MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING
Sixty-seventh Session
April 12, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order by Chairman Vivian L. Freeman at 1:15 p.m., April 12, 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. Robert M. Sader
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
Ms. Stephanie Smith
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Roy Neighbors (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director
OTHERS PRESENT:
Doug Driesner, Department of Minerals; Larry Hawke, Nevada Mining Association; Larry Pedrett, Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station; John Young Santa Fe Pacific Mining, Inc.; Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau; Dave Parkhurst, Mining Consultant; M. Douglas Miller, Nevada Miners and Prospectors Assn.; Pam Wilcox, State Lands; Frank W. Lewis, Private Citizen; Richard C. Davis, Private Citizen.
Chairman Freeman opened the meeting and roll call was taken.
SENATE BILL 130:
Revises restriction on terms of sale or lease of state land or interest therein.
Ms. Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, noted S.B. 130 was a housekeeping bill and the only bill the agency requested this session. Ms. Wilcox gave a brief history of state lands and said in 1965 the legislature put a moratorium on the sale of state lands. The moratorium was in effect until 1989. During those years the agency could only sell state lands with an "express act of the legislature" authorizing it to do so, which became very cumbersome with the legislature meeting every two years. In 1989 the legislature repealed the moratorium and instituted a procedure where land sales could go ahead only for fair market value with the approval of the Board of Examiners and the approval of the Interim Finance Committee. She said removing the moratorium required making changes in the statutes, and one area of the statute was overlooked. In S.B. 130, line 11 in parenthesis was not removed and had caused confusion. The State Lands Division asked for the deletion of the phrase. The bill drafter clarified other phrases in Nevada Revised Statute 321.003 which had not been taken care of previously.
Mrs. Freeman asked if anyone wished to testify in favor or opposition to S.B. 130.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 130.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN ERNAUT AND NEIGHBORS WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
SENATE BILL 145:
Exempts reasonable agricultural activity from certain local ordinances concerning air pollution.
Mr. Larry Pedrett, Assistant Director, Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station, supported S.B. 145.
Ms. Smith asked Mr. Pedrett what was the purpose of the bill. She stated one part of the bill asked for an exemption, and the other part indicated an exemption could not be obtained. Ms. Smith wanted to know what the bill would do.
Mr. Pedrett said the bill would address reasonable agricultural activity. In Washoe County the Air Quality Board cites farmers for dust behind a tractor, and dust when bailing. Ms. Smith asked if it was a violation of the law. Mr. Pedrett said it was a violation of a local ordinance in Washoe County. Ms. Smith said she felt if S.B. 145 passed he would have the same problem. He said the farmers had agreed in Washoe County with the Air Quality Board "not to farm if the wind was blowing more than 18 miles per hour." Ms. Smith asked if the law was not passed, how would Mr. Pedrett's life change. Mr. Pedrett said it would not make a great deal of difference to him but the law was important to other counties in Nevada. Ms. Smith was trying to understand the purpose of the bill.
Mr. Gibbons explained, as long as the practice of farming did not violate local ordinances, farmers would be exempt for agricultural activities. Ms. Smith asked if the wind was blowing would it not violate the law with the dust it would create. Mr. Gibbons stated her concern would be clarified under section 1, subsection 2 of S.B. 145.
Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, said the legislation was seeking recognition of normal farming activities. The challenges being faced were in those areas where urban and agricultural operations meet. There had been situations where people moved to the country but then did not want the farmers and ranchers to do what they pursue. S.B. 145 was a "right to farm type of legislation," and Mr. Busselman said the points Ms. Smith had made served as safeguards to make sure it would not be a blanket exemption, and those activities did not break various federal, state or local laws. The Nevada Farm Bureau was working with the local health board in Washoe County to develop local ordinances for dust abatement which would fit agriculture. Under the current law dust abatement programs in place for Washoe County were the same for construction as for farming and ranching.
Ms. Smith said where she lives, in Clark County, there was a pig farm for recycling. Some of the developments which came after the pig farm were outraged about the smell. Ms. Smith had told them the pig farm came first. The pressure came from the Clean Air Act, when the scent exceeded certain levels. Mr. Busselman did not believe odors were covered under the Clean Air Act. He understood the act had to do with dust particles in the air. Ms. Smith said chemicals had to be dispersed on the pig farm when the odors became excessive. Ms. Smith asked what the bill would do for the situation she referred to. Mr. Busselman said the bill would serve notice to the local units of government "Right to Farm Legislation" was in state statute.
