MINUTES OF THE

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 24, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, May 24, 1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman

      Mr. Val Z. Garner, Vice Chairman

      Mr. Bernie Anderson

      Mrs. Vonne Chowning

      Mr. Tom Collins, Jr

      Mr. William D. Gregory

      Mr. Lynn Hettrick

      Mr. James W. McGaughey

       Mr. Louis A. Toomin

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Kerry Carroll-Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative               Counsel Bureau

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Roland Peachee, Pearl Harbor Survivors Association

      Larry Ingram, Pearl Harber Survivors Association

      C.W. Mallan, Pearl Harbor Survivors Association

      Pat Ingram, Pearl Harbor Survivors Association

      Donna Wadey, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

      Donna Varin, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

      Frank Daykin, Self

      Frank W. Lewis, Self

      Art Wilson, Art Wilson Company

      Don Harper, Self

      Joe Melcher, County Recorder

      Ed Hollingsworth, Self

      Darryl R. Harting, Self

      Joe Johnson, Sierra Club

      Nancy M. Carr, Lyon County Recorder

      Floyd Love, Self

      John Bennett, Self

      Gaylyn Spriggs, Mineral County

      See Attached List for Additional Attendees (Exhibit B)

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 565: Revises designation of license plates for                            Pearl Harbor survivors.

 

Roland Peachee, representing the Pearl Harbor's Survivor's Association spoke in opposition to the bill.  He stated he previously had initiated the "Pearl Harbor Veteran" license plate six years ago with the assistance of Senator Adler. Mr. Peachee expressed his pride with the license plate.  Mr. Peachee indicated the word "veteran" distinguished those who served in military forces from the numbers of civilians who "survived" Pearl Harbor.  He stated the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association had become fond of the plate and sought to keep it unchanged.  He distributed a picture of license plates from each of the fifty states, which indicated no set uniformity in plates as some said Pearl Harbor Survivor or Pearl Harbor Veteran.  He indicated Nevada was number four in receiving the plates and felt no need existed to change the plate.  

 

Chairman Spitler acknowledged mail he had received early in the session which requested a bill be introduced to change the license plate from "Pearl Harbor Veteran" to "Pearl Harbor Survivor."   He asked if there would be any advantage in allowing veterans to choose between "veteran" or "survivor" on their plates.  Mr. Peachee stated he would have no objection to the option. 

 

Chairman Spitler asked members present in the audience who indicated opposition to the bill but did not wish to testify, if they would  object to having an option.  It was noted a majority of the group had no objection to allowing a choice between "veteran" or "survivor" on the license plates.  

 

Mr. Toomin noted the Pearl Harbor Survivor's Group in the audience resided in the north; however, he had received several letters from the South on "Pearl Harbor Survivors" stationary.  The letters he received indicated Nevada was only one of two states out of 45 who had not adopted the "Pearl Harbor Survivor" plate.  He inquired as to the national synchrony of the association and the national movement taking place changing the plate to "Pearl Harbor Survivor."  Mr. Peachee acknowledged apparent conflict between the northern and southern associations and indicated the only way his group had heard of the plate was from the newspaper.  He informed members the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association did have a state chairman who was to communicate with both Nevada chapters; however, Mr. Peachee indicated his only contact with the chairman was by accident.  At that meeting, Mr. Peachee stated the state chairman (Mr. McCue) indicated his desire to change the plate and this was discussed with committee members whose final decision was to not change the plate.

 

Mr. Toomin commented he was suprised at the opposition as a national move existed for changing the plate, he had received letters on "Pearl Harbor Survivors Association" stationary urging the change, and noted today was the first ever opposition he had heard regarding the bill.  Mr. Peachee indicated his confusion on who to contact to voice opposition; however, most of his group did call their representative, Senator Adler, to voice opposition. 

