MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING
Sixty-seventh Session
May 10, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order by Chairman Vivian L. Freeman at 1:30 p.m., May 10, 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:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director
OTHERS PRESENT:
Karen Kavanau, Department of Data Processing; Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association; Tom Berner, Carson City Appeal; Mark Blomstrom, Department Motor Vehicles, State Communications Board; Brian Jennison, Washoe County District Health Department; Rich Sheldrew, Nevada Department of Transportation; Danny Thompson, AFL-CIO; Joseph F. Assalone, Nevada State Association of Letter Carriers; Edward L. Stachowski, Nevada State Association of Letter Carriers; Bill Alikakos, American Postal Worker Union; Denise Brown, Nevada State Association of Letter Carriers; Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens; Steve Tackes, MCI; Jim Elders, AT&T; Brian Herr, Nevada Bell; Joe Johnson, Sierra Club; Doug Busselman,
Nevada Farm Bureau.
Chairman Freeman called the meeting to order.
ASSEMBLY BILL 511:
Prohibits delivery of unsolicited commercial advertisements to person's residence under certain circumstances.
Mr. Danny Thompson, representing AFL-CIO, said there were several people to speak to the bill. He said there was a proposed amendment to the bill which would exclude phone directory deliveries to homes. Mr. Thompson introduced Joseph Assalone, President of the Nevada Letter Carriers Association, who spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit C), in support of A.B. 511.
Mr. Edward L. Stachowski, Jr., Branch President of 2502, spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit D) in support of A.B. 511.
Mr. Gibbons asked about the criminal act, similar to trespassing, when a person puts advertisement on an individuals property. If the person was robbed, could the owner come back and sue the individual on the basis of this law. The individual who paid for the advertisement could be an instrument through which the act of robbery might be addressed. Mr. Thompson said he was unable to answer Mr. Gibbons question and would have to defer to legal counsel.
Mr. Thompson said he lived in a new housing area where homes were being built. He has had advertisements every day on his doorstep. It had been a concern of Mr. Thompson's that those who deliver advertisements see a person's possessions, and the potential of being robbed was increased. In reference to Mr. Gibbons question there would seem to be the potential for misconduct.
Ms. de Braga said it would make political campaigning difficult.
Mr. Thompson said he would propose an amendment to the bill allowing political deliveries to be made. Mr. Sader said A.B. 511 did not deal with political issues but dealt with commercial advertisement and the bill defined "unsolicited commercial advertisement."
Mr. Stachowski brought out two points. One suggested a person going on vacation could stop a paper from being delivered but not stop the flow of advertisements on the doorstep. He also asked how a litter law could exist when anyone could print and distribute advertisements and not be suspect to the littering law; however, someone could through a piece of paper down on the street and be fined for littering.
Ms. Smith asked if this could not be extended to the windshields of cars being loaded with unwanted literature in parking lots.
Ms. Denise Brown, a letter carrier from Carson City, talked in support of A.B. 511. She stated the problem was not exclusive to cities and had filtered into rural communities. Alternative deliveries increased every day and she felt it went against all recycling endeavors brought forward in this area.
Mr. Brian Herr representing Nevada Bell said he had talked to Mr. Price and it was not the intent to restrict the delivery of telephone directories. An amendment under Section 1, subsection 3, (c) telephone directories, had been submitted.
Ms. Ande Engleman, Executive Director, Nevada State Press Association, and Tom Berner, Carson City Appeal, spoke in opposition to A.B. 511.
Ms. Engleman informed the committee A.B. 511 was not an anti-littering bill but was an anti-competitive measure. The post office in Nevada had some of the worst service of any in the United States, said Ms. Engleman. She talked extensively about the poor service customers received on delivery of newspapers by the post offices in Nevada (Exhibit E). Senator Bryan had appointed a staffer to handle postal complaints. Nevada postal service was divided into three areas and supervised by California, Utah and Arizona. Nevada did not have a postmaster to coordinate the postal activities. She indicated due to post office problems an alternative delivery system was instituted, and she felt the legislation was trying to prevent competition. Ms. Engleman showed the committee a note from two children advertising for summer work which was placed in her mail box in violation of federal law (Exhibit F ). This type of advertisement would be a $100 fine if A.B. 511 was enacted. She stated the major part of littering in Carson City was from children.
