MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING
Sixty-seventh Session
June 9, 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 9, 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:
Jerry Hepworth, Nevada Mining Association; Bob McQuivey, Nevada Department of Wildlife; Fred Wright, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife; Jolaine Johnson, Nevada Division Environmental Protection; Verne Rosse, Nevada Division
Environmental Protection; Joe Johnson, Sierra Club.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Freeman.
ASSEMBLY BILL 659:
Requires mining operation to obtain permit from department of wildlife before using cyanide or other chemicals deleterious to wildlife.
Mr. Bob McQuivey, Nevada Department of Wildlife, spoke in support of A.B. 659. He explained the background for the bill and said in the mid 1980's there was a severe problem with bird mortalities at mining operations. The department developed a cooperative working agreement with the mining industry to correct the problem. Legislation in 1989 provided for a permit issued by the wildlife department to mining companies which identified specific protective measures needed at each mine to protect wildlife. While working together on the program the wildlife department had developed a great deal of cooperation in addressing other mining and wildlife related issues. In 1991 the Wildlife Department put together a package for funding from the mining industry as the department was spending a considerable amount of time, energy and money on mining related issues when the majority of the departments money came from hunting and fishing licenses, etc. The mining industry agreed the sportsmen of the state should not pay for mining related issues as it was a service provided to the mining industry. The department would need $.5 million per year to address all of the departments mining programs. This would include not only the permit but the wildlife data provided to the industry used in environmental assessments, review of plans of operations, input into reclamation process, etc. The mining industry agreed and supported the bill which ended up being NRS 502.390. The amendment concerned prior legislation NRS 502.390 which talked about mining companies or other industries need for a permit if creating artificial bodies of water which had chemicals deleterious to wildlife. Many of the mines in Nevada have operations which used chemicals but were not deleterious to wildlife. In 1989 the permitting process was developed, and in 1991 the assessment fees were developed. The permitting process was a vehicle to collect funds but the actual fees were for more than the permit. Mr. McQuivey said after looking at the bill they would propose to meet the needs of the department and change or delete those sections of the bill as they currently read, amending Section 1 of NRS 502.390 as follows: for the purposes of this section all mining companies developing artificial bodies of water directly associated with the processing of ore must obtain a permit. The intent would be to have the mining companies obtain a permit which would be the vehicle for the Department of Wildlife to collect revenues to continue with the established program.
Mr. Welden asked for clarification and questioned if the intent was to amend Section 1 of A.B. 659. Mr. McQuivey said no, the intent was to start all over and just use the existing language in statute right now and add the one sentence referred to previously.
Mr. Carpenter asked how much money had been collected from the mining industry. Mr. McQuivey said the first year of the assessment $512,000 was collected, and the second year $491,000. The assessment fee under commission regulation was based on tons of material the mining operation put through the mill or put on the heap leach. The department felt at the existing rate of mining about 1/2 million was needed to do the things needed as an agency. If mining activity decreased the money to the Department of Wildlife would decrease and when mining activity increases the amount collected for wildlife programs would increase. Mr. Carpenter asked what the department was doing for the 1/2 million. Mr. McQuivey said the intent was to spend $230,000 for existing needs, law enforcement people, permitting process and inspection of mines, etc. The department in addition had proposed another $270,000 for hiring of four new people, two law enforcement people and two biologists. Mr. McQuivey said the hiring of additional personnel had not been implemented. He said a code had been established in 1991 to track exactly how much money was spent on the mining program. The department had spent $220,000 and the rest was in obligated reserve. The Department of Wildlife had been negotiating with the money committee's during the current session for the four positions. Mr. Carpenter said he would surmise approximately one-half of the money was going into regulating mining and the rest was going into law enforcement, etc. The inspections were turned over to the departments law enforcement personnel, said Mr. McQuivey. The law enforcement personnel during patrol inspected the mines to make sure fences were tight so antelope were protected from the ponds, etc. Law enforcement has an active role in the permitting process. The $220,000 the department had spent on the mining program included both law enforcement and the habitat program or input process. Mr. Carpenter said there would be approximately $270,000 for other activities. Mr. McQuivey said a schedule had been set up to visit the mines, some needed only to be visited once a year while others needed to be visited more often. The remaining money not coded to mining related activities was in the bank and was under the obligated reserve until the legislature came to a decision. The money should be used for the mining program because of the agreement with the mining industry. Mr. Carpenter said the miners were doing a great deal in the area of wildlife protection and Independence Mines had given $500,000 for habitat enhancement.
The hearing was closed for other business by Chairman Freeman.