Mrs. Freeman asked if the Washoe County Health Department had been involved. Mr. Pedrett replied yes. He said the main problem of dust in farming was twofold as there has been major construction near the Experimental Station. The dust patrol cited construction for not having a water truck and then cited the farmer for normal farming activities and not having a water truck in front of the farm machinery, which would not be practical.
Mr. Busselman said the Nevada Farm Bureau and Department of Agriculture were working with the Washoe County Health Board to propose a model dust abatement program to address the needs of farmers rather than including farmers with construction.
Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Pedrett if there were other activities which were on non-farmland and consistent with good agricultural practices which might generate dust or smoke. Mr. Gibbons asked what determined farmland, prior use of the land or would it exclude land which had not been used or designated as farmland. Mr. Pedrett said at the Experiment Station the University of Nevada had entered into an agreement with the Reno Cannon Airport Authority to create a wetlands which would be a questionable farm activity. There would be farming activities taking place while the wetlands were created. Croplands within the wetlands would be planted. Mr. Gibbons asked where the definition of "good agricultural practices" was established. Mr. Pedrett asked "reasonable agricultural practices," Mr. Gibbons said no, "good agricultural practices" which was referred to in S.B. 145, section 1, subsection 2. (b).
Mr. Busselman said there were standards for proper soil conservation, erosion, etc. Mr. Gibbons asked if there was a public entity which would establish those practices. Mr. Busselman replied the Soil Conservation Department.
Ms. de Braga said the bill did not do what she felt was intended. She agreed with Ms. Smith on section 1, subsection 2. (d), the laws which might cause a violation could be present or future laws. She commented on "good agricultural practice" and suggested the intent should be the "common or usual agricultural practice" of the area. She gave an example of Stillwater in which burning stubble fields was the common practice. Wildlife annually burned the tulles which created an incredible smoke and cinder hazard which apparently was not a violation to existing law. Ms. de Braga stated farming could not be accomplished without raising dust. Washoe County's problems were not the same as throughout the state, but the law would cover the entire state. Mr. Busselman stated the "Right To Farm Law" was felt to protect the farmer in statute. The section of statute which dealt with nuisance suits had provisions which protected a farmer from a neighbor filing a suit when normal farming activities were being performed. What was discovered from the Experimental Station activities was the protection for the "Right to Farm" did not mean anything when local ordinances took precedence. Mr. Busselman stated the reason for the legislation was due to the lack of protection from local ordinances. Mrs. de Braga felt section 1, subsection 2, (c) would take care of the problem, and (d) defeated the bill as Ms. Smith suggested.
Mrs. Freeman asked if the bill was initiated by the University of Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station. Mr. Pedrett said no and Mr. Busselman said the Nevada Farm Bureau was in the original discussion for introducing the bill. The bill would not change the local situation and would be geared for the rest of the state. The local issues were being worked out at the local level.
Mr. Schneider discussed a prior bill on dust abatement for towns of 400,000 population passed by the committee. The winds in Clark County and surrounding areas could be 40 to 50 miles per hour and nothing could be done to abate the dust from blowing. Mr. Schneider felt the winds were a real problem for farmers. He could water 10 acres for building but it would not be possible for the farmer. The bill needed to be spelled out or there could be real problems for the farmer.
Mrs. Freeman suggested she would not take action on S.B. 145 until the committee could analyze the bill further.
Mr. Carpenter felt when a clean air or dust abatement bill was passed it would need to be specific to agriculture practices.
Mr. Regan suggested changing the wording in S.B. 145, section l, subsection 2 (b) from "good" to "accepted." Subsection 2, on page 2, (b) "good" to "accepted" and (d) a period after state law, and amend out the remainder of the sentence. It would state agriculture was not responsible for those ordinances.
Ms. Smith said if there was a problem which needed to be solved, would local authority be able to make an ordinance to cover the problem if local law, ordinance or regulation was deleted. Mr. Regan said no. Ms. Smith felt it would take away the means to solve problems.
Discussion took place regarding the wind and watering for dust problems.
