MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING
Sixty-seventh Session
May 24, 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 24, 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. Michael A. Schneider
Ms. Stephanie Smith
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Robert M. Sader (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Dean Rhoads
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tony Citko, North American Elk Breeders Association; Terry Crawforth, Department of Wildlife; Steven Albert, Department of Wildlife; Tom Atkinson, Department of Wildlife; Fred Wright, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife; Tom Ballow, Nevada Department of Agriculture; Tom Bentz, Nevada Alliance for Responsible Animal Use; Larry Johnson Coalition For Nevada's Wildlife; Joe Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association; Loretta Gibbs, Nevada Wildlife Federation.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Freeman.
SENATE BILL 114:
Makes various changes to provision governing animals.
Mr. Terry Crawforth and Mr. Tom Atkinson, Department of Wildlife testified on S.B. 114. Mr. Crawforth stated S.B. 114 was a combination of six bills requested by the Department of Wildlife to update regulations concerning the captive possession and rearing of various wildlife species. In the process of updating laws some additional new areas surfaced which would be addressed as alternative livestock. The various interests involved had reached some common ground after many subcommittee meetings, stated Mr. Crawforth. Mr. Crawforth went through the bill with the committee pointing out changes and those areas which dealt with alternative livestock.
Mrs. Freeman asked about the fiscal note on the bill. Mr. Crawforth said they had not requested a fiscal note on S.B. 114. The principal fiscal impact would be with the Department of Agriculture, said Mr. Crawforth.
Mr. Regan asked Mr. Crawforth if the Department of Wildlife had considered the Ostrich and Llama in Section 1 of S.B. 114, which were now being raised as a cash crop. Mr. Tom Atkinson replied the Department of Wildlife addressed specific animals termed as wildlife under department regulations. The Ostrich and Llama had been domesticated for a number of years and were in a no- risk category.
Mr. Tom Ballow, Executive Director, Nevada State Department of Agriculture, had met with subcommittee's on the Senate side to work out differences with the bill and supported the bill as written. The concern the Department of Wildlife had was with spreading diseases to herds of wild Elk. The bill required the State Department of Agriculture to test imported animals for disease. The animals would also be coming from domesticated herds of Elk or Reindeer and would not be coming from wild herds in other states. The domesticated herds from other states would also be tested by Departments of Agriculture or U.S.D.A. Regulations would be developed for testing animals for diseases as they entered the state and as they were slaughtered. The regulations would require adequate fencing so the animals would not escape and comingle with wild herds. Mr. Ballow stated there had been a demand for domestic Elk meat and antlers for sale. The antlers would bring a substantial return and were in demand in Asian countries for medicinal purposes.
Mr. Tony Citko, representing the Nevada Alternative Livestock Association and the North American Elk Breeders Association, stated New Zealand was the largest raiser of Elk or Red Deer herds. Elk were three times more efficient than cattle from grain consumed to meat production, and were raised on private land. Mr. Citko said no one at this time was raising alternative livestock in Nevada, but he had tried to establish a ranch in Nevada. Mr. Citko discussed the use of meat and antlers of alternative livestock throughout the world.
Ms. de Braga asked how domestic wild animals were identified. Mr. Citko stated the animals would be ear tagged and microchip implants would also be used.
Mr. Gibbons asked if this would have any effect on those ranches in Nevada which raised buffalo. Mr. Ballow said no, the buffalo fell under the category of bovine animals which would be cattle, and were covered under livestock regulations.
Senator Dean Rhoads said when the bill was first heard in Natural Resources it was put into a subcommittee. He said after incorporating four or five bills into one and numerous meetings everyone signed off on S.B. 114. Senator Rhoads asked for the committee's support of the bill.
Mrs. Freeman asked how the cattle ranchers viewed the competition. Senator Rhoads said it was another alternative to put a game farm on private property when times were difficult, and allowed another method of income.
Mr. Joe Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, supported the bill and stated how much work had gone into S.B. 114.
Mr. Larry Johnson, Coalition for Nevada Wildlife, polled the coalition groups and came up with many positions. The coalition adopted a compromise position and worked with many groups to come up with a well-worded piece of legislation to allow ranchers to proceed in a manner of private enterprise and protect Nevada's wildlife. The greatest concern was the disease problem, but with proper regulation and operation, Nevada's wildlife could be protected, said Mr. Johnson. The Coalition supported S.B. 114 in the present form.
Ms. de Braga asked how wild animals were purchased. Mr. Citko said it was a livestock operation similar to cattle. He said the animals had been domesticated for 40 or 50 years and originally most Elk came from Yellowstone National Park.
Mr. Crawforth emphasized the bill prohibited the taking of wild animals from Nevada and using them to establish commercial stock. Department of Wildlife was concerned the sportsmen's dollars had paid to enhance the Elk herd for hunting. Discussion took place regarding the length of time it would take to build alternative livestock ranches large enough to come near the amount of cattle used for food.
Mrs. Freeman asked if S.B. 114 fit in with legislation from other states. Mr. Ballow said all of the western states were addressing the issue in one form or another.
Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, sent a letter dated May 21, 1993, entered as (Exhibit C), in support of S.B. 114.
Mrs. Freeman closed the hearing on S.B. 114 and advised the committee a vote would be taken on Wednesday.
Mr. Fred Welden began the worksession on bills to be considered and noted he had prepared background material on each bill listed in the document distributed, (Exhibit D).
SENATE BILL 92:
Revises provisions governing certain game tags issued as compensation for damage caused by wildlife.
Mr. Welden referred the committee to page 3, Attachment "A."
He stated there had been a question regarding the "Letter of Intent" and also the definition of the word "controlled." The letter of intent provided by Senator Rhoads was on page 3.5. The letter regarded the sunset clause which showed an expiration date of June 30, 1995. Mr. Welden, after speaking with the Department of Wildlife and Senator Rhoads, indicated the three catagories of people on ranches who would be in charge would be the owners, lessees or managers.
ASSEMBLYMEN SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS ON S.B. 92.
ASSEMBLYMEN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Gibbons felt to include the language owner, lessees and managers would give direction for legislative intent to whom the bill was directed to benefit. He suggested deleting the words "lawfully in control" and including "owners, lessees or manager."
Mr. Regan asked if permittee and grantee were not spoken of. Mr. Gibbons discussed the definition for those terms Mr. Regan referred to.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH WITHDREW THE MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 92.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN WITHDREW THE SECOND TO THE MOTION ON S.B. 92.
********
Mr. Gibbons stated the amendment would be on line 2, page 1, of S.B. 92, after owner, delete the wording "or other person who is lawfully in control" and add "lessee or manager"....... on line 16 the language "or controlled" would be deleted and also on page 2 the language discussed would be repeated by deleting on line 8 "or other person who is lawfully in control," and add "lessee or manager"......line 44 and 45, page 2 would also be changed to reflect the new language.
Ms. de Braga asked what happened if a manager or a lessee were in control at the same time. Mr. Gibbons said it would be up to the Department of Wildlife to make the decision who would apply for the tags.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 92.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WAS ABSENT.)
********
SENATE BILL 108:
Establishes standards for operation and display of radar guns and similar devices.
Mr. Welden said, the potential amendments discussed were to delete the three "whereas" clauses on lines 1-8, page 1, S.B. 108. The other potential amendment would be on page 1, line 27, of S.B. 108 to change "conducted" to "approved". The training would be approved by POST rather than conducted by POST.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 108.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, DE BRAGA, SMITH AND FREEMAN VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WAS ABSENT. THE VOTE WAS SIX FOR PASSAGE, FOUR AGAINST PASSAGE.)
********
SENATE BILL 228:
Makes various changes relating to board for regulation of liquified petroleum gas.
Mr. Welden was not aware of any changes asked for in the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 228.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WAS ABSENT.)
********
SENATE BILL 229:
Requires insurers to notify insureds of requirement that notice be filed with Department of Wildlife concerning certain accidents involving vessels.