 

Pat Ingram, Pearl Harbor Survivors Association, in answering a question from Mr. Toomin, reported at the 50th Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor War, congressional medals were issued to Pearl Harbor survivors.  She stated in Nevada, from October 1991 through November 1992, 262 commemorative medals were issued, including 219 issued to living veterans.  Mrs. Ingram indicated 91 of the 219 living veterans were members of the Northern chapter of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association which her group represented.   Mr. Peachee interjected that approximately 13,000 survivors were alive nationwide.

 

Leroy Ingram, Secretary, Chapter 1 - Northern Nevada, Pearl Harbor Survivors Association, testified in opposition to the bill.  He stated upon becoming secretary, he was asked by the state chairman what the Northern chapter thought about changing the license plate from "Pearl Harbor Veteran" to "Pearl Harbor Survivor."  He stated a poll indicated the majority of people were against the change and that information had been conveyed to the state chairman continuously as recently as three months ago.  Mr. Ingram reiterated his chapter had no idea the bill had been introduced until Mr. Peachee read about it in the paper. 

 

Chairman Spitler indicated a review would be conducted to see if an option could be allowed on both license plates.

 

Mrs. Chowning questioned if there would be an additional charge if the proposed bill was enacted and people had to change their plates. She felt if additional charges were made, it would be fair to allow a choice.  Chairman Spitler stated the issue had not been addressed in terms of cost.  He agreed allowing a choice seemed appropriate.

 

Mr. Peachee stated if the proposed bill went into effect in June of 1993, charging an additional $25 would be unfair.

 

C.W. Mallen, Pearl Harbor Survivor's Association, indicated he was the previous state chairman of the California Association when they received their "Pearl Harbor Survivor" plate.  He stated he would investigate whether letters had been issued seeking a national change by calling the first district director. He stated the last national convention held in Little Rock, Arkansas, did not address anything about changing the license plates from "veteran" to "survivor." 

 

Mr. Collins pointed out a factor other than the cost for some veterans on fixed income, would be the physical inability for some veterans to change the plate. 

 

Mr. Anderson inquired on California's qualifications for becoming a Pearl Harbor survivor.  Mr. Mallet indicated the qualifications were the same nationwide.  He said anyone who lived within three miles of the entire island of Hawaii and Oahu qualified as a survivor.  Mr. Mallet indicated there were people who were really survivors of the attack, including himself as he was aboard the USS Oklahoma which capsized.  Mr. Anderson asked if a fine enough distinction existed between a survivor and veteran.  Mr. Mallet stated it was worded in California that anyone who served in the armed forces within three miles of Hawaii and Oahu qualified as a survivor.  Mr. Anderson clarified the California definition of "survivor" indeed stated a person had to be a member of the armed forces and did not indicate the person was a civilian.  Mr. Mallet agreed and stated the definition was written in the national regulations.   Mr. Anderson concluded Nevada's special license plate really only addressed veterans as specifically members of the armed forces. 

 

Pat Ingram referenced a letter from the U.S. Department of Navy which specifically read "The civilian employees of the Army and Navy who were wounded or killed during the attack are the only ones who could be given the Pearl Harbor commemorative medals which were reserved for veterans." 

 

Donna Wadey, Assistant Chief,  Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, was present to testify for informational purposes if there were any questions. 

 

Chairman Spitler asked if any problem might be posed by allowing a choice of either "veteran" or "survivor" on the plate.  Ms. Wadey indicated the department foresaw no problems with allowing an option.  She stated if the bill passed, plates would be reissued to those individual plateholders; however, she stated the department did not feel it needed to charge a fee for the reissued plates and the plate numbers would remain the same.  

 

Chairman Spitler informed the committee he would contact the group who had requested the bill to see if they would concur with an option.  He expressed appreciation for the group attending and the willingness exhibited in allowing a choice of either "veteran" or "survivor."

 

      * * * *

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 478:  Revises provisions relating to speed limit in                         school zone.

 

      MR. GARNER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 478.

