J.R. 13.
Ms. Stephanie D. Licht, Nevada Wood Growers Association, supported S.J.R. 13.
Mr. Charlie Fisher, private citizen, champion of the wild horse and good range management, spoke of the way the wild horse was propagated and utilized by the ranchers. When the wild horse bill was passed, the BLM took over control of the wild horse on the range. Mr. Fisher was for the preservation of the wild horse and lobbying for more money to be spent on the range where it would do some good.
Mrs. Freeman asked about funding referred to on page 2 of SJR 13. Senator Rhoads stated BLM had a figure for funding which could be obtained. In the resolution it would be proposed to have a National Center for Wild Horses and Burros in Nevada. Mrs. Freeman asked about the center. Senator Rhoads stated the persons who would be in management control would be housed at the center. Mrs. Freeman would like more information on the center.
Ms. de Braga asked if part of the cost of the program would come out of the budget used for the adoption program or roundup program. Senator Rhoads said last year's budget had funds for the test program and the establishment of a National Center. He understood BLM was to pilot the program and report results to Congress.
Mr. Regan asked if there were properties and programs proposed to be donated or used for the program.
Mr. Ernaut stated he had a client with the American Horse Foundation who had a project on the drawing board which should have merit for the future. Mr. Ernaut was in favor of S.J.R. 13 but would abstain from voting due to a possible professional conflict of interest.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 13.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE AND ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT ABSTAINED.)
********
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 14:
Urges Congress to limit acquisition of privately owned land by the Federal Government and to return public land to private ownership.
Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Senatorial District, stated S.J.R. 14 became an issue two years ago and had been an issue of Senator Rhoads for ten years. He said he had seen third party organizations buy land and donate the land to the Federal Government in exchange for a smaller amount of land. Currently there were 1,000 acres of private land going into federal ownership. A bill pending in Congress would recognize if the Federal Government owned 25 percent or more land in a state, a like amount of land must come back from the Federal Government to private ownership. It should be a land neutral exchange. A proposal in Elko two years ago was going to take 50,000 acres of private land and donate it to the government in exchange for 3,000 acres in Clark County. The tax base of the rural counties would have been severely affected. There were at least eight other proposals in Elko, Humboldt, Pershing and parts of Eureka and Lander Counties which were being considered for the same exchange. Senator Rhoads felt it was a poor policy for a state which was owned 86 percent by the Federal Government.
Mrs. Freeman asked for an example and Senator Rhoads said the Mary's River exchange had to do with one of the largest ranches in Nevada. They exchanged 50,000 acres of private land donated it to the federal government and in turn would get 3,000 acres in Las Vegas for development purposes.
Mr. John Marvel, Assembly District 34, said one of the major concerns of rural legislators had been the massive exchanges of land. The tax base of rural counties had been very limited, and to have the tax base and the ad valorem base lowered because of land being donated to the federal government eroded the ability for local government to operate.
Senator Rhoads stated the issue was severely criticized by the Inspector General and in an investigation they found many third- party organizations were making millions of dollars off of tax write-offs.
Mr. Schneider asked if the bill had to do with the Burton/Santini Act. Senator Rhoads said no, this was additional trading which had been going on above and beyond the Burton/Santini Act. Mr. Schneider said he had been involved in an exchange of 22,000 acres of Boise Cascade land in Lake Tahoe for property in Las Vegas and he still was a partner in land which was part of the Burton/Santini Act. Senator Rhoads said he supported the Burton/Santini Act and stated it was a good bill.
Mr. Neighbors discussed land lost in Nye County which lost millions in revenue from the land lost on the county tax roll. Mr. Neighbors said water rights were often lost in the
exchanges.
Senator Rhoads and Assemblyman Marvel discussed the many large ranches in the West which had been used to gain land for the Federal Government on an exchange basis.
Ms. Barbara Curti supported passage of S.J.R. 14 from written testimony (Exhibit I).
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 14.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 17:
Urges Congress to reject any unreasonable increase of fees for grazing livestock on public lands.
Senator Rhoads, Northern Nevada District, and Assemblyman John Marvel, District 34 testified on S.J.R. 17. Senator Rhoads said in the last three sessions of Congress he had spent 20 days a year in Washington, D.C. in a conference committee to kill a grazing fee increase which would have destroyed the livestock industry in the state of Nevada. The livestock industry generated over $300 million per year to Nevada's economy. The proposal President Clinton had in the budget would have destroyed the livestock industry. He said the current grazing fee was $1.82 per cow, per month and was set on the price of cattle minus the cost of production. Negotiations continue in Congress and currently a bill by an Oklahoma Congressman would raise the grazing fee to $9. Senator Rhoads explained it would eliminate livestock grazing in the West and in Nevada. He stated most western states were attempting to pass similar resolutions.
Mr. Marvel stated people living in the urban area were not familiar with the difference between private land and pubic land. He said there were so many more parts to the private land use as compared to public land use. In a private land lease a rancher received management, fencing and all other tools required for a $9 fee. On public lands the rancher had to make the investment in all the management tools.
Ms. Barbara Curti supported S.J.R. 17 and spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit J).
Ms. Freeman asked if the ranchers were paying $1.82 and Congress wanted to raise the fee to $9, what would the compromise be. Ms. Curti did not wish to give a dollar amount. She felt it should be based on what the cost of grazing on public land would be. A formula from the land grant colleges stated $1.86 would be the cost of grazing. Sheep ranchers in Wyoming said $2.40 would push them off the land and she did not feel the cattlemen were far behind.
Mr. Joe Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, urged support of S.J.R. 17 and agreed with Ms. Curti's testimony. Mr. Guild referred to an editorial in the Reno/Gazette Journal regarding the grazing fee and mining royalty debate. The Gazette/Journal basically opposed raising the grazing fee to an unfair level and imposing an unfair royalty. No one talked about imposing a fee on people who might want to drive onto public lands for a picnic. If the water development by private interests on public and private land was taken out of the West, there would not be a wildlife population as we know it today. Throughout the history of the West there have been abuses by grazing interests. He stated the range was in an improving condition.
Ms. Stephanie Licht, Nevada Wool Growers, concurred with the previous testimony from the point of view of sheepmen. The sheep people had been in the same situation as cattle people. To keep sheep moving to not over-abuse the land has been a problem. Sheep were the original weed and feed of the environment. Agriculture was doing for people at 12 cents on the dollar what people could not do for themselves. She asked support of S.J.R. 17.
Mr. Charlie Fisher, private citizen said the public range supports, and the private land produces the feed to keep the livestock in the winter. He supported S.J.R. 17.
There was no opposition to S.J.R. 17.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 17.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 18:
Urges United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Secretary of Interior to expedite recovery plan for Lahontan cutthroat trout in Nevada.
Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, spoke in support of S.J.R. 18. Ten years ago the Secretary of the Interior directed agency people to come up with a draft plan for recovery of Lahontan cutthroat trout. When the committee on Public Lands met in Washington, D.C. they were asked about the plan for the Lahontan cutthroat trout. A draft plan had been submitted about one month ago and hearings would be held this summer. Senator Rhoads said there should be an amendment to S.J.R. 18, page l, lines 16 and 17 should be deleted , and on line 24, ".....completion of the draft.....," should be deleted and "implementation" be inserted. Everyone had been working together for full recovery of the Lahontan cutthroat trout.
Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, supported S.J.R. 18.
Ms. Stephanie Licht stated the Nevada Wool Growers would like to go on record in support of the preservation of the species. She said in the resolution the word "expedite" should be used carefully. Expedite sometimes encouraged faster implementation than was needed. She said she would like to see language inserted in the resolution, "to coordinate and cooperate with the local people using scientific research." "Please move judiciously even though it needs to be accomplished, do not move so fast one thing would be sacrificed for the expense of another, allow those directly impacted to be part of the process and encourage insertion of language to include cooperation and coordination with those people," stated Ms. Licht.
Ms. Barbara Curti, Nevada Farm Bureau, testified with written testimony (Exhibit K).
Mrs. Freeman asked if Ms. de Braga would work with the interested participants on the amendments and bring them back at the next meeting. No action would be considered on S.J.R. 18 today. She announced there would not be a meeting on Wednesday.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
PAT MENATH
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining
April 5, 1993
Page: 1
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining