MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING
Sixty-seventh Session
May 19, 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 19, 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:
Senator Dean Rhoads
Senator Joseph Neal, Jr.
Senator Mike McGinness
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bernard Sease, Nevada State L.P. Gas Board; Willie Molini, Nevada Department of Wildlife; Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau; Lyle de Braga, Rancher; Bill Corkill, Rancher; Stephanie Tyler, Nevada Propane Dealer's Association; Barbara Curti, Nevada Farm Bureau; Fred Messmann, Nevada Department of Wildlife; Frenchy Montero, Rancher; Mike Montero, Rancher; Fred Wright, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife; Larry J. Johnson, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife; Joe Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association; Dennis Green, Carson City Sheriff's Department; Randy Oaks, Captain, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Freeman.
SENATE BILL 92:
Revises provisions governing certain game tags issued as compensation for damage caused by wildlife.
Senator Rhoads said private property owners in rural Nevada had problems with the amount of wild game which ate their haystacks, forage grain crops and alfalfa. The animals also did damage by laying in the fields. Senator Rhoads said for every 50 deer or antelope ranchers could claim were on their private property, they could obtain one deer or antelope tag and the tag could be sold. In 1993, the first year of the regulations, there were 36 landowners who applied for 118 deer tags, 94 were issued. Eleven antelope tags were authorized and four were issued. Senator Rhoads said the issue was before the committee again as S.B. 92 had been cleaned up and modified. He went through the changes in the bill with the committee. The original version of the bill was to remove the sunset.
Mr. Molini, Director, Department of Wildlife, concurred with S.B. 92. When the bill was introduced last session the department was concerned about the ability to make it work well. He said the department had worked with the affected parties in the development of the regulations along with the Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, Farm Bureau, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, private landowners and other groups to cover the changes indicated by Senator Rhoads. The only area of concern the Wildlife Department had was the cost of administrating the program. A cost analysis showed the department had generated $14,000 in revenue and the cost to administer the program was $20,000. Mr. Molini said he hoped to come to some balance of cost and revenue as the department became more proficient at administering the program and more tags were sold.
Mr. Sader asked what Mr. Molini would say to critics of the bill who would allege this was nothing more than a giveaway to a certain group or class of people which would create a privilege class for the purpose of issuing tags. Mr. Molini stated they had heard the charge but when wildlife in Nevada caused damage to private property, by statute the department has an obligation to address the problem. The statute read the department must investigate and take action to whatever the department deemed necessary and appropriate to alleviate the damage. The statute was founded historically on Beaver damage, and Beaver consistently were interfering with the ability of irrigation districts to provide water to district members. Over time the statute was applicable to all wildlife. The department supplied technical assistance to ranchers on cropping patterns, where they stored their hay, etc. Mr. Sader said he would like to have his question answered regarding what Mr. Molini would say to critics who would say S.B. 92 created a special class. Mr. Molini said they would have to have degradation or directly kill the deer on private land. The department was hopeful through the method outlined in S.B. 92 they could maintain more deer even though it did create a separate class of applicants.
Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Molini about line 2 and 3 of page l, S.B. 92, "or other person who is lawfully in control of private land." Mr. Molini replied the other person would be generally viewed as a lessee. He stated there were a number of ranches owned by nonresidents which leased the property over a period of years and were in control. Mr. Molini and Mr. Gibbons discussed the language and who would be in control of private land.
Ms. Smith asked about the sunset clause as it did not appear in the bill. Mr. Molini said he would prefer to have the sunset in the bill. He did not know if it was an omission by the bill drafter.
Mr. Fred Wright responded to Ms. Smith's question on the sunset provision. Senator Rhoads sent a memorandum of May 10 prepared by Jan Needham of the bill draft office on his behalf to the committee. The memorandum stated the sunset provision which would expire on 6/95 had not been amended in the bill but would be in effect if the bill was passed in the present form.
Mr. Larry Johnson represented the Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, a coalition of 24 sportsmen and conservation groups statewide. He stated the groups had been polled and there were varying positions on the bill. Mr. Johnson named the groups involved in the coalition. The coalition became interested in the bill early, worked with agricultural groups statewide and felt this would be a fair method of compensation. Mr. Johnson said in other states agricultural compensation for degradation was by monetary means. The compensation stated in S.B. 92, offering tags with a marketable economic value to ranchers, would help with the degradation wildlife inflicted. The majority of the groups in the coalition supported S.B. 92. He stated a number of the groups took exception to portions of the bill . The Nevada Wildlife Federation objected to the use of the tag off of private property. The Mule Deer Foundation objected to the landowners use of the tag as well as the use of the tag off of private property. Ormsby Sportsmen's Club opposed the use of the tag off of private property. The Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn opposed compensation to ranchers in general. Mr. Johnson said the coalition supported the bill because the option for the rancher at present would be to petition the Department of Wildlife for removal of the animals. He said those who had asked him why he supported giving tags to ranchers did not disagree with him when asked which they would rather have; removal of 200 does in a depredation hunt which would drop 40 or 50 fawns for the next five years or 4 tags to ranchers for the survival of wildlife.
Mr. Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, had been involved with the concept from the beginning. The Farm Bureau believed ranchers and farmers should receive compensation for the feed they provided to wildlife populations and urged the committee's favorable consideration.
Mr. Joe Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association had been involved with the concept for a number of years and urged support of S.B. 92. Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Guild about the language used on line 2, section 1, page 1 of S.B. 92 and who he would include in the definition. Mr. Guild replied he would include lessees, licensees, permitees in the definition because all of those in his contemplation would be lawfully in control of the private land. Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Guild discussed the definitions as noted by Mr. Guild.
Mr. Mike Montero, Leonard Creek Ranch in Northwest Nevada, had participated in the program last year. The intent for the program was to have the sunset changed in the 1993 session. Changes had come from sportsmen's groups and some ranchers had problems with parts of S.B. 92. He urged support of S.B. 92.
Mr. Bache asked if Mr. Montero or any of his family had hunted on the land under this program. Mr. Montero said as the bill was written the landowner could not use the tag and sold them.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Welden to research the language concerning lessee, licensee, permitees, etc.
Ms. Smith asked if a rancher could sell a tag for what it cost or for any amount. Mr. Molini said the landowner paid a tag fee of $50, where a regular resident tag cost $20. The tags could be sold by the rancher for any amount. Ms. Smith asked what the ranchers had received for the tags sold.
Mr. Frenchy Montero stated the money he received from the tags was immaterial. He stated they fed 350 deer on the ranch and at this time 200 deer were in the fields and would continue to come into the fields all summer. The University of Nevada estimated the ranchers were losing $35,000 to $40,000 per year from the depredation of deer. Mr. Montero said they had two doe hunts, one with fish and game where they killed 90 does one year and 50 the next year. The Montero family would never allow a doe hunt again. The amount of money received from selling tags did not make up for the amount lost from the destruction of crops, loss of hay, etc.
The hearing was closed on S.B. 92.
SENATE BILL 228:
Makes various changes relating to board for regulation of liquefied petroleum gas.
Mr. Bernard Sease, Chairman of the Nevada State L.P. Gas Board, testified in support of S.B. 228. He said the board had two full time employees, an inspector and a secretary, and a budget of $122,000 which was collected from license fees. The board through public information and the enforcement and development of regulations was responsible primarily for safety and the safe use of L.P. Gas. The board handled consumer complaints and participated in training of public safety personnel who dealt with emergencies in propane. Mr. Sease said S.B. 228 resulted from the board's review of Nevada Revised Statutes. The board felt recommendations for change were needed to improve the operation. Mr. Sease reviewed the changes in S.B. 228.
Mr. Carpenter questioned lines 40 through 44 of Page 2, section 3 of S.B. 228, and asked how a qualified employee would be available 24 hours per day in rural communities. Mr. Sease said Class 1 and Class 2 referred to propane dealers who were required to have a qualified person available 24 hours per day, 7 days a week to respond to emergencies. He stated this was a requirement in the law and regulations for a number of years.
Ms. Stephanie Tyler representing Nevada Propane Dealers Association clarified lines 47, page 3 and lines 1 - 8, page 4 of S.B. 228. She stated the fine itself would go to the General Fund and the cost of prosecuting would go back into the budget of the board. The propane dealers supported S.B. 228, said Ms. Tyler.
The hearing was closed on S.B. 228.
SENATE BILL 108:
Establishes standards for operation and display of radar guns and similar devices.
Senator Joe Neal, Senate District Number 4, said S.B. 108 was a measure originally introduced to have some control on radar guns which emit nonionizing radiation. He stated the "whereas" at the beginning of the bill explained why the bill was introduced. The language adopted in Chapter 459 of NRS was supplied by the Nevada Highway Patrol and the Carson City Sheriff's Department. The bill was rewritten from the original print. Senator Neal read through the bill for the committee. Senator Neal noted his first bill on the subject was to get rid of the radar gun. He pointed out the bill now dealt with medical problems the radar gun could cause an officer who operated the gun. On "Sixty Minutes" the program stated many officers throughout the country had complained of contracting cancer due to the use of the radar gun, said Senator Neal. The highway patrol now turned the gun on just as they got to a vehicle. He said this was one of the procedures the patrol was utilizing. Senator Neal stated by passing S.B. 108 it would codify the established standards for the operation and display of radar guns and keep the state from being sued in the future.
Mr. Gibbons asked how the legislation would be enforced and who would do the enforcing. Senator Neal replied it would be enforced by the governmental entity which allows the use of radar guns. He said the sheriff's department would enforce the statute. Mr. Gibbons asked what the penalty would be for violating the statute. Senator Neal replied there were no penalties and hoped those using the gun understood what the legislature was telling them. The gun had a tendency to cause cancer and officers should operate the device in a safe manner.
Ms. de Braga asked if there was proof the regulations would protect the officers health. Senator Neal said once the officers adopted the standards there should be some assurance the officers would not contract cancer.
Mr. Regan asked Senator Neal if radar guns used in ball parks would be under the state statutes. Senator Neal said they would not be protected under this bill. He also asked about workmen's compensation being liable for those contracting cancer by use of the radar gun and if there was anyone now claiming workmen's compensation for this issue. Senator Neal did not know of anyone in this state who was claiming workmen's compensation for cancer by radar gun.
Mr. Neighbors asked about providing an inspection every three years for radar guns. Senator Neal said the recommendation was from the highway patrol.
Mr. Schneider said he had a problem with the "Whereas, Medical evidence exists that links the cause of cancer.....," and asked if the theory was proven. He felt unless a message stated the radar gun did cause cancer and was released from the Surgeon General, any policeman who had cancer in Nevada would be covered for the rest of his life, regardless of the type of cancer. Mr. Schneider felt lines 1 - 3 of S.B. 108 would open up litigation and the medical bills would cost the state of Nevada millions of dollars. Senator Neal said the "Whereas" was a decoration for the bill but stated nonionizing radiation could cause cancer. He said establishing rules for the way the radar gun should be handled would prevent claims from coming forward. If regulations were set down to operate the gun in a certain fashion, and it was not operated in a safe manner, the state would not be obligated for the claim. Mr. Schneider asked if the first three lines were removed would Senator Neal be bothered. Senator Neal said it would not change the bill and he would not mind if the "Whereas" was removed.
Mr. Bache said having the bill in statute would give the Division of Enforcement for Industrial Safety and Health the opportunity to adopt regulations in regard to the radar gun.
Lt. James Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, requested a change on line 27, page 1 of S.B. 108, "conducted by the peace officers'......" changed to "an approved course." Rather than the course being given by POST, the course would be approved by POST. He stated many of the police and sheriff's departments have their own training on radar certification. To put the training in the hands of POST only would be burdensome to POST and expensive to the departments. Lt. Nadeau said all of their radar guns met the criteria in S.B. 108. Certification of radar units cost from $200 to $250 for each unit and therefore the cost of certifying more often could become fiscally impossible. He stated the Washoe County Sheriff's Office certified its units every year to eighteen months. All of Washoe County's units were fix-mounted.
Assistant Sheriff Dennis Green from the Carson City Sheriff's Department, representing the Nevada Sheriff's and Chief's Association, spoke on S.B. 108. He said they did not have any objections to the bill with the recommended change stated by Lt. Nadeau. Assistant Sheriff Green had contacted several professional organizations which gave information implying nonionizing radiation caused cancer, but no one had stepped up with a definitive statement "that it does cause cancer."
Mr. Gibbons asked if any radar guns in the industry did not meet the standards listed in the consumer product list under the International Association of Chief's of Police (IACP). Assistant Sheriff Green replied the IACP stated there were no guns currently manufactured which were not on their list. Mr. Gibbons stated by including in statutory or legislative language medical evidence existed and nonionizing radiation caused cancer, each and every claim for cancer which was incurred by a policeman in the line of duty would be related to the use of a radar gun.