 

      MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE. (MR. COLLINS AND MR. GREGORY          VOTED NO.  MR. HETTRICK WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF VOTE.)

 

      * * * *

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 559:  Requires department of motor vehicles and                            public safety to establish procedures for                            voluntary surrender and subsequent                                   reinstatement of driver's license.

 

Chairman Spitler informed the committee a conflict existed on A.B. 559 with a bill passed in the senate and Assemblyman Tiffany, sponsor of the bill had been unable to reach the person whom she requested the bill on behalf of to see if they could work out the conflict.     

 

Donna Varin, Chief, Driver's License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, for information purposes clarified S.B. 193 (of the 67th session) accomplished issues sought with  A.B. 559.  She stated if the bill was not carried forward, the intent of the bill would be carried forward with S.B. 193. 

 

Chairman Spitler informed the committee Mrs. Tiffany indicated she most likely would withdraw the bill; however, she wished to communicate with her constituent before taking action.

 

SENATE BILL NO. 236:  Makes certain changes relating to minor county                        roads.

 

Frank Daykin explained he was present to explain the intent of S.B. 236.  Mr. Daykin indicated the bill accomplished two things. 1) It relieved the state and county for any damage liability which might be sustained by a person using what was designated as a minor county road as those roads were not required to be maintained by a public authority.  2) Present law required Board of County Commissioners to lay and mark the roads on a map when the county roads were designated.  He stated this resulted in a problem with small counties as the work was never being done.  Mr. Daykin indicated the bill did not change the way in which minor county roads were established, rather it would change the responsibility of putting the road on the map.  He explained the county highway commissioners would be recused from putting the roads on the map and any person using the road could put the road on the map by using a United States Geological Survey topographic map or other acceptable maps.

 

Mr. Daykin explained the process involved with placing roads on maps.  He explained the second part of the bill prescripted the county recorder on how to index the map.   Mr. Daykin informed the committee minor county roads were of the same character dealt with in A.B. 176 (of the 67th session) but in a different aspect.  He explained whatever bill was approved by both houses, LCB would send conflict notices so the substance of both bills would be preserved.

 

Frank Lewis testified in support of the bill.  He explained he owned patented, deeded mining claims and farmland properties in both northern and southern Nevada.  Mr. Lewis stated he had been informed the federal government was closing roads to private, deeded, parcels of lands with various methods, including placing signs stating "No Trespassing" as exhibited in an information packet distributed (Exhibit C) by Mr. Lewis.   Mr. Lewis referred to a law passed by Congress in 1866 which stated if property was developed, the right-of- way was automatically granted to that property; however, that law was repealed in 1976.  Mr. Lewis informed the committee a bill was introduced in Congress this year by a Senator of Minnesota which would stop all RS2477 road access designations.  If the bill successfully passed, Mr. Lewis stated the federal government would close much needed access to  private, deeded parcels of land.  He stated a procedure currently existed where the federal government recognized access across roads which required three things: 1) the road needed to be recognized by the county or state as a public road, 2) the road needed to be constructed by some mechanical means, and 3) used prior to 1976.   By getting roads on county maps, Mr. Lewis explained it helped both county and private parties establish rights to roads and served both legal and practical aspects.  He stated if the county had maps of the road when federal land planners entered the area to decide what was permitted in the 70 percent of Nevada owned by the federal government, they would see that roads existed and would adopt those roads or they would allow the county road map to stand.  He explained the only other alternative to keep a private road open was litigation. 

 

Chairman Spitler asked the definition of "minor county road."  Mr. Daykin responded the phrase "minor county road" had been used since 1979 to establish a category of roads used by the public which were not enough of county importance to be designated general or main roads.  He cited examples of "minor county roads" and the importance of roads to individuals. 

 

Answering a question from Chairman Spitler, Mr. Daykin informed the committee the purpose of designating minor county roads was to prevent certain areas of the state from being designated on maps as "road-less."  As the proposed bill was structured, Mr. Daykin stated the county's immunity from liability was somewhat redundant as present law did not require annual maintenance nor require a standard of maintenance of roads. 