Mrs. Freeman asked the committee to look at A.B. 690. Mrs. Lambert the author of the bill had asked Mrs. Freeman to Indefinitely Postpone the bill.
ASSEMBLY BILL 690:
Transfers to University of Nevada System responsibility for training regarding hazardous materials.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 690.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
ASSEMBLY BILL 402:
Imposes restrictions and requirements upon care and sale of certain animals.
Mrs. Freeman informed the committee amendments to S.B. 402 had been distributed to each member (Exhibit C) and she discussed them with the committee. She said Senator Titus had been at the subcommittee meeting and agreed with most of the amendments.
Mr. Neighbors asked if all concerned agreed with the amendments. Mrs. Freeman and Mrs. Smith agreed there was a general consensus the bill was a good one.
Mr. Sader asked who was at the meeting for the breeders and owners. Mr. Ernaut named several individuals who were at the meeting and signed off on the amendments. Tom Bentz signed off on the bill. Mrs. Freeman felt there was bipartisan representation on the subcommittee and both parties knew they were not going to obtain everything they wanted. Mr. Sader wondered if they had been pushed for a commitment or if they were going to fight all the way.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 402.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
ASSEMBLY BILL 511:
Prohibits delivery of unsolicited commercial advertisements to person's residence under certain circumstances.
Mrs. Freeman announced Mr. Price had asked to have A.B. 511 put in a subcommittee. She said Mr. Regan would be the chairman with members Mr. Bache, Ms. Smith and Mr. Schneider.
The hearing was reopened on A.B. 659.
Mr. Bache asked for a clarification on A.B. 659 and said the Wildlife Department wanted to take away the brackets, eliminate all the new language, go back to the original statute of NRS 502.390 and add the one sentence Mr. McQuivey had noted. Mr. McQuivey said he was correct but the department members had taken another look at the bill and adding the sentence previously stated would require the department to permit all ponds in the state of Nevada. He said the department did not want to permit all ponds, only those for the protection of wildlife. All the Department of Wildlife wished to do was be assured by law the finances continued to accomplish what had been done for the past four years. Mr. McQuivey said Mr. Bache was correct in his summary.
Mr. Regan asked if it was correct in 1992, $512,000 was collected from permits and fees and in 1993, $492,000. The wildlife department now had $600,000 in the bank. Mr. Regan said the money would be earmarked for mine cyanide inspection, and Mr. McQuivey replied the money was earmarked for a total mining program inclusive of four positions the department had not had the authority to fill. Mr. McQuivey was asked if the department was simply accumulating funds, and he replied, depending on what happened this legislative session, the department would have to do something with the money. Mr. McQuivey said when the department went to the legislature in 1991, the budget office would not authorize wildlife to put the money into the receipt and expenditure account because there was not a law to collect the fees. The positions were not included in the budget as a law had not been passed to collect the fees. The law was passed the last day of the 1991 session and the department thought they would be able to go to the interim finance committee and be given the positions. The recession and freeze on positions took place at that time and even though there was money available to fill the positions it was not politically feasible. Mr. Regan said the mining industry had paid a fee in anticipation of receiving a service for the fee. The money was collecting in an account and either the budget director, finance or someone would not allow expenditure of the money, and he asked where the money was now. The money was in an obligated reserve, said Mr. McQuivey, to be spent by wildlife only. Mr. Regan said why did Assembly Ways and Means have to tell the department how to spend the money. Mr. McQuivey said the department could only hire people when the legislature authorized them to do so.
Mr. Sader said the budget for wildlife was closed in 1991 without the positions, and in order to get those positions interim finance would have had to approve them. The Department of Administration controlled who went to interim finance, and the budget director would not put wildlife on the agenda to augment wildlife's budget to spend the money because of the hiring freeze. Mr. Sader asked if the wildlife budget had been closed this session. Mr. McQuivey said it had been closed on one side but still open on the other side. Mr. Sader asked if the budget had been closed without the positions. Mr. McQuivey said he was correct. Mr. Sader said it was up to the legislature now.
Mr. Neighbors asked if the positions were filled would the fee schedule be excessive. Mr. McQuivey said in 1990 they developed a program for the needs of mining and wildlife. The program was based on $500,000, the assessment fee was taken care of and a portion of the program had been completed at a cost of $220,000. If the positions were not granted, either the fee would need to be reduced or an agreement the money would go into some other program, etc. The agreement with the mining industry was to go forward with the package outlined. The legislature could tell the department to spend the money any way they want, said Mr. McQuivey.
Mr. Jerald Hepworth, Chair, Wildlife Subcommittee, Nevada Mining Association, spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit D).
Mr. Sader asked if the wildlife budget was anticipating the utilization of the mining funds for other programs. Mr. McQuivey said no, the money was currently in a reserve account and was not in the budget to be expended. Mr. Sader asked what would happen to the money in the reserve account if A.B. 659 did not pass and the budget was not augmented. The agency and the legislature would have to decide what to do with it, said Mr. McQuivey. Mr. Sader asked if the money could be put in the general fund or used for other programs in wildlife. Mr. McQuivey said it could not revert to the general fund but could be used for other programs in wildlife, but had not been allocated for other programs for the next biennium. The fees for this year would go into account number 4452. Depending on what happened in this legislative year the department would be collecting an estimated 1/2 million in July.
Mr. Hepworth expressed concern for the two biologist positions. The mining industry was required to file reclamation plans and would like to leave a legacy of enhancing wildlife habitat.
Ms. Gaylyn Spriggs said the Senate closed wildlife's budget without the positions. Saturday the budget was reopened and the two biologist positions were put back in but not the two law enforcement positions. The Ways and Means on the Assembly side included the positions and there would be a discussion between the two houses.
Mr. Fred Wright on behalf of the Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, supported the purpose of A.B. 659, the financial support mining was giving to mitigation and enhancement activities regarding wildlife. The industry had spent or obligated $2 million for wildlife not including the Sleeper Mines Wetlands restoration of over 3,000 acres.
Mr. Joe Johnson, Sierra Club, favored the principle of the amended language. The Sierra Club applauded the industry for funding wildlife.
Mr. Larry Hawke, Nevada Mine Association, suggested the following amendment. The amendment should include a deletion of all new language associated with the legislation on pages l and 2. The bill would amend NRS 502.390 as follows: "for the purposes of this section any mining company who or that develops or maintains an artificial or man-made body of water containing chemicals directly associated with the processing of ore must obtain a permit."
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 659.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
SENATE BILL 442:
Clarifies that transportation of certain hazardous substances is exempt from certain provisions.
Ms. Jolaine Johnson, Chief, Chemical Hazards Management Bureau, Division of Environmental Protection, supported S.B. 442. She explained general grammar differences needed to be clarified. When the legislation was originally adopted, it exempted any hazardous substance transported through the state. This had caused some difficulty with facilities in the interpretation.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 442.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 37:
Urges Congress to oppose proposed legislation that establishes surcharge on water from federal reclamation projects.
Ms. Marcia de Braga, Assembly District 35, spoke in support of A.J.R. 37. The resolution was to urge Congress, which was presently considering a $.50 to $12 per acre foot surcharge on water use and reclamation projects, to oppose the surcharge. The reason for urging Congress to not consider the surcharge was the effect it would have on reclamation projects, specifically the Newlands Project in Churchill County. As proposed the cost would be between $105,000 and $2.5 million and this would be above and beyond operating and maintenance charges already assessed users on the Newlands Project. The resolution urged Congress not to assess a surcharge.
Mr. Joe Johnson, Sierra Club, opposed the resolution, but said it was not of large concern to the Club but was in principle. In general reclamation projects and water projects had been delivering water at low cost and were subsidized by the federal government for a number of years. There was a great problem in general, and he was not speaking specifically of the Newlands Project.
Mrs. Freeman asked for more detail from Ms. de Braga. Ms. de Braga said any user of irrigated water already pays an operating and maintenance charge which was approximately $.24 per acre foot which was all the land could support in taxes. Although it taxes the project specifically the only revenue the irrigation district had was from operating and maintenance charges paid by users, who had to pay an incredible number of legal fees. The users could bear the additional cost if legal fees were not so costly. Mrs. Freeman asked Ms. de Braga if she understood Mr. Johnson's opposition to the bill. She did not know in what manner the reclamation projects were subsidized. When the project was put into place the government required the money obligated to construct the project be paid back to the Federal Government.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 37.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Carpenter felt it was the age old problem of raising fees for the government.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN ERNAUT AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
*********
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTH OF MAY.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN ERNAUT AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
SENATE BILL 108:
Establishes standards for operation and display of radar guns and similar devices.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 108.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN GIBBONS AND REGAN VOTED NO.) (ASSEMBLYMEN ERNAUT AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
Mrs. Freeman explained why she waived Rule 92. She said the committee only met twice a week and she would like to hear the Senate bills as soon as possible. The clean air bill would be coming to the committee. Mr. Neighbors bill on public lands would also be heard.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
PAT MENATH
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining
June 9, 1993
Page: 1