MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING
Sixty-seventh Session
April 26, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order by Chairman Vivian L. Freeman at 1:30 p.m., April 26, 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. Douglas A. Bache
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Ms. Marcia de Braga
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mr. Robert M. Sader
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
Ms. Stephanie Smith
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Assemblyman Regan (Excused)
Assemblyman Ernaut (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director
OTHERS PRESENT:
Fred Messmann, Nevada Department of Wildlife; Tom Atkinson, Nevada Department of Wildlife; Andy Goodrich, Washoe District Health, Air Quality Management Division; Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau; Verne Rosse, Nevada Environmental Protection Division; Stephanie Tyler, Nevada Propane Dealer's Association; Mike Eriksen, Nevada Propane Dealers Association; Joe Johnson, Sierra Club.
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Freeman. Assemblymen Regan and Assemblyman Ernaut were excused from the meeting.
Mrs. Freeman advised the committee they would hear S.B. 145 first due to the illness of one of the interested parties.
SENATE BILL 145:
Exempts reasonable agricultural activity from certain local ordinances concerning air pollution.
Mrs. Freeman stated two amendments were offered to the bill. The first amendment was drafted by Mr. Welden from information at a previous hearing. The second amendment was proposed by Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau Exhibit C.
Mr. Andy Goodrich, Washoe District Health Department, Air Quality Specialist, Air Quality Management Division, said the district originally opposed S.B. 145. Mr. Goodrich said Washoe County was not sure the bill accomplished anything and the bill would exempt agricultural operations entirely from any regulations. Washoe and Clark Counties were designated by the Federal Government as serious non-attainment areas for PM10 (dust less than 10 microns in size). PM10 was considered a dangerous air pollutant although it would be looked upon as dust, but in reality PM10 was one of the leading causes for emphysema and asthma in urban areas. Mr. Busselman had put together language which was acceptable to the Washoe District Health Department, but the department was concerned the Federal Environmental Protection Agency would not accept the language. Mr. Goodrich said the Washoe District Health Department would prefer language in the amendment proposed by staff. The amendment would give the health department latitude but recognized agriculture was a special activity and needed special consideration.
Mrs. Smith asked Mr. Goodrich if the word "may" should be inserted in Mr. Busselman's amendment instead of the word "shall." She felt the term "may" would give flexibility to decide if a particular situation was needed or should agriculture prevail. In the original printing of the amendment under (c) of Mr. Busselman's amendment a change was made from "and" to "or." Mrs. Smith felt "and" would be more appropriate because all agriculture would need for an exemption would be activity conducted on agricultural land and the activity could violate the law, etc. Mr. Goodrich was not able to answer Mrs. Smith's question. Mrs. Smith did not know if the language obligated the department to do something or if it would give the department the opportunity to do something when necessary.
Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, said the word "or" was suggested after working with others on the committee. He said the word "shall" conveyed the development of mitigation plans and abatement programs. Agriculture had been working with agricultural dust abatement from an agricultural perspective, and if the word "may" was retained things could be left as they have been. Mrs. Smith asked if currently local governments could give agriculture special criteria and the current legislation under consideration would not be needed for the special criteria. Mr. Busselman said they were working with Washoe County for a mitigation and abatement program for agriculture based on agricultural practices. He said Washoe County was not required to work with the Farm Bureau under its ordinance, but those who worked for the county were trying to work things out. Mr. Busselman said the agricultural community would like recognition when farming or ranching took place, dust happens. Mrs. Smith explained when talking about an entire county, a farm could be in the middle of a development, and perhaps a particular area would need a separate policy than a rural area would need. She wondered if the word "shall" would mean farms or ranches anywhere in the county would have to be given permission for reasonable agricultural activity where some areas would be more appropriate than other areas for reasonable agricultural activity. Mr. Busselman said the types of mitigation they had worked out with Washoe County depended on the work which had to be done on a particular operation. He said the main concern was to resolve problems the committee had before, and to move forward in developing the kind of recognition farmers and ranchers were looking for. Mrs. Smith said she was curious or concerned and felt the problem was more one of location versus practice. In some locations it would not matter what was done, it would have to be more controlled than other locations.