 

Mr. Lewis interjected stating counties were afraid of any liability.  He stated the bill proposed people who used the roads (farmers, miners, hunters, etc.) would be in a position to put the roads on maps.  He felt it offered better planning and spelled out further the lack of liability.  Of all counties required to place roads on maps since 1979, Mr. Lewis indicated only one county had done so.

 

Mr. Lewis pointed out the proposed congressional bill would go into effect January 1, 1994, and the federal government after that date would no longer recognize its own regulations for incorporating roads onto map records.  He stated Utah had designated 80 percent of its roads as RS2477 to protect citizen's right to access; whereas Nevada had not taken any action.  Mr. Lewis relayed an experience in which his road had been closed with BLM attempting to place a fence in the area to exclude everyone. When he approached the Department of Transportation for help, Mr. Lewis stated they had no interest in any roads except those in which written right-of-way agreements existed. 

 

Chairman Spitler asked what conflicts existed with A.B. 176 and S.B. 236 (both of the 67th Session).  Mr.  Daykin answered there was no conflict in substance as they accomplished the same objective and depending on which bill was approved first, the other bill would be conformed around the approved bill.  Mr. Lewis reminded the committee S.B. 236 had already been approved by the Senate. 

 

Mr. Toomin asked if accessory roads were currently required to be mapped.  Mr. Daykin stated there was no mechanism for defining accessory roads if the roads did not qualify as minor county roads; however, if the proposed bill was approved, the roads would be placed on maps.  He indicated an accessory road was a grade lower than a minor county road.

 

Mr. Anderson asked if a single user of a path would constitute as a fourth road under RS2477 if the single user filed his track with a county agency.  Mr. Daykin stated it would not constitute as an accessory road unless S.B. 235 (of the 67th session) was passed.  With just the passage of S.B. 236, the single track road would be evidenced as an existing, located road if it was ever contested.   Mr. Anderson stated the proposed bill expanded a lower classification of roads.  Mr. Daykin repeated the bill would require recognition of the roads by public agencies. 

 

Mr. Anderson asked how true public usage would be determined if the roads, in the past, were not on the maps.  Mr. Lewis pointed out the most important purpose of the proposed bill allowed people to place roads they used on a map so they could have evidence of developed access to properties.  He stated the enemy in such instances was the federal government as they prescripted to close roads not placed on maps, but they were willing to recognize roads recognized by counties. 

Mrs. Chowning indicated as a result of the subcommittee on A.B. 176 (of the 67th session), she had received concern with the state or county being exempt from liability in the event of a major accident, such as a hazardous waste accident which would force people to use an alternative road.  Mr. Daykin replied A.B. 176 was narrowed for one particular sort of problem while S.B. 236 was drawn broadly to solve different problems. 

 

Chairman Spitler inquired what effect the proposed bill would have on an existing situation where the public had access to a road but no one had filed a map on the road.  He wondered if an argument might be made that the road would no longer be open for public access.  Mr. Daykin replied the bill required no time limit for filing a map.  Chairman Spitler commented the burden of proof fell on the person who used the road and voiced concern that not every citizen was knowledgeable of the intricacies of law. 

 

Mr. Lewis stated current law was written that counties were to map roads which they had not done.  He stated they were trying to permit the populous to try to protect whatever access was necessary.  Chairman Spitler asked if there had been any communication with counties to find out why they were not doing as they were mandated.  Mr. Lewis stated he did talk with a Lyon County Commissioner who indicated counties were afraid of liability.  Mr.  Lewis felt the bill clarified the liability so the commissioners would cease to use that argument.  He stated a road commissioner in White Pine County indicated they had attempted to put roads on a map but BLM refused to recognize the roads. 

 

Art Wilson, Art Wilson Company, testified in favor of the bill.  He stated a reason counties did not place roads on maps was the fact counties had a choice of minimum standard of road quality in order to accept/reject the road for maintenance.  Mr. Wilson stated his experience and interest in the bill involved a situation in the Silver Springs area where a road was recognized by the county, but the county would not maintain the road until it was brought up to its standards by the road user.  He felt counties would be exposed to tremendous increases in maintenance costs of roads; however, not willing to maintain was  not a reason for the roads to not exist.  Mr. Wilson felt the preexistence for roads and the need to access the roads were more important.  Another factor for the roads was for the benefit of the terrain for fire, etc.  Mr. Lewis stated he tried to maintain the roads on his patented and unpatented mining claims at a minimum to not generate traffic; and also, to not create a burden for counties.  He stressed when roads were threatened to be closed, the situation was different as many times those who used the road had invested a great deal of money.

 

Dan Harper, Winnemucca, Nevada,  testified in support of the bill.  He stated he had retired from the mining industry and felt a great deal was at stake with closing of roads.  Mr. Harper pointed out a number of roads which were not a matter of record had existed before 1975.  He felt the bill allowed the roads to be put on record for use by miners, ranchers, and recreational enthusiasts.   Mr. Harper alluded a tendency existed with the federal government to close more and more access roads to federal lands.  He urged passage of the bill as it added protection for citizens rights to use the roads by placing those roads on maps with support from county commissioners and the state.  Chairman Spitler indicated federal law superseded state law on federal lands.  Mr. Harper agreed with Chairman Spitler's comment but felt the proposed bill allowed federal government to give consideration of local jurisdiction over certain roads. 

 

Mr. Wilson ascertained it seemed most federal regulations handed down were developed by individuals unknowledegable or experienced in living in a state with 70-87 percent of ownership by the federal government.  Frustrating to Mr. Wilson was the fact the federal lands were public lands which belonged to the public.  He pleaded to the committee for passage in order to provide protection to the individuals seeking access to their lands. 

 

Joe Melcher, Washoe County Recorder, briefly informed the committee of their involvement with S.B. 236. He indicated they were asked to work with Senator Brown to address technicalities for making maps proposed by the bill recordable, uniformable, and inexpensive so the common person could file a map with recorders making a good index for maps to be easily found in making them a permanent record.  

 

Chairman Spitler asked if the absence of a map would indicate to  recorders that the road never existed with public access conditions.  Mr. Melcher stated those decisions were generally up to county surveyors or engineers as recorders were not involved in the decision making.  Regarding the uniformity to the map, Mr. Melcher stated maps might allow a precedence for someone to use for interpreting.  Mr. Melcher informed the committee maps were available for public purchase. 

 

Answering a question from Mr. Anderson, Mr. Melcher agreed lower level roads might be a problem if roads were placed by private citizens in the wrong area as previously done with old mining claims; however, many USGS maps had old roads and trails already imprinted on the map.  He reiterated county recorders did not do any interpretation nor were technically qualified as surveyors or engineers.   He stated main goals of county recorders were to place maps on records, secure the maps, and have maps available to the public.  Mr. Melcher stated distinctions between county roads, mining claims, etc. were determined before placing them on maps. 

 

Mr. Anderson asked if recorders had any problems with Section 2, #3 of the proposed bill.  Mr. Melcher indicated they would not have problems as the bill outlined what needed to be shown on the face of the map.

 

Answering a question regarding an assumption by Mr. Collins that all counties were familiar with all roads, trails, etc. for emergency response systems,  Mr. Melcher stated S.B. 235 (of the 67th session) referred to maps that were supposed to be filed by counties for all roads.  Mr. Melcher reminded committee members only one county had ever filed a map even though the counties were required by law to file one.  Mr. Melcher indicated this was reported by many of the recorders. 

 

Mr. Toomin asked if documented minor access roads were transferred onto a master map.  Mr. Melcher replied there was no master and the original maps were filed and kept on record.

 

Ed Hollingsworth testified in support of the bill. As a native Nevadan born in Lovelock, he stated he enjoyed the liberties he previously had before the federal government decided public lands were not available to the public.  He felt the federal government was becoming very possessive.  Mr. Hollingsworth witnessed the trend first hand as he indicated he was a former employee of the Bureau of Land Management; however, he stated BLM's philosophy was very inconsistent with his as a citizen in the state.  As a lawyer, Mr. Hollingsworth relayed his experience in representing clients involved with public land issues found more and more rights the state was entitled to as a sovereign state were rapidly disappearing.  He felt mining law changes would also drastically affect rights of citizens by depriving them of the right to access public lands within the boundaries of the state.  He maintained the federal government lied, misconstrued, and misrepresented all facts to force people of the state to be restricted to existing roads. Further, Mr. Hollingsworth informed the committee a mechanism was already in law  for citizens to go to the federal government to gain a permit to use portions of Nevada.  He stated this mechanism gave the Secretary of State the right to regulate lands through permit licenses;  however, this mechanism was currently confined by the mining law.  Mr. Hollingsworth stated the mining law gave every citizen the right to go onto public lands to search for minerals and was the one existing right which protected citizens from being "squeezed off" the lands.  He also felt rights under RS2477 roads were being eliminated.  He repeated any road that left an impression on the earth qualified as a RS2477 road and once the impression was made, the federal government recognized the right for anyone to use that impression.  Mr. Hollingsworth relayed instances which he felt exemplified misrepresentation from the federal government.

 

Chairman asked how Mr. Hollingsworth perceived the proposed bill would stop the alledged misrepresentation.  Mr. Hollingsworth replied the proposed bill alone might not be the total solution but he felt it was one step for people to take to protect their lands and the right to access Nevada public lands.  

 

Chairman Spitler asked for Mr. Hollingsworth's  attorney's point of view on whether he agreed counties had the responsibility for mapping roadways within boundaries.  Mr. Hollingsworth replied he agreed in part but there were three classifications.  Chairman Spitler asked if counties were able to enact ordinances similar to the intent of the bill.  Mr. Hollingsworth indicated counties probably could within their jurisdiction.  

 

Mr. Hollingsworth concluded the goal of the bill was to gain statutory rights to establish a system whereby the roads not covered by existing statute could be put on record so the opportunity would be in place to show the federal government the roads existed. 

 

M. Douglas Miller, President, Nevada Miners and Prospectors Association, and former Legislative Chairman of the Veteran's of Foreign Wars, testified in support of the bill.  He stated he was a registered civil engineer who had worked in the state for 33 years.  Mr. Miller felt citizens were being deprived of sovereignty as a state and urged the legislature to recognize that authority rested with the people. Mr. Miller read Article 10 of the Bill of Rights.  He felt state sovereignty existed and needed to be recognized.  He indicated thousands of roads did exist throughout the state and people needed to maintain their right to use those roads. He felt S.B. 236 was a step toward that sovereignty and urged the committee to do pass the bill.

 

Darrell R. Harting, representing himself, stated he entered the road business two years ago when he gained patented mining claims between Tonopah and Goldfield.  He indicated his concern was the road to his claims was classified as a minor county road.   Mr. Harting stated an instance arose where he needed to find out who was in charge of the land.  He stated he approached BLM who had indicated the road was on BLM land; however, BLM informed him in order to do anything with the road, he needed a five year easement.  Upon expiration of the easement,  Mr. Harting stated he was told he needed to restore the road to "pristine desert."  Mr. Harting indicated the road had been in existence since the 1900's as the properties were discovered in 1899. 

 

Mr. Harting distributed and explained an information sheet (Exhibit D) which attested to his position in support of the bill.   He also urged passage of the companion bill S.B. 235.  