Mr. Welden was not aware of any amendments to S.B. 229.
Mr. Mark Brown, State Farm Insurance, agreed with the Department of Wildlife. The problem of reporting boating accidents was a serious one and he had worked with the Department of Wildlife to finalize language. Mr. Brown would like a day or two to culminate the amendments.
Mr. Fred Messmann, Department of Wildlife, stated the bill was important to boaters, and the insurance companies in concept agreed with the bill and he would concur in requesting a delay until the next work session.
SENATE BILL 348:
Protects lessees of grazing in Carson Lake Pasture.
Mr. Welden said S.B. 348 protects the lessees of grazing and the Carson Lake Pasture. A rancher who testified in support of the measure recommended deleting the language on page 2, lines 29-31 of S.B. 348. He was the only one who suggested deleting language.
Ms. de Braga stated everyone would like to delete those lines, however, she felt there was no way to delete the lines and pass the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 348.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. de Braga said she would abstain from voting due to a possible conflict of interest.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA ABSTAINED. ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WAS ABSENT.)
********
ASSEMBLY BILL 338:
Requires Department of Wildlife to obtain approval of Board of Wildlife Commissioners before taking certain actions.
Mr. Welden said to see Attachment "B" on page 4, Exhibit D, for amendments recommended by the bill's primary sponsor, Assemblyman John Carpenter.
Mr. Terry Crawforth, Department of Wildlife, said the amendments offered would give the department considerable concern. He stated the Department of Wildlife did not have the authority to make decisions concerning public lands and could only comment to the land managing agency. The department provided comments which had been available to those persons affected. The department handled in excess of 1,500 land actions in a year, said Mr. Crawforth. To advise all of the parties involved would increase the work load and expense and require additional staff. He pointed out the replies needed to be on a timely basis, and if the time line was missed the departments comments would not be considered.
Mr. Carpenter said the amendment required the Department of Wildlife when commenting on any proposal stated on Exhibit D, Attachment "B", pages 4-5, to be sent a copy of the department's comments to those people who would be affected. Mr. Carpenter gave an example of what his proposal consisted of. He said it would not hinder the department in the time line given to comment on proposed public land decisions. A copy of the comments submitted by the Department of Wildlife would be sent to affected parties. Mr. Carpenter felt if better communications were in place, confrontations would be avoided.
Mrs. Freeman asked what the impact would be to the Department of Wildlife. She also asked if this would be the proper use of funds collected from fees and if a compromise would be in order.
Mr. Crawforth stated everyone on the mailing list, as an example, from the Bureau of Land Management would be asked for comment. The Department of Wildlife was required by statute in Nevada to have a reading file available of all comments, and a copy would be sent on request.
Mrs. Freeman asked if Mr. Carpenter could get together with the Department of Wildlife and come back to the committee with recommendations for a solution to the problem.
The hearing was closed on A.B. 338.
ASSEMBLY BILL 538:
Revises provision governing operation of watercraft in area where diver's flag is displayed.
Mr. Welden pointed out the bill had been in subcommittee and the recommendations were outlined on Attachment "C", page 6 of Exhibit D.
Mr. Carpenter reported on the subcommittee meeting made up of Ms. Smith, Mr. Ernaut and himself. They met with representatives from the Department of Wildlife and divers, and came up with a compromise. The committee felt the compromise would make safer conditions for the divers, and yet not make it so restrictive to prevent boats from entering coves or blocking entrances. Mr. Carpenter stated everyone had agreed to the amendments.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 538.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Bache commented the bill did not change the original bill and he felt the bill should be killed.
Ms. Smith emphasized the amendments did change the bill. The original bill allowed vessels to enter the diver's flagged area at 5 miles per hour. The amendment did not allow anyone to enter within 100 feet of a diver's flag.
Mr. Ernaut replied the diver's own vessel or an emergency vessel could enter the 100 foot area.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WAS ABSENT.)
********
ASSEMBLY BILL 118:
Creates State Board for Management of Information.