Mrs. Freeman asked if the conceptual amendment was not agreeable to Mr. Busselman. Mr. Busselman said they would not be opposed without seeing the specific wording. He said they had tried to work through some of the concerns which were expressed by committee members and had asked the advice of others.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Goodrich about guidance regulations for non-attainment drawn from federal law and administered by the county, and asked if his assumption was correct. Mr. Goodrich said general guidance was given and federal law allowed the individual air districts to specifically tailor their regulations for their situations. There were some areas the federal government gave very specific guidance to, such as woodburning. Mr. Sader referred Mr. Goodrich to "dust." He said the federal government looked at construction dust very specifically, but the area of agriculture dust had not been studied. Mr. Sader asked if the department had stringent guidelines for attainment for agriculture. Mr. Goodrich said no, the federal EPA had been developing guidance, best available control methods or (BACM) for woodstoves, however agricultural dust had not been established. Mr. Goodrich said he was not opposed to Mr. Busselman's proposal, but he did not know where it might leave them in the future. Mr. Sader asked if there were local ordinances which specify a certain threshold of dust pollution before a citation would be given. Mr. Goodrich said yes, through district policy. Mr. Sader asked if the thresholds were set for construction as well as agricultural use. Two general areas had been used, one covered construction and the other area was a general dust control policy where current agricultural operations fell, said Mr. Goodrich. Mr. Sader asked if the general dust control threshold was different from construction. He said it was not straight forward; there were many mitigating factors to consider. Mr. Sader after questioning Mr. Goodrich found there was a specific threshold for dust emission which was pursuant to a federal plan. He asked what kind of latitude Washoe County had to loosen up controls for agriculture. Mr. Goodrich said the department provided a better guidance to contractors in the construction field by developing more specific standards then had been developed for agriculture. Mr. Sader asked if plans were being developed for agriculture and was there latitude under federal law to be less stringent in the mitigation plans. Mr. Goodrich said they had to demonstrate it would be impossible on some agricultural operations to control dust. Mr. Sader said he still wished to know what flexibility or latitude Mr. Goodrich might have pursuant to any enabling legislation the legislature could pass on behalf of an agricultural user. Mr. Sader asked if it would make any difference if the legislation was passed or not. Mr. Goodrich said "practically, probably, no."
Mrs. Freeman asked what the pleasure of the committee might be. Mr. Busselman did not know how he felt and would like to go forward. Mrs. Freeman said the bill would be brought back on Wednesday or Monday of next week. Mr. Busselman would be glad to supply information to any of the committee.
The hearing was closed on S.B. 145.
SENATE BILL 127:
Requires state environmental commission to coordinate adoption of regulations and collection of fees related to underground storage tanks.
Mr. Verne Rosse, Division of Environmental Protection said the division supported and recommended approval of S.B. 127. The bill originated from the ACR 79 Committee of the Sixty-sixth Session which recommended coordination of information reports and fee collections regarding hazardous materials. Many groups came together to develop a proposal to make S.B. 127 workable. Mr. Rosse said because of the many businesses regulated by hazardous materials and the numerous regulating agencies, the bill proposed to authorize the state Environmental Commission to establish a coordinated program for underground tanks at both the state and local levels. The agencies involved which required information and fees on tanks included the division of EPA, state and local fire agencies, Department of Motor Vehicles, the State Emergency Response Commission, Agricultural Weights and Measures, and taxation. There were approximately 3,000 facilities which had underground tanks. The implementation of S.B. 127 would assist businesses so they would only submit information and fees one time. Information would be given to the business community and government for other hazardous materials activities.
Mr. Carpenter asked if the collection of fees would eventually be in the Department of Taxation. Mr. Rosse agreed and said the taxpayers and manufacturers associations expressed concern they were getting hit every month or so for some fee. It was expressed some service stations were hit 40 times a year for a collection of fees of some kind. Originally the bill was to collect fees and reports for all hazardous materials, but NDEP did not have enough staff to encompass the collection of all fees. Mr. Rosse said they wanted to try it with one industry, those with underground tanks; if it worked EPA would bring it back to the next session to include other hazardous materials. Mr. Carpenter questioned lines 18-20, page 1 of S.B. 127 and asked if the local agency would not be the ones responding. Mr. Rosse suggested there were incidents reported to the Division of Emergency Management and to EPA which might not be reported to the local agency. A system would be developed to ensure the local agency would be notified.