Mr. Bill Yukish, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol, said they had worked with the police and sheriff's groups, organizations and Senator Neal to develop the language for the bill. He stated the policy statement on the top of the bill was not included in the language agreed upon. Mr. Yukish received information from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Food and Drug Administration which addressed the concerns of radar. The F.D.A. had made a preliminary comparison between a number of cancers reported in police officers who used traffic radar devices and cancer rates of the general population. Based on the case results the comparison did not show a greater cancer rate among police officers, but it would be too soon to conclude no risk existed. F.D.A. did recommend standards be set. Mr. Yukish read the standards recommended. The Nevada Highway Patrol supported S.B. 108.
Captain Randy Oaks, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, said they took exception to the language preceding Section 1 of S.B. 108. He said there was no medical evidence known to anyone who had testified police radar caused cancer. Captain Oaks said the issue was one the department was concerned with as an employer who had approximately 100 radar guns in service. He said he had purchased many radar units and had not seen one come in without a warning. There were other entities which used radar such as race tracks, ball fields and other industries, and Captain Oaks did not know how S.B. 108 would effect those areas or who would enforce the issue. The only people who were required to be trained on the use of radar were peace officers. He said the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was opposed to S.B. 108.
Mr. Schneider asked why not go back to Senator Neal's original bill. Captain Oaks said they did need radar guns and it would be very expensive to replace them; however, if there was demonstrated evidence cancer was caused by the radar guns, the expenditure would be justified. Mr. Schneider asked the cost to replace the radar guns. To replace them with the new laser guns would cost upwards of $2,000 per unit, said Captain Oaks. Mr. Gibbons and Captain Oaks talked about the checking, repair, power, etc. of the radar gun.
Ms. Smith asked if S.B. 108 passed as written, what would change that the department was currently doing. Captain Oaks said there would be very little change other than on line 26 of S.B. 108 which required POST to train officers on the use of the radar gun. The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department offered its own training on the use of the radar gun. Other than an amendment for the training area what other changes would effect the department, asked Ms. Smith. Captain Oaks said they would not be doing anything differently, and he felt the bill was unnecessary because the department had accomplished what the bill referred to.
Senator Neal commented on the "Whereas" clauses and said the part of the bill which would go into statute would come after the enactment clause. He said the "Whereas" was put there to introduce the bill.
Mrs. Freeman said the suggested amendments would be addressed and discussed in work session.
The hearing was closed on S.B. 108.
SENATE BILL 348:
Protects lessees of grazing in Carson Lake Pasture.
Senator McGinness, Senate District 21, spoke in favor of S.B. 348 which provided for continuity in the administration of grazing leases upon transfer of its management to the Department of Wildlife and established fees paid for grazing on pasture of a similar nature. The Department of Wildlife did not want to get into a bookkeeping system, and previously those using the pasture also paid for cowboys to mend fences and provided for the care and management of the livestock. The department would adjust the fee to offset the cost for the maintenance of the facility.
Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Assembly District 35, explained the bill referred to a large pasture in Churchill County which had been historically used by ranchers. With the implementation of Public Law 101-618, the negotiated water settlement, the Carson Lake Pasture would be taken over by the Department of Wildlife. Since 1926 ranchers had collectively pastured their cattle at Carson Lake. The pasture had been an integral part of their annual ranching operation. Present law provided future grazing of wildlife area lands be put out to bid. It did not recognize historic uses of the area nor did it allow for a cooperative bid by a group of ranchers or by the Truckee, Carson Irrigation District on behalf of the ranchers. The pasture had been self supporting through fees paid by the users who also provided fencing and improvements and adhered to a strict program of disease prevention and control. Grazing rights were awarded by a program administered by the TCID and new users were added as old users signed off. S.B. 348 would require the historic users of the pasture be given precedence when grazing permits were awarded and would further allow the Nevada State Wildlife Department to enter into agreements with the TCID or a coalition of ranchers to lease the grazing rights. It would almost be certain grazing would be cut when the Department of Wildlife took over. Very little runoff of irrigation water at this time would go to the wildlife area. Grazing was an essential component of pasture management and Churchill County interests should be preserved.
Mr. Carpenter asked who would set the grazing capacity on the pasture. Mrs. de Braga said the Department of Wildlife would set the number of acres to be grazed each year.
