MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING
Sixty-seventh Session
June 7, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order by Chairman Vivian L. Freeman at 1:30 p.m., June 7, 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:
Assemblyman Joan Lambert
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Randolph Townsend
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tom Bentz, Nevada Alliance for Responsible Animal Use; Robert Bentz, All Outdoors; Mark McGuire, Nevada Humane Society; Carl Cahill, Washoe Health District; Alice Downer; James Flenner, Hazmat Technician; Bob Dickens, University of Nevada, Reno; Kenneth Hunter, Jr., University of Nevada, Reno; Darl Thiessens, Bowzer's Boutique; Marvin Carr, LEPC Lyon County; Verne Rosse, Division Environmental Protection; Cindra Smith, RDOG; Ray Blehm, State Fire Marshal; John Pappageorge, Clark County; Larry Farr, City of Reno Fire Department; Grace Morrell; Ron Irwin, Sparks Fire Department; Juanita Cox.
Chairman Freeman opened the meeting on A.B. 690.
ASSEMBLY BILL 690:
Transfers to University of Nevada System responsibility for training regarding hazardous materials.
Assemblyman Joan Lambert, District 29, said the bill was a request from a constituent who had a concern about the firefighter and hazardous material training the State Fire Marshal's Office had been doing. She was told not as many fire fighters were trained as could be and out-of-state consultants were being used. When a hazardous material spill occurred the first ones on the problem would be fire fighters. In most of the rural and urban areas volunteer fire fighters would be the ones to respond to a hazardous material incident, said Ms. Lambert. The University of Nevada, Reno, a land grant institution, and the Dodd-Beals Fire Protection Academy associated with UNR had a worldwide reputation in petroleum fire fighting. The Dodd-Beals Academy had the facilities and the expertise as an educational institution to address hazardous materials training and provide a higher level of training at less cost. She said the State Fire Marshal's Office was primarily a regulatory office. Continuing Education at UNR had been doing the fire training before 1980, but an interim study recommended the fire training go into the Fire Marshal's Office. Since the 1981 session more responsibilities had been given to the State Fire Marshal's Office. Ms. Lambert stated there would need to be some amendments to the bill. The bill would take two sources of funding which currently went to the State Fire Marshal's Office for hazardous materials training for fire fighters and would put both funding sources under UNR. The first amendment Ms. Lambert proposed was on page 3, line 29 of A.B. 690, which should read, "the operating account of the University of Nevada" instead of "University of Nevada, Reno, Division of Continuing Education-Dodd-Beals Fire Training Academy." She continued reviewing sections of the bill and said some areas concerned with the fees collected for hazardous materials storage and tonnage needed amendments. The funding going to the State Fire Marshal's Office amounted to $459,000 this year from the per ton fees at the hazardous waste disposal facility. The next year, it would be assumed $250,000 would be generated. The state would have a $200,000 shortfall in training monies. Ms. Lambert said the most efficient and effective way of training fire fighters statewide must be sought. The proposal of A.B. 690 would provide training from UNR throughout the state as they did have the expertise to properly train fire fighters and keep the training in-state. Ms. Lambert asked for the committee's consideration of A.B. 690. She passed out information (Exhibit C) from the Legislative Counsel Bureau concerning the amount of money collected from fees to the State Fire Marshal's Office and an Attorney General's opinion on why an amendment was needed on the $120 surcharge.
Mr. Regan was disturbed because none of the other colleges in Nevada, who were very capable of training fire fighters in hazardous materials, would be obtaining any of the funds. Mr. Regan supported the concept of A.B. 690 but did not agree with funds earmarked for UNR only. Ms. Lambert said she was told the funds would be better sent to one institution and then distributed from there to other training sites. She was proposing a statewide program for training.
Mr. Neighbors presented a letter (Exhibit D) to the committee from the Director of Lincoln County Emergency Management, Margie Gunn. She did feel it would be expensive to send volunteer emergency responders to Reno to be trained. Ms. Lambert said the source of revenue Ms. Gunn talked about in her letter was not funds which would be used. She also stated the cost of classes at UNR for training were self-supporting, and the Fire Marshal's classes were subsidized by the fees of tonnage dumped from hazardous materials.
Mr. Bob Dickens, Director, Governmental Relations for the University of Nevada, Reno, said he and Dr. Hunter were testifying as resource people for A.B. 690. This bill was introduced at an Assemblyperson's request and was not a priority of the campus. Mr. Dickens said they were addressing the merits of the bill and clarified the University of Nevada, Reno had the capabilities to deal with this complicated issue from a technical and scientific point of view and also a political point of view. He said a packet of information was distributed (Exhibit E) which described the resources available if A.B. 690 was acted on. Mr. Dickens embellished on the handout given to the committee. Dr. Ken Hunter, Associate Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, described in more technical detail what the University of Nevada, Reno would do for training and addressed Exhibit F, a brochure on Hazardous Materials Training Courses. He testified on behalf of the University to support A.B. 690. Dr. Hunter said the University of Nevada, Reno was a resource to the state of Nevada and had the capability of providing the highest level of hazardous materials training in the state. The brochure was a result of the University being asked by private industry for help on increasing regulations on hazardous materials. He pointed out the Dodd-Beals Fire Academy, an organization which had an international reputation not only in training fire fighters but also in the hazardous materials training area, had been associated with the University. The training would be available in the rural counties through the Division of Continuing Education and Cooperative Extension.
Mr. Neighbors asked about the price of the training. Dr. Hunter stated the prices in the brochure were not prices supplemented by any state appropriated dollars. The prices quoted from the Fire Marshall were with state appropriated help in training. Mr. Dickens said A.B. 690 as it stands without being amended would transfer approximately $400,000 for training to the University.
Mr. Carl Cahill, Director, Environmental Health Services, Washoe County District Health Department, indicated he had served on the advisory committee at the University Fire Academy for a number of years and had staff which responded daily to hazardous materials spills, clean up and removal, or at least provided oversight, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Conceptually Mr. Cahill strongly supported A.B. 690.
Mr. James Flenner, hazardous materials technician specialist, and a responder who had taken classes from the State Fire Marshal's Office, said both classes had been taught by out-of- state experts. The in-house classes Mr. Flenner had observed being taught by the State Fire Marshal were not of quality technically. Mr. Flenner said the support from the Dodd-Beals Fire Academy was most helpful, and he had not received support from the State Fire Marshal's office.
Mr. Ray Blehm, State Fire Marshal, testified in opposition to A.B. 690. He felt the assertion "a real bad job being done by the State Fire Marshal," and someone else could do the job better because of the "academic system" was not good, and he had to his knowledge never spoken to Mr. Flenner. Mr. Blehm said the Dodd-Beals Fire Academy was an excellent institution, and the State Fire Marshal's Office subcontracted with some of its instructors. In the 1991-93 interim, Mr. Blehm stated there was a hazardous materials study in progress, and asked where the presentations were at the time to have the University of Reno do the training for hazardous spill. He informed the committee of the time which had been spent addressing the system on a statewide basis to give structure to regional response teams. If A.B. 690 was passed in its present form or an amended form the State Fire Marshal's Office would need to go back to Assembly Ways and Means and revamp the training budget. The bill as originally written would transfer all the money from budget 3834 to run a fairly complicated and comprehensive program. The program was being focused as rapidly as possible on the development of a mobile training team. Mr. Blehm spoke of the many programs which would be canceled because of the lack of funding and the close function with other state agencies which interplayed with the hazardous materials scenario.
Mr. John Pappageorge, representing Clark County, said Clark County Fire Department opposed A.B. 690. The existing training was adequate and the fire department had not had any complaints. Mr. Pappageorge emphasized the great deal of work and communications which would have to take place to put a complex issue into place under A.B. 690.