Mr. Tom Berner, Circulation Director, Carson City Nevada Appeal spoke in opposition to A.B. 511. He explained the Appeal delivered a free distribution newspaper called the Carson Chronicle. Over 19,000 papers weekly were delivered in Carson City and Douglas County as a useful item for most of the households reached as evidenced by continued advertising support, said Mr. Berner. He stated the complaints were minimal for those who had received the paper.
Ms. Engleman stated A.B. 511 or one similar had been introduced in 16 states by postal unions and had been defeated in all 16 states. She said the bill was unconstitutional under the first amendment.
Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, spoke in opposition to A.B. 511. She stated the bill was anti-competitive, anti-small business and anti-free enterprise. Ms. Lusk said although a fine of $100 was contemplated, the bill stated the court could award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party. The cost to the individual could far exceed $100, and any letter carrier who wished to squelch competition could bring suit against any individual business or others who would leave a circular on the doorstep.
Mr. Danny Thompson stated Mr. Joe Assalone would like to refute some of the statements regarding the postal department. U.S. Senator Harry Reid did obtain a district manager in the postal service for the state of Nevada, said Mr. Assalone. The postal service was no longer responsible to California, Utah or Arizona. Mr. Assalone said the bottom line since late 1979 was to privatize the postoffice. The publisher of the Review/Journal was contacted and told how newspapers and advertisement from the paper were being thrown on bushes, driveways and porches. Recently 15 of the Review/Journal people were fired for littering properties, stated Mr. Assalone. He said no one would turn a child in for littering as indicated by Ms. Engleman.
Mr. Schneider said last year in Las Vegas a family lost its pet and notices were put in mail boxes of approximately 100 neighbors and the family was fined. Mr. Schneider felt there was no latitude as suggested by Mr. Assalone.
Ms. de Braga argued the definition of "unsolicited commercial advertisement" as noted in A.B. 511 with Mr. Thompson.
The hearing was closed on A.B. 511 and Chairman Freeman asked Mr. Thompson to speak with Assemblyman Price regarding amendments.
SENATE BILL 145:
Exempts reasonable agricultural activity from certain local ordinances concerning air pollution.
Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau provided a handout which addressed the issues of concern regarding S.B. 145. The problem the Farm Bureau wanted to deal with was a situation the bureau became aware of in Washoe County. The same kind of mitigation and abatement programs which applied to construction for dust control applied to agriculture. The Senate bill as originally drafted would now be item 3 of S.B. 145 which would be crossed out on the committee's copy. Mr. Busselman emphasized the Nevada Farm Bureau had not come before any committee and asked for a full exemption for agriculture. Agriculture requested appropriate safeguards and conservation approaches dealing with dust and wanted to gain recognition that, when raising agricultural commodities and working in the dirt, "dust happens." Mr. Busselman urged the committee to insert the new language, take out the old language and pass S.B. 145.
Mr. Ernaut asked who had complained about dust. Mr. Busselman said the major problem encountered was in Washoe County. In agricultural operations when tilling the soil, dust was being created, but the Farm Bureau had been working with Washoe County Health Board on a mitigation and abatement program.
Mr. Carpenter questioned whether the bill's language would take care of the problems of dust abatement and he did not see where the bill addressed the problem.
Mr. Brian Jennison, Director of Air Quality, Washoe County District Health Department, said both sides had worked on language and he believed the bill addressed the issues.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 145.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (MS. SMITH WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
ASSEMBLY BILL 118:
Creates state board for management of information.