Mr. Lyle de Braga, Carson Lake Pasture user, would like to see the bill passed so the ranchers could continue to use the pasture even on a limited basis. He emphasized it was a vital part of the ranchers' operation to run cattle at Carson Lake. Mr. de Braga said he had run cattle at Carson Lake Pasture for over 30 years. If it was put out for bid, anyone from Oregon, California or anywhere could bid and take the pasture away from local ranchers. The provision for historical users availability to use the Carson Lake Pasture was most important.
Mr. Bill Corkill, a rancher from the Fallon area, testified his family was a fourth generation user of Carson Lake Pasture. He supported the bill with the exception of lines 29, 30 and 31, page 2 of S.B. 348. Public Law 206 only gave the state of Nevada custodial position in the Carson Lake, exactly where the cattle users had been since 1926. The lake could be taken away from Nevada for cause which was the reason the cattlemen had the pasture taken away. Cattle were compatible with wildlife, and he gave an example of cattle and the White Billed Ibis. Mr. Corkill stated as livestock users, the ranchers paid a profitable grazing fee which had gone to the state of Nevada.
Mr. Regan asked what the capital investment in improvements had been for all the ranchers who used the pasture. Mr. Corkill said over a million dollars had been spent on improvements.
Mr. Carpenter asked if anything could be done to change the position on Public Law 206. Mr. Corkill said this was part of Harry Reid's negotiated settlement of the Carson River. The state did not petition to obtain Carson Lake.
Mrs. de Braga said for years the ranchers had been taking care of wildlife by the runoff of water from farms. Now they had designated the lake for wildlife and cut the supply of water which was harming wildlife.
Mr. Willie Molini, Director, Department of Wildlife, said he had worked closely with Assemblyman de Braga and Senator McGinness on the language in S.B. 348. The Carson Lake Pasture was an important wildlife area and had been designated along with the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge as a unit of the Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network which had 12 units throughout North and South America. Mr. Molini named the types of birds who stopped on their migrating route and others who nested at Carson Lake. He said the department was using Question 5 bond money, $5 million to acquire water rights for the area. Mr. Molini said the Department of Wildlife did realize the social and economic impacts of displacing the people who had historically grazed at the Carson Lake Pasture and expressed a willingness to work with them. Grazing was important to some species of wildlife and some shorebirds. He said in terms of management of the area there was a place for grazing cattle. The Department of Wildlife was in agreement with the language crafted in S.B. 348.
Mr. Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau supported the bill.
Mr. Fred Wright of the Sportsmen's Coalition also supported the bill.
Mrs. Freeman closed the hearing on S.B. 348.
SENATE BILL 229:
Requires insurers to notify insureds of requirement that notice be filed with department of wildlife concerning certain accidents involving vessels.
Mr. Fred Messmann, Nevada Department of Wildlife, said the original language was a concern. The concern was the bill might preempt insurers from paying timely claims, which would be in violation of their contract, and also in violation of the regulations established by the insurance commission. Mr. Messmann noted he was a member of The National Boating Law Administrators and on national committee's studying boating accident investigations. He pointed out some of the suggestions in the bill were a product of years of research going back to 1989. Mr. Messmann said he had industry's support of the language in the bill and he had worked with Senators and with insurance people for their support.
Mr. Bache asked why there would be a double notice. The first notice given would be to the insured to file a report and then a notice to the Department of Wildlife. Mr. Messmann said when a person made a claim for insurance he would be notified to make a report to the Department of Wildlife. The insurance company would also notify the department a claim had been filed. The insurer would be notifying the insured and the department. Mr. Bache felt there was no need for a double notification. Mr. Messmann replied the biggest handicap in the boating arena was a lack of mandatory licensing, mandatory education, and no way to ensure the person making the claim knew he had to make a boating accident report.
Mr. Regan asked about notifying boaters when they register their boats. He also asked when discussing the bill with the legislative insurance representatives, had anyone mentioned the cost to the consumer. Mr. Messmann said they had discussed the issue and in 1989-90 the department had sent a copy of the statute notification and a copy of the boating accident report to every registered renewal form. In Nevada there were 174 boating accidents reported in 1992. The cost of a stamp would be the only increase to boaters.
The hearing was closed on S.B. 229
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
PAT MENATH
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining
May 19, 1993
Page: 1