Mr. Joe Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, supported S.B. 145. Mr. Guild helped to draft S.B. 145 and did feel the word "good" should be changed to a more appropriate word such as normal or accepted.
Mr. Joe Johnson, representing the Sierra Club, said he was not speaking so much in opposition to S.B. 145 but to point out problems with the bill. He said the Air Quality Standards were state standards and were health standards. The administration of the laws with the exception of Washoe and Clark Counties was by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and not by the county commissions. He would like to see encouragment for allowing boards of health or the county commissions to adopt regulations which were specific to agriculture.
Ms. Pam Wilcox, State Lands, said the second division she administered was the Division of Conservation Districts, and there was a governmental agency which did have standards. A definition regarding section 1, subsection 2 (b), could be written, "Is consistent with the conservation plan approved by a Conservation District," which existed under Chapter 548 of Nevada Revised Statutes, said Ms. Wilcox.
Mr. Busselman asked for written testimony to be included in the minutes, (Exhibit C).
Ms. Freeman closed the hearing on S.B. 145.
SENATE BILL 263:
Revises provisions concerning fees charged in connection with mining reclamation.
Mr. Doug Driesner, Administrator, Division of Abandoned Mine Lands, Department of Minerals, said a brief summary of what S.B.
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining
April 12, 1993
Page: 7
263 would do was outlined in Exhibit D. The Department of Minerals supported S.B. 263 and as the initiator of the bill. In 1987 the Legislature created the Division of Abandoned Mine Lands and the duties were to discover abandoned mine sites throughout Nevada where mining was not taking place. By 1989 it was discovered many mines were "orphaned," which meant they had no current claimant or no current owner. The Legislature in 1989 created a funding mechanism to physically secure the orphaned mine sites. The funding mechanism was addressed in S.B. 263. There were two fees, one was a fee on notices of intent, and the other was on the plans of operation. A notice of intent would be filed by a miner to the Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service when working on a claim on a small scale. The fee would be $20 regardless of the scope of work. The fee on plans of operation would be $20 per disturbed acre. A plan would be anything larger than 5 acres. The money generated from a plan would be much larger than money generated from a notice of intent. The funding on the notices of intent were not efficient, whereas the fees on the plans of operation have been efficient. S.B. 263 would eliminate the non-efficient funding on the notices and retain the funding on the plans of operation. The fee structure would be used to physically secure the orphaned mines. There was a sunset provision of June 30, 1994 and S.B. 263 would eliminate the provision. Some of the money would be used to educate the public on the hazards associated with abandoned mines.
Ms. de Braga asked how much revenue would be lost by eliminating the notices fee. Mr. Driesner said they were bringing in about $7,000 a year or 10 percent of the money generated from the funding mechanism. Ninety percent of effort was being spent collecting the fees from the notices which generated only 10 percent of the revenue. In exchange for the loss of revenue the 10 percent would be extending the collecting of fees on the plans, and the overall program would not be in jeopardy. Ms. de Braga said she had calls about the success of the overall program and there were areas where the mines had not been touched or the public made aware abandoned mines were dangerous. Mr. Driesner felt a great deal had been accomplished. He said the estimated mine sites were 50,000 in Nevada and about 20 percent of the mines were orphan. He only had a staff of three people to cover the whole state of Nevada. There were 243 orphan mines secured since the program began and a contract for 21 mines to be secured in Clark County were in progress. Another 50 would be secured south of Yerington later this summer, said Mr. Driesner.
Ms. Freeman said she had looked up NRS 519A.250 and asked if S.B. 263 affected the reclamation program. Mr. Driesner said no, the law was in NRS 519A but had nothing to do with the reclamation program the Division of Environmental Protection handled.
Mr. Gibbons asked if it was a one-time fee. Mr. Driesner said yes, it was a one time fee on plans for abandoned mine claims.