Ms. de Braga asked if the statute referred to tanks which contain hazardous materials, principally petroleum products found in a service station.
Mr. Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association, supported S.B. 127. The issue was a part of tax policy and a part of the issue of consolidating payments. He said his association believed there was substantial revenue potential for the state from consolidated payments and moving the money into interest bearing accounts. This would be the driving force in the long term for the legislation.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 127.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN REGAN AND ERNAUT WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
SENATE BILL 330:
Revises qualifications of certain members of board for regulation of liquefied petroleum gas.
Ms. Stephanie Tyler representing the Nevada Propane Dealers Association, introduced Mike Eriksen, President of the Association. Ms. Tyler referred to subsection (2), page 1 of S.B. 330 and informed the committee Nevada Revised Statute 590.575 was basically the provision of law which licenses propane dealers. The language would clarify the existing policy of the board whose members were appointed by the Governor to represent the propane industry and to ensure those members were Class I licensees. Class I licensees would be those with the most training and the best safety background to regulate the business.
Mr. Mike Eriksen, President of the Propane Dealer's Association, spoke in favor of revising the qualifications for certain members of the board for the regulation of liquefied petroleum gas. He stated the L.P. Gas Board was created in 1957 because of a need to establish proper safety procedures and to regulate and license L.P. Gas Dealers. The makeup of the board included five members of the L.P. Gas industry. In 1987 the board was changed to address concerns by the Nevada Mobile Home Owners Association. The board then consisted of two members of the general public, two members who were firemen and one member of the L.P. Gas Industry. In 1989 an additional industry representative was added. The present board consisted of one member who was a volunteer fireman from a rural area of Nevada, one member who was a professional fireman employed by a fire department in the urban area of Nevada, two members of the general public, and two members who have been engaged in the sale or distribution of liquefied petroleum gas. The revision needed to be updated for the two members from the industry. Mr. Eriksen's association felt the L.P Gas Industry should have industry veterans sitting on the board to be able to make proper decisions.
Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Eriksen who would make the determination if a prospective member of the board had the proper working knowledge and what would be defined as a proper working knowledge. Mr. Eriksen replied under S.B. 330, subsection 1 of NRS 590.575 requires a fully licensed dealer engaged in the business of installing equipment for the use of L.P. Gas and sells, fills, refills and delivers or permitted to deliver any L.P. Gas. Mr. Gibbons said the person would be a licensee and the bill did not say a licensee. Mr. Eriksen said he supposed a person could work for a L.P. Gas company and not be a licensee but be fully qualified under the licensee's license. Mr. Gibbons asked who would make the determination if the person had a working knowledge. Mr. Ericksen said ultimately it would reside with the Governor. Mr. Gibbons asked what standards the Governor would use to determine if an employee would have a working knowledge of the business. Mr. Ericksen said he would hope the person would be appointed because of his experience and knowledge of the industry.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Ericksen if the bill needed to be more specific as to what the legislative intent would be.
Ms. Tyler said when they made the request in bill draft they asked for the requirements of the subsection. Ms. Tyler said she would defer to legal opinions with regard to being clear. The intent of the association was to have an individual who was trained and could qualify under the specific requirements of the Class I licensee.
Ms. Tyler after speaking to Jan Needham, Senate Bill Draft Adviser, agreed with Mr. Gibbons and stated an individual would not be required to have a license or currently hold a Class I license. The association felt passing the bill would be a positive step forward even though the original intent was to appoint a current holder of a Class I license or had held a Class I license in the past. The association believed the Governor would make appointment to the board under the parameters the industry would like to see the appointment made within. Lines 14 through 16, page 1 of S.B. 330, spoke of the Nevada Propane Dealers Association making recommendations to the Governor. The association did feel comfortable with the bill as written.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 330.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN REGAN AND ERNAUT WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
SENATE BILL 341:
Makes various changes in statutes relating to watercraft.