 

Joe Johnson, Sierra Club, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Johnson indicated a number of problems existed with the proposed bill namely, he felt the bill did not accomplish what proponents indicated it would.  A concern of Mr. Johnson was defining exactly what qualified as a minor county road.  He indicated the statutory definition which currently existed and would still exist after passage of the bill said  "Board of County Highway Commissioners of each of the several counties each in the State of Nevada shall (C): lay out, and designate other roads which are neither main nor general county roads."  He stated the problem was not getting roads on the maps, but was having criteria which required maps be "laid out and designated." The problem  was county commissions did not lay out or designate roads.  Mr. Johnson stated without public hearings, commissioners failed to designate roads.

 

Mr. Johnson realized it odd the Sierra Club's testimony spoke on behalf of private property rights; however, the proponent's testimony had only dealt with RS2477 roadways.  He repeated earlier testimony from county recorders stated they would accept maps at face value in the general area of designating roads.  He felt assuredly for every zealous individual who filed a map across a wilderness area in the public sector, there would be another zealous individual filing a map across private property using the same basis.  Mr. Johnson stated the filed map would become the private property owners right and problem of clearing the road for the public sector.  He felt whatever the bill did for the public sector, it also did for the private as there was no distinction.  Mr. Johnson pointed out there were no safeguards from individuals with unwarranted claims from filing a map that automatically became a matter of record and those actions would become a nuisance.  Mr. Johnson indicated proponents maintained access across public land, private land, etc. was a sovereign issue; however, statutorily a requirement existed for laying out and designating roads.  He foresaw situations with private individuals filing maps under the proposed bill who might need to prove the map showed a minor county road.  He stated the only way to prove to the federal government that the road was a minor county road was to go back to the county to see if the road was "laid out and designated."  Mr. Johnson indicated the appropriate mechanism as generated in A.B. 176 (of the 67th session) was to bring forward evidence with evidentiary ruling and findings from the county commission.  He again repeated concerns that S.B. 236 would be a nuisance bill to both federal and private sectors.

 

Regarding the liability problem, Mr. Johnson conveyed a reason county commissioners and district attorneys were leery of liability was Chapter 403 of NRS required every minor county road to have a sign disclaiming the road was not maintained.  He stated a requirement also existed for an annual inspection to make sure the sign was present as statutorily required.  Mr. Johnson indicated those requirements would necessitate a fiscal note for the proposed bill if passed as written.  He explained signs, if not present, would raise the question, "had the county complied with liability." Although liability was waived statutorily, Mr. Johnson stated statutory language did exist which required notices and an annual inspection of the signs.  Mr. Johnson felt a district attorney might note the absence of signs as non-compliance.

 

Mr. Johnson challenged the proponents to demonstrate a single instance where the county had "laid out and designated," as already required in existing statute, a minor county road.   Mr. Johnson commented S.B. 135 was a laudatory expression of maintaining public access.  He stated A.B. 176 (of the 67th session) was the appropriate mechanism and urged the committee to hold the bill for possible future amendment if A.B. 176 was not processed.  Mr. Johnson concluded the issue of access to private inholding within the federal area, which most proponents present discussed, was addressed in the proposed bill S.B. 235 (of the 67th session).   Mr. Johnson indicated the Sierra Club had reservations with S.B. 235 (of the 67th session) but generally were in support of the bill.  As broad public policy, Mr. Johnson indicated the Sierra Club was in favor of access to multiple use lands; however, they did not feel it was their position to interfere in reasonable management of public lands.

 

Nancy Carr, Lyon County Recorder, concurred with earlier testimony by Mr. Melcher.

 

Russ Field, Nevada Department of Minerals, expressed his support for the bill.

 

Floyd Love, representing himself, asked to be recognized in support of the bill.

 

John Bennetts testified in support of the bill.  He indicated he was a Nevada native, a professional engineer, and a property owner with land acquired under the 1872 mining law.  Mr. Bennetts described the road access to his land, and because of increased expense in maintaining his mining claims, he had considered abandoning them.  By abandoning his claims, Mr. Bennets was informed by