Mr. Welden referred to Attachment "D" on page 7 of Exhibit D. He said A.B. 118 was a bill which was reconsidered. Originally the bill would have created a State Board for Management of Information. Karen Kavanau, Director of the Department of Data Processing, recommended deleting everything in A.B. 118 other than Section 13, and call for the study which was outlined in Section 13, to be done by the State Board for Management of Information. There was a question the bill might be in conflict with A.B. 117, which also looked at some studies.
Mr. Bache discussed the bill with Ms. Kavanau and she would be willing to have a subsection or line added to the A.B. 118 indicating she would coordinate her study with the State Emergency Response Commission which was listed in A.B. 117.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 118.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WAS ABSENT.)
********
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 4:
Directs state fire marshal to conduct study of feasibility of establishing regional response teams to respond to incidents involving hazardous materials.
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 5:
Directs State Emergency Response Commission to conduct study concerning local emergency planning committees and agreements of mutual aid between local entities responding to incidents involving hazardous materials.
Mr. Welden informed the committee ACR 4 and ACR 5 were indefinitely postponed and suggested the State Fire Marshall come up with a proposal for actually instituting regional response teams, Attachment "E", pages 10-14, Exhibit D. The State Fire Marshall did come up with a proposal for putting in place Emergency Regional Response Teams, but the funding mechanism was found to be unconstitutional. A letter from the State Fire Marshall said the administration felt they could not go forward with funding for Hazardous Materials Regional Response Teams.
Mr. Blehm suggested the reconsideration of A.C.R. 4 and A.C.R. 5 which called for relevant studies. He suggested the resolutions be combined for a study of Hazardous Materials Regional Response Teams. A separate resolution needed to be drafted urging the U.S. Congress to enact legislation, with funding, to establish Hazardous Materials Regional Response Teams.
Mr. Ernaut asked Mr. Blehme if funding was in his budget for the study. Mr. Blehme replied the study would be funded from his current budget.
Mr. Gibbons asked about the difference between state and federal use of gas tax funds. Mr. Welden said the use of state gas tax funds made the proposal to use Nevada gas tax money unconstitutional. He felt federal gasoline tax money was separated and there would not be a comingling problem, but did not know if there was a federal constitutional issue. Mr. Gibbons was concerned with taking funds from Federal Highway Administration for purposes other than what Nevada said they would use the gas tax dollars for.
Mr. Blehme talked about the constitutional limits for the state gas tax and the proposal to the U.S. Congress for gas tax funds. He felt this would be one window of opportunity for funding.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO RECONSIDER ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 4.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN SADER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO TAKE THE LANGUAGE FROM ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 5 AND ADD IT INTO ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 4, AND AMEND AND ADOPT ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 4.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN SADER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO RECONSIDER ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 5.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN SADER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO AMEND ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 5 BY INSERTING LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO EXHIBIT C, PAGE 11-12.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER VOTED NO.) (ASSEMBLYMEN SADER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
Mr. Gibbons asked for the amendments to be brought back to the committee before being presented on the floor of the Assembly. Mr. Welden agreed to bring them to the committee for approval.
Mrs. Freeman stated Mr. Gibbons had given to each member of the committee an "Animal Owners Bill of Rights" and he was asking for a bill draft request.
Mr. Gibbons said several issues had come up regarding the rights of owners who have animals in Nevada and what should be the proper legislative intent with regard to the rights of owners. He asked the committee for consideration of a bill draft request to address the issues.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO APPROVE A BILL DRAFT REQUEST FOR THE ANIMAL OWNERS BILL OF RIGHTS.
SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN SADER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
Mrs. Freeman asked the committee to turn to page 15, attachment "F", Exhibit D. In regard to Mr. Miller's testimony on "Protection of Ground and Surface Water Quality," of May 17, 1993, two bill drafts needed to be approved so discussion could take place on the issues. One issue would be "Temporary Water Permits for Mining," and the other would be "Bonding for Long-Term Water Quality Maintenance."
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO APPROVE TWO BILL DRAFTS AS
NOTED BY ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN SADER AND SMITH WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
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
May 24, 1993
Page: 1