Mr. Larry Farr, Fire Marshal, City of Reno, said the Reno Fire Department was in opposition to A.B. 690. The bill coming out this late in the session did not give enough time to analyze all the impacts of the bill. The cost of training for the fire fighters and the quality of training would be the issue the department would be concerned with. Mr. Farr emphasized how complex hazardous material training, funding and all things which went into hazardous material regulations really were. He too asked why the bill or subject was not brought up during the interim study on hazardous materials and where was the University to provide the input of what they could provide in training.
Mr. Dave Drew, East Fork Fire Protection District in Douglas County, said his position was Deputy Chief and Chief Training Officer. He said the training of 270 volunteer fire fighters in his district was his responsibility representing 11 individual volunteer fire departments. Mr. Drew said for many years he has had an excellent rapport with the Dodd-Beals Fire Academy, but could not support A.B. 690 as written. Many years have been involved in awareness and operation level training of hazardous materials response to the existing position. The East Fork fire Protection District opposed passage of A.B. 690.
Mr. Marvin Carr, Director, Lyon County Emergency Management Safety, opposed A.B. 690. He spoke in support of the Dodd-Beals Fire Academy and had no problem with the way the school was run. Mr. Carr spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit G), and gave a handout (Exhibit H) to the committee. The first page was a cost of classes from UNR for hazardous material training and the second and third pages were cost comparisons.
Mr. Ronald Irwin, Fire Chief, City of Sparks, opposed A.B. 690, for the same reasons which had been mentioned previously. He did not have a problem with the Dodd-Beals Fire Academy. The training the State Fire Marshal's Office was doing for fire fighters and hazardous materials people through the state of Nevada was good and improvements could always be made.
Mr. Marty Bibb, Nevada State Firemen's Association, opposed
A.B. 690 for many of the reason which had been stated. In the last year or two great strides had been made toward the goal of getting mobile training into the field. There were more than 150 volunteer fire departments throughout the state of Nevada and approximately 2,000 volunteer fire fighters. The key was mobile training and the program was getting under way. To shift course now would not make sense and he had concerns in the cost for training.
Mrs. Freeman closed the hearing on A.B. 690.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO WAIVE RULE 92.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.
********
Mrs. Freeman asked for a committee introduction of a bill which was requested two or three months ago. An Act relating to wildlife; providing a legislative declaration concerning hunting; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 45-2121.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.
********
SENATE BILL 402:
Imposes restrictions and requirements upon care and sale of certain animals.
Senator Dina Titus said Senator Townsend, the co-sponsor of S.B. 402, would also testify. She said S.B. 402 was a result of over three years of hard work by a number of well-intended people. As amended the bill represented a significant compromise on all sides, said Senator Titus. The bill was an effort to regulate the industry in Nevada which had not been regulated before. Veterinarians, major pet shop owners, humane societies and other various animal associations supported the bill. She read a note from the Woolgrowers Association thanking Senator Titus for considering its concerns. S.B. 402 set minimum standards for care and housing of dogs and cats. S.B. 402 passed the Senate unanimously. There had been many editorials on the issue, said Senator Titus, and she read excerpts from several of the editorials. She spoke of the five page amendments made to cooperate with those who wanted the amendments in S.B. 402. The breeders submitted six pages which were insignificant and designed to aggravate the bill to death. The most important thing all factions did not like about the bill was the provision humane society enforcement officers could be used. Senator Titus showed pages of the bill marked in yellow requiring amendments in the bill to meet the breeders group. Senator Titus explained the new amendments proposed by the breeders group to the committee (Exhibit I). She urged the committee to pass the bill and see how it would work. Anytime an industry was regulated for the first time it would need some fine tuning. The major pet shops in Las Vegas and the veterinarians supported S.B. 402. The bill was not only to protect pets but to protect the consumer.
Mr. Ernaut agreed with Senator Titus the bill had been misrepresented to many. Section 26 included provisions for refunds to consumers if they purchased a pet found to be sick. Mr. Ernaut said the retailer could comply with all requirements in the bill and still be subject to refunding the purchaser for an animal which might have had a preexisting condition in the opinion of another veterinarian. At some point if a retailer went through all the provisions of Sections 23, 24 and 25 there should be good faith. Mr. Ernaut felt Section 26 of S.B. 402 was a little permissive. Senator Titus said she could see Mr. Ernaut's point of view, but the pet shops had not had a problem with Section 26. Most of the pet shops within the ten days would usually give the retailer a new animal or refund the purchase price. Mr. Ernaut agreed legitimate companies would probably refund but felt Section 26 needed to be strengthened.
Mr. Regan said the only thing which would must likely come up within the ten days would be Parvo in which there would not be any immediate symptoms. Senator Titus said Parvo would be one of the most usual but not the only thing which could come up in the ten day period.
Mr. Carpenter felt the bill was basically a good bill. He was concerned if it was taking care of the puppy mill problem.
Ms. de Braga asked how the bill would be enforced. Senator Titus explained since the humane society was taken out of the bill, animal control would do the enforcement. There were different fines and misdemeanors for different situations in the bill. Ms. de Braga also was concerned with the problem individuals experienced when buying pets with the process of weaning animals and the change in their diet. She thought there should be provisions in the bill requiring animals to be weaned for a certain period of time before they were sold. This provision would avoid a great deal of problems which often killed animals. Senator Titus said this had not come up before in hearings.
Mrs. Freeman asked for a five minute break until Senator Townsend arrived.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Freeman.
Senator Townsend said the two amendments suggested by Ms. de Braga and Mr. Ernaut would not cause concern. He said the benefit of animals for companionship to senior citizens was valuable. Improperly raised and bred dogs did have problems which properly raised and bred dogs did not have. Those dogs improperly raised became a problem in their behavior for those who were senior citizens. After two years, once last session and again this session, the bill had been negotiated enough to focus on the original concept, which was puppies and mills, and those promises made last session and in the interim should be honored, said Senator Townsend. The question would be if the state of Nevada wanted to appropriately regulate the industry not only for the animals but for the consumer and particularly for seniors, said Senator Townsend.
Mr. Mark McGuire, Executive Director of the Nevada Humane Society based in Northern Nevada, spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit J). He recommended a Do Pass for S.B. 402 as passed by the Senate.
Ms. Alice G. Downer spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit K).
Ms. Grace G. Morrell spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit L) in favor of S.B. 402.
Mrs. Freeman said the committee would vote on S.B. 402 at the Wednesday meeting. She appointed a subcommittee to meet before Wednesday made up of Mrs. Freeman, Mr. Ernaut, Ms. de Braga, Ms. Smith and Mr. Carpenter. She asked for those in opposition to speak on the bill.
Ms. Cindra Smith resented the implication she did not take care of her animals simply because she opposed S.B. 402. She talked of her background in working with animals. Animal management items in the bill needed to be addressed, said Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith went over the areas she felt needed adjusting in the bill.
Mr. Clayton Rice II, Legal Counsel for RDOG and a professional breeder of Collies, felt the bill should not be passed as it was not a good piece of legislation. The recommendations would make it a better bill. The police power was still in the bill, in effect. Nevada Revised Statute 574.040 gave arrest powers to Humane Societies and had been a law since 1873, and he felt it was time for the law to be taken out of statute. The recommendations in Exhibit I were addressed by Mr. Rice, and he noted he, Cindra Smith and Tom Bentz were the authors as members of RDOG.
Mr. Ira Hansen, Board of Directors of the Nevada Alliance For The Responsible Use of Animals, opposed the bill as a whole. He felt the bill would create excessive regulation of the pet industry, increase the cost which would result in an increase in black market and backyard breeders, and would end up being a net increase in the amount of inhumane treatments in the pet industry. The bill was brought forward due to the incident which occurred in Elko County. He stated there were already cruelty statutes which covered all things S.B. 402 would cover. Mr. Hansen said the bill would simply micro-manage the pet industry which was not necessary. Mr. Hansen went on to review portions of the bill and rebuked the need for S.B. 402.
Mr. Darl Thiessens, owner Bowzer's Boutique, a dog owner and breeder of 30 years, was opposed to many aspects of S.B. 402. He disputed many things Senator Titus and Senator Townsend had said. He questioned the examinations of puppies and the frequency of doing so. The way the bill read he would have had to have his puppies examined twice in 24 hours when shipped from out of state. He felt Senator Titus and Senator Townsend had not been true to their word.
Mr. Larry Jones, Animal Shack of Reno, was opposed to S.B. 402. Mr. Jones would like to see the word "retailer" changed back to "operator." He talked about statements Mr. Mark McGuire of the Humane Society had made. Mr. Jones explained his responsibility to customers and the consumer's responsibility to the retailers. He gave examples of the lack of consumer responsibility and his responsibility to customers who brought in animals and fish which were dead or injured by the customers lack of responsibility. He felt the industry should be regulated but not by the Humane Society, a nonprofit organization. Mr. Jones said many of the regulations concerning examination by veterinarians would raise the price of animals where families could not afford to buy them.
Mr. Tom Bentz, Nevada Alliance for Responsible Animal Use, spoke in opposition to S.B. 402. He talked about the paper signed by many animal groups Exhibit I, who were animal lovers, owners and consisted of approximately 4,500 people represented by the groups listed. When the police power for Humane Societies was taken out of S.B. 402 in the Senate the best people to take care of the policing would be the animal control throughout the state and the group was in agreement. Mr. Bentz said there was still a 116 year old law which stated any three people could form a humane society, take any one of their members, petition a district judge, have the person sworn the same as a police officer and they could make arrests. The officers would be without POST, no bonding, no accountability to any elected body in the state of Nevada. NRS 575.040 should be taken out of the statutes, said Mr. Bentz. The animal shelters which the industry called dog and cat shelters competed directly with the people in the industry. Individuals selling under an adoption program should be under the same rules as the retailers in the industry.
Ms. Smith asked Mr. Bentz if he was opposed to NRS 575.404 and she felt the issue of NRS was a false issue and should be addressed in Judiciary. This was not the appropriate forum for NRS 575.404 to be addressed, said Ms. Smith. Mr. Bentz said he honored her opinion and had addressed the problem in the Judiciary Committee and was trying to stop the expansion of humane society police power in A.B. 575. He stated if they were to be regulated as an industry, let them be regulated by the people best suited to regulate. The people who were POST certified and who were peace officers and accountable to the electorate, such as the animal control personnel, should be the ones to regulate the industry.
Mr. Robert Bentz representing Boo-Ga-Loo's Live Bait and Feed of Pahrump and All Outdoors, said he bred mice to sell to pet stores to feed animals who ate mice. He took offense to Senator Titus' alleged statement regarding those opposed to the bill being questionable responsible animal users and those in favor being aboveboard. He also felt strongly concerning giving police powers to humane societies.
Ms. Susan Callahan, a 30-year breeder of Siberian Huskies, was opposed to S.B. 402. She talked of the medical precautions taken to ensure her dogs were healthy and did not have hereditary defects. Ms. Callahan questioned the refunding or replacing policy in the bill. Her company had dealt with a written contract for 30 years (Exhibit M) in which she could choose if she wanted to refund cash to a person or refund another animal. If she felt they were partially responsible for something happening to the dog, she might not want to replace the animal and would rather give them back their money. Ms. Callahan said it should be her choice how to refund. The enforcement should be done by local animal control and not by the humane society.
Ms. Smith asked where in the bill it stated the humane society would enforce the law. Ms. Callahan said NRS 574.040 would be included under the NRS chapter referred to.
Ms. Juanita Cox, opposed S.B. 402. She too spoke of the humane society law and said she had spoken to Speaker Dini regarding NRS 574.040 in which the law would be in effect. Ms. Cox talked about local law doing the enforcement and the cost of the enforcement. The police power of the humane society was her concern and should be addressed in the bill. She continued to go through the bill with other concerns. Ms. Cox gave the committee a paper (Exhibit N) to show what was happening in the United States on Animal Rights.
Mrs. Freeman asked if the subcommittee would meet at 10:00 a.m in Room 321 to discuss the issues.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
PAT MENATH
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining
June 7, 1993
Page: 1