Ms. Karen Kavanau, Director, Department of Data Processing, testified in favor of A.B. 118. She said the bill did two things, established a state board for management of information and consolidated three existing boards and committees into one. In Section 13 of A.B. 118, the board was directed to conduct a needs assessment for an information system or automation for hazardous materials which would serve state and local governments as well as the private sector. She recommended Sections 1-12 and Section 14 be eliminated (Exhibit H). Basically the only section left in the bill would be Section 13. Consolidating the three existing boards and committees was already being addressed in other bills from the Department of Data Processing. There was a need to conduct a study called for in section 13 of A.B. 118. Ms. Kavanau served on the advisory committee looking at the subject of coordinating hazardous materials reporting systems. Business needed standardization among government agencies to minimize reporting requirements. Government needed a concerted, simplified data system for the efficient gathering, storage and communication of information between various state and local agencies. The responsibilities for the needs assessment should be assigned to a single entity, the Department of Data Processing. They would involve all appropriate agencies and personnel to make sure a fair and unbiased needs assessment would be conducted.
Mr. Carpenter said a bill was passed from this committee regarding hazardous materials and emergency incidents to be reported to the Office of Emergency Management. He asked if there would be a conflict or if the Office of Emergency Management would be included in the study. Ms. Kavanau said this was one of the difficulties associated with the subject matter. There were many requirements for reporting similar or the same information to a number of different agencies in different formats. The needs assessment would look at all the requirements and come back to the legislature in two years with a recommendation to simplify all reporting needs.
Mr. Steve Tackes, MCI, and Mr. Jim Endres, Assistant Vice-President AT&T, said he did not know how relevant their comments would be since the recommended changes were made. In Section 8 of A.B. 118 there was a reference made to telecommunications and the existing statute, at least one sentence, had become obsolete through the change in technology, and Mr. Tackes and Mr. Endres believed this would be a good place to clean up the language. The language to be changed was on line 37, Section 8, page 2 of A.B. 118, "providing local exchange service" which has become obsolete. Mr. Endres had language which would bring the statute up to date.
Mrs. Freeman felt the language change should take place in some other vehicle. She said no action would be taken on A.B. 118 today. Discussion ensued regarding changes in statute and how the committee felt.
Mr. Mark Blomstrom, Coordinator of Communications for the State Communication Board, testified the board was one which was mentioned in the bill and would be dissolved. The board felt the bill might be premature with respect to proposed reorganization. The consensus of the board agreed with dissolving three boards which had overlapping responsibilities and only having one. There had been concern with the reorganizational structure and consolidation which had not been effectively addressed in A.B.118. Mr. Blomstrom said the Communication Board felt A.B. 118 should not be supported.
Mr. Larry Farr, Fire Marshal, City of Reno Fire Department, wanted to know if A.B. 118 was in conflict with A.B. 117. Mr. Farr read what A.B. 117 addressed and said the Senate and Assembly had given the State of Nevada Emergency Response Commission (SERC) the go ahead to work through the gathering and reporting of information. Mr. Farr was concerned a conflict existed on who would be responsible for coming forward with a final recommendation. SERC should be responsible because the commission was made up of the private sector who filed the reports as well as the emergency responders who used the reports and the state agencies who developed the reports, said Mr. Farr. He asked the committee to look and see if there would be confusion or duplication in the responsibilities as far as coordinating the efforts of reporting hazardous materials.
Mrs. Freeman stated A.B. 118 required a report to come back to the next session for review. A.B. 117 did not ask for a review of recommendations to be given to the next legislative session. If A.B. 118 was not processed and the committee depended on A.B. 117 to accomplish the same thing, would it be wise to ask for a report to be given on the findings of A.B. 117. Mr. Farr agreed and felt asking for a report would be wise since it was a complex issue.
Mrs. Freeman said she would not take action on A.B. 118 at this time.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NATURAL RESOURCE, AGRICULTURE AND MINING COMMITTEE THROUGH THE MONTH OF APRIL.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.
********
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
PAT MENATH
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining
May 10, 1993
Page: 1