Mr. Tom Atkinson, Chief Game Warden, Department of Wildlife, and Mr. Fred Messmann in charge of the statewide safety boating program, Department of Wildlife, testified in support of S.B. 341. Mr. Atkinson informed the committee there were three major topic areas which needed to be addressed. The first topic dealt with abandoned vessels, the second would be changes and additions in definitions and procedures, and the last topic would deal with liens and lien procedures. Mr. Atkinson said as the state had grown they had received more and more questions pertaining to the areas referred to. The department's intent was to have good legislation to last during the next few years to address the issues relating to watercraft. The vessels involved in most of the circumstances were not vessels of a great deal of value. Some language was drafted after the abandoned vehicle provisions. Mr. Atkinson briefly went over sections of the bill with the committee regarding changes and additions.
Mrs. Freeman asked for an example of an abandon boat where S.B. 341 would be enacted. Mr. Atkinson said a 12 foot sailboat had been around for years, began to take on water and sink, a property owner called and suggested the department contact the owner of the boat. It was determined the boat was a hazard to navigation and the department along with the Douglas County Sheriff's office removed the boat and put it in storage as an owner could not be located. Then the problem arose of what would happen to the boat.
Mr. Gibbons asked what would be the impact of S.B. 341 on a person's ability to claim abandoned property. Mr. Gibbons gave an example of a sunken vessel in the bottom of the lake and a non-owner wished to retrieve the vessel, would it have an impact on those individuals. Mr. Atkinson said there were federal salvage laws but he was not aware of any state salvage laws. Mr. Gibbons said nothing would preclude a person from salvaging in the bill. Mr. Gibbons said if he was a property owner and signed an affidavit to remove a boat from his property, did he have a liability as a property owner for making the affidavit. Mr. Atkinson said he would have to ask counsel regarding the matter.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 341.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN REGAN AND ERNAUT WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Welden to report on bills listed for worksession.
Mr. Welden explained he put together material received on each
of the measures (Exhibit C).
SENATE BILL 109:
Creates state center for emergency operations to receive reports of emergencies involving hazardous materials and maintain information relating to those emergencies.
Mr. Welden said the committee had voted to amend and do pass S.B. 109 on March 17, 1993 and the amendment was to come back to the committee for approval. He said Mr. Carpenter had some questions about the definition of emergency and what types of emergencies it would be necessary to look at in the reporting. Mr. Welden put together two options outlined on page 6 and 7 of Exhibit C. He said a meeting was held with Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Hawkes with agreement on Alternative 1 plus one sentence to be added which stated "emergencies involved must be of significance as major hazards to public health or the environment." The proposal would be to further amend A.B. 109 to include Alternative 1 with the additional sentence.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT ON A.B. 109 WITH ALTERNATIVE 1 PLUS THE INCLUSION OF THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE, EMERGENCIES INVOLVED MUST BE OF SIGNIFICANCE AS MAJOR HAZARDS TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN REGAN AND ERNAUT WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
ASSEMBLY BILL 116:
Requires department of taxation to collect certain fees related to hazardous materials.
Mr. Welden explained page 9 of Exhibit C was the proposed amendment. The committee had not taken action on the bill and had directed Mr. Welden to prepare amendments for review. A previous amendment was reviewed and the word "owner" under subsection 2 was a question and had been changed from registrant to "each person" and "owner" was the appropriate word. In the last two lines the annual fee must "be prorated and may not be refunded." Both changes were Assemblyman Gibbons concerns and he worked with the agency and Mr. Welden to come up with the proper wording.
Mr. Sader said when A.B. 116 was heard there was opposition from the Department of Taxation. He said the committee was surprised as the bill came out of an interim study. He asked if the Department of Taxation would be deleted from the bill. Mr. Welden said yes. He said the bill would be a cleanup measure to eliminate an inventory fee and change some appropriate terminology. Mr. Sader inquired if Mr. Dini, Chairman of the interim committee had an opinion on the amendment.
Mr. Carpenter had a message from Peter Krueger asking not to pass A.B. 116 today as the bill needed more work.
Mrs. Freeman said Mr. Dini and Mr. Krueger should be notified and the committee could vote on A.B. 116 at the next meeting.
Mr. Sader reviewed for the committee when Mr. Dini testified he and members of the interim committee were concerned there was opposition to the bill as the interim committee thought it was agreed upon language. Mr. Sader believed Mr. Dini was comfortable with an approach which would exclude taxation taking over the responsibilities. He felt the proposed amendment would be alright but would like the decision confirmed by Mr. Dini.
The hearing was closed on A.B. 116.
ASSEMBLY BILL 124:
Clarifies definition of emergency management.
Mr. Welden said A.B. 124 was an Amend and Do Pass and return the amendments to the committee for review. Page 11, Exhibit C showed the proposed amendments for A.B. 124. There was a great deal of discussion about what activities the Division of Environmental Management would be authorized to undertake in redefining the term "emergency management." The proposed amendment cited what the agency could do but did not authorize Emergency Management to take over or intrude on another program. It would be a coordination type of activity and would be able to suggest but not have the authority to take over. All agencies involved agreed the amendment would work.
Assemblyman Gibbons made a disclaimer which stated the amendment dealt with the Department of Military, State of Nevada, with which he has a part-time position, but he did not believe the bill had any adverse impact which would affect him differently than anybody else and he would vote on the amendment.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED AFTER PASSAGE AND DISCUSSION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED ON A.B. 124.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN REGAN AND ERNAUT WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
ASSEMBLY BILL 301:
Revises definition of "package plant for sewage treatment" to exclude certain septic systems.
Mr. Welden advised the committee to look at page 13 of Exhibit C, and the comments concerning the amendments. NDEP and Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning both agreed the amendments were appropriate.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 301 WITH THE AMENDMENTS SPECIFIED ON PAGE 14 OF EXHIBIT C, THE APRIL 6, 1993 LETTER FROM CLARK COUNTY.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN REGAN AND ERNAUT WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
SENATE BILL 123:
Revises provisions for issuance of duplicate tags for hunting.
Mr. Welden explained no action had been taken previously on S.B. 123 except to put the bill in subcommittee. Mr. Gibbons and Ms. de Braga were appointed to the subcommittee. Attachment E, page 15 of Exhibit C was where the beginning of the discussion started. Page 16 was the amendment which was proposed and a problem existed as the amendment did not specifically say the carcass of an animal had to be found to be diseased and unfit before a tag could be replaced. A new amendment was issued from the bill drafters (Exhibit D) this morning said Mr. Welden. The committee asked Mr. Welden to go over the amendment word for word.
Mr. Welden explained to Mrs. Freeman the only change made by the amendment was a change in the fee to $5 rather than the fee being equal to the fee paid for the original tag which was lost. Mr. Gibbons said there were essentially three ways a tag holder could obtain a replacement tag. The first was a diseased animal and a replacement tag would be permitted; secondly, if a tag was sent by mail to the tag holder and became lost, there would be a $5 replacement fee; once the tag had been delivered at the mail receptacle of a residence and it was lost, stolen, torn up, washed, etc. the fee would be the amount of the application fee plus $5. Mr. Gibbons felt the fee for the replacement of a lost, stolen, etc., tag was excessive when it would only be a $5 fee if the mailman lost the tag. Mr. Gibbons said they combined the latter two areas, a lost tag upon affidavit should be a $5 replacement fee and deleted the part about a renewal for an application fee. Mr. Gibbons would address the policy issue on a diseased animal if the committee wished and why the subcommittee directed attention to the policy.
Mr. Sader said he had received a letter from Mr. Fred Wright, speaking for the Coalition on Nevada Wildlife, which said he was concerned about the subcommittee work and the amendments, was not in agreement and felt the bill needed more work or the opportunity to express his organization's opposition to the amendment. Mr. Sader said there seemed to be a controversy and he did not know why the bill seemed to be such an issue.
Mr. Gibbons wished to explain the difference in views. He said Mr. Wright who testified before the committee came to the committee with the idea the decision to replace a tag for a diseased animal should be left in permissive language for the commission to deal with rather than a directive from the legislative body. Mr. Gibbons felt as chairman of the sub- committee the policy issues were significant enough to require this issue be directive rather than permissive, inasmuch as it was in the best interest of the Department of Wildlife to know when a diseased animal was shot for their own game management. The hunter needed assurance if his efforts were directed toward bringing a diseased animal in, then he would have an opportunity to at least fulfill his tag, either by accepting the diseased animal or by getting a new tag. There were hunters who without the assurance "a tag shall be reissued," would step over a diseased animal and walk on to the next one. This would do a disservice to wildlife as they needed to know whether or not animals were diseased and if the herds had a problem. Mr. Gibbons stated out of the 50,000 mule deer shot each year only 12 were brought in for disease and out of all the trophy animals the average was less than one a year, and the director said it would have absolutely no impact on their management of the game herds in Nevada. The only issue would be in Mr. Wright's own mind whether the commission should be directed to take this approach and told they "shall" reissue one or permitted to take this approach and leave it to their discretion whether they want to reissue one or not. Mr. Gibbons felt it was in the best interest of both the hunters and the Department of Wildlife to take the approach they "shall" reissue a tag.
Ms. de Braga said she had some discussion on the issue and the proposal from Mr. Wright was bonus points would be the method used to replace or give hunters an additional chance of replacing their tag. Ms. de Braga was not in favor of this proposal but was passing the information on to the committee.
Mr. Gibbons emphasized a bonus point was in no way going to assure a person of a getting a tag for the next year, when there were 20,000 applications and a person had one bonus point. Ms. de Braga said she had trouble with the concept of bonus points, The names were placed in the draw for each bonus point.
Mr. Sader asked if there was anyone from the department who would like to speak to the amendment.
Mr. Tom Atkinson, Chief Game Warden for Nevada Department of Wildlife, said he had talked to the Deputy Director, Terry Crawforth, and the one concern for redraft was to help cover the cost for issuing duplicate tags. Mr. Atkinson said this amendment would create a negative impact financially. Currently if a person lost a tag and it was his fault, he would be charged the original fee for the tag. Last year 171 duplicate tags were issued. If the average price was $20 then the impact of this would be in the neighborhood of a $2,500 loss as opposed to regaining the amount. He stated from the department's perspective this would have much to do about nothing to a large degree. The Department would not have any hard feelings if the bill were indefinitely postponed for the problems the bill was causing.
Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Atkinson how many tags were lost in the mail and how many were lost by hunters. Mr. Atkinson stated he did not have precise figures with him, but a large majority of the duplicate tags were for those lost in the mail. Mr. Gibbons suggested if the majority of the tags were lost in the mail the loss to the Department of Wildlife would not be $2,500. Mr. Atkinson said he could not say exactly what the figures were but the request was to better recover the department's cost for issuing the duplicate tags, not to lose money on those issued. Mr. Gibbons stated the original bill changed from $1 to $5 the cost of replacement of a tag, and the change was still in the bill. He did not understand why Mr. Atkinson would want to indefinitely postpone S.B. 123 with the $5 fee in the bill.
A discussion ensued between Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Atkinson concerning duplicate tags, fees, and diseased animals.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Gibbons as chairman of the subcommittee what he would like to do. Mr. Gibbons said he would like to see an amend and do pass on S.B. 123, based on the proposed amendment suggested by the subcommittee including the changes research had brought up with regard to the determination the animal was diseased and unfit for human consumption.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 123 BASED ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT NUMBER 365.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Schneider said he agreed with Mr. Gibbons and if he lost his tag he would tell the department the mailman lost the tag. No matter what happened he would only pay the $5.
Mr. Bache asked if Mr. Gibbons was amending the bill with Amendment 365. Mr. Gibbons agreed.
Ms. de Braga asked what would happen if a season was not scheduled the next year. Mr. Gibbons said the holder of the tag had a choice to exchange for the same season or the next available season. He felt this might be better wording in case there would not be one the following year.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN SADER VOTED NO. (ASSEMBLYMEN REGAN AND ERNAUT WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
SENATE BILL 263:
Revises provisions concerning fees charged in connection with mining reclamation.
Mr. Welden referred to the memorandum on page 20 of Exhibit C which answered the question asked regarding impacting the reclamation program administered by Nevada's Division of Environmental Protection. S.B. 263 addressed the work on abandon mines only.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 263.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN REGAN AND ERNAUT WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 6:
Urges Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to take certain actions to reduce traffic congestion in Lake Tahoe Basin.
Mr. Welden stated the bill had not been heard as yet and dealt with Lake Tahoe. There was discussion whether it should be re-referred to Government Affairs. Chairman Freeman decided to hear the bill in Natural Resources next week.
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.
Mr. Welden stated there was no action taken on the bill and it had been placed in subcommittee. S.J.R. 18 dealt with cutthroat trout in Nevada. He told the committee page 21 of Exhibit C contained the proposed amendments.
Ms. de Braga explained the resolution had undergone a great deal of scrutiny. She felt the resolution should not have gone forward as the federal government had already produced a plan and the comment period on the plan had passed. The resolution was Senator Rhoads and all the changes had been reviewed by interested parties. One thing which was left out of the resolution was a plan to curtail fishing of Lahonton Cutthroat Trout until the fish were delisted as a threatened species. No one would allow the phrase to remain in the resolution. The present resolution did insist a plan would be put into action as soon as possible and did take into consideration the comments of those people who would be impacted.
Mr. Welden said he had asked the staff on public lands committee to look at the resolution. The only question staff had was on line 35 with the first mention of the Lahontan cutthroat trout fisheries management and reintroduction plan. The bill drafters might indicate specific language was not explained earlier in the bill and could not be used in the resolution. Mr. Welden asked if the bill drafters did question the phrase could they insert, implement recovery plan. Ms. de Braga said the reason for the phrase was some people pushed for introducing Lahonton Cutthroat trout in hatcheries and planting them in streams. They felt strongly about language concerned with breeding stock being introduced in all the streams and sub-basins where they now exist. This statement was not included as there were many varieties of the Lahonton cutthroat trout and Fish and Wildlife continue to find different strains of the same fish. The only reason the statement Mr. Welden referred to was in the resolution was for those who wanted the continuation of breeding the trout in hatcheries and reintroducing the species to the streams. The bill did not accomplish much except urge the government to listen to those who would be impacted. Ms. de Braga said if an amendment was needed as Mr. Welden indicated she would agree to the change.
Mrs. Freeman asked if Ms. de Braga cared if the bill passed or not. The bill did belong to Senator Rhoads but Ms. de Braga could not understand why they would not curtail the fishing of this threatened endangered species. A plan was already out and the comment period was past.
Mr. Gibbons said he looked at the bill as one urging the United States to go forward with a recovery plan in a more efficient manner so the fish would be taken off the endangered species list. Ms. de Braga agreed the bill urged the government to accomplish the job and delist the species.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE AMENDMENT ON LINE 35.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN REGAN, ERNAUT AND SADER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
ASSEMBLY BILL 126:
Directs state fire marshal to develop reference guide for use by personnel responding to emergencies involving hazardous materials.
Mr. Welden reminded the committee A.B. 126 had passed out of the Assembly previously and the Senate had amended the bill and sent the bill back asking for the committee's concurrence on the amendment. The amendment deleted subsection 2, lines 9 and 10 of A.B. 126. The Senate felt there might be a liability when one of the thousands of firefighters happened not to be equipped at a particular incident and was hurt. The Senate suggested taking the line out and those who supported the bill did not have a problem with the issue.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE AFTER PASSAGE AND DISCUSSION MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT 243 OF ASSEMBLY BILL 126.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN REGAN, ERNAUT AND SADER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
Mr. Welden informed the committee they had an invitation to an open house of the U.S. Bureau of Mines at the University of Nevada Reno. The open house would be Wednesday and would be in conflict with the scheduled hearing. The Bureau of Mines has a six station type of program. It would take 1 1/2 hours for the presentation and one hour travel time each way. Mr. Welden gave some alternative times for the committee's information. Mr. Bache indicated there were five committee members who had Labor and Management at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
PAT MENATH
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining
April 26, 1993
Page: 1