Mr. John M. Young, Santa Fe Pacific Mining who also represented the Nevada Mining Industry, supported S.B. 263. He agreed with Mr. Driesner's remarks regarding the laws which existed now and felt they had been an administrative problem. Mr. Young explained the many problems concerned with paying fees on the notice of intent. He said some fees were not paid on projects and other times fees were paid on projects not needing to be paid on. The fees only needed to be paid on public lands and often had been paid on private lands. Santa Fe Pacific had secured several hundred workings on its private lands to minimize liability. The fee to pay notices had not been efficient and had cost Santa Fe Pacific several times the $20 fee in administrative costs. A copy of intent was required to be filed along with a form indicating the case number. Mr. Young said Santa Fe Pacific strongly supported the program but would like the program to be more efficient with the money being used to secure workings, not for administrative costs.
Mr. Dave Parkhurst, Nevada Mining Association, had worked on legislation for S.B. 263. He agreed with the testimony from Mr. Driesner and John Young and felt the legislation would make the program more efficient along with the elimination of the sunset clause. He strongly supported S.B. 263.
Mr. Douglas Miller, State President, Nevada Miners and Prospectors Association and agent for Miramar Mining Corporation which holds approximately 1,200 claims in Nevada, stated Miramar refused to pay the $20 fee. Nevada Revised Statutes 519A exempts 5 acres each year, and he stated they do not exceed 5 acres in each claim and therefore refused to pay the fee. Mr. Miller and his associates supported S.B. 263 and felt it was time the law was corrected.
Mrs. Freeman closed the hearing on S.B. 263.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 12:
Urges Federal Government to recognize rights of users of certain roads over public lands.
Mr. Douglas Miller, State President, Nevada Miners and Prospectors Association, presented a written statement supporting S.J.R. 12 (Exhibit E).
Mr. Frank Lewis presented written testimony (Exhibit F) in support of S.J.R. 12. He said he owned numerous parcels of private land in remote areas of Nevada and the federal government had been closing off roads of access to private deeded parcels which made the property evaluation worthless. Most of his acreage was of low value and for a private party to bring legal action against the federal government would be futile.
The hearing was closed on S.J.R. 12.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 12.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN NEIGHBORS AND SMITH WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
ASSEMBLY BILL 109:
Creates state center for emergency operations to receive reports of emergencies involving hazardous materials and maintain information relating to those emergencies.
Mr. Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, discussed the amendment (Exhibit G) to A.B. 109 which was acted on with an amend and do pass. He said the committee had asked for a review of the amendments before they went to the floor of the Assembly. The bill referred to emergencies involving hazardous materials. The motion was to take out references to hazardous materials and generally apply A.B. 109 to all emergencies. One section referred to calling 911 for emergencies or the sheriff's emergency number. Mr. Welden informed the committee the amendment did respond to all situations discussed.
Mr. Carpenter felt referring to all emergencies would create a problem.
Mr. Welden said the emergency operations center had language specifying the types of emergencies and what level of emergency they would retain information on. The bill drafter indicated the whole chapter refers to emergencies in general and the agency had the authority by regulation to limit the types of emergencies involved or to place limitations within a type of emergency for what they wanted to receive information on.
Mr. Carpenter had asked for records on road closures this winter. He suggested they had included very few road closures on the information provided. He felt most local emergencies should be taken care of and reported to local authorities.
The committee could add a provision which directed the division to further define what type and level of emergency for which information should be provided. They would have to go to public hearing to make regulations. The alternative would be to include each emergency in statute.
Mrs. Freeman discussed the summary of the bill and intent when changed by the amendment. She asked if the committee understood what was being amended out of the bill.
Ms. de Braga thought in discussion provisions for other emergencies would be added. She felt to say "any emergency" would be an extreme measure to take.
Mrs. Freeman suggested they look at the amendment at a later meeting.
Mr. Welden suggested putting discussion of the amendment on the agenda and those persons concerned with the bill could be at the meeting to answer questions.
ASSEMBLY BILL 116:
Requires department of taxation to collect certain fees related to hazardous materials.
Mr. Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, spoke on the amendments (Exhibit H) for A.B. 116. Mr. Welden said he felt the amendments did accomplish what the testimony from Department of Environmental Protection supported and did take out the term "prorated." No action had been taken on this bill at the worksession.
Mr. Carpenter questioned the fee structure change in the bill.
Mr. Welden said the language would not change the existing annual fee structure.
No action would be taken on A.B. 116 at this time said Chairman Freeman. The bill would be brought back to committee at a later date.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
PAT MENATH
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining
April 12, 1993
Page: 1
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining
April 12, 1993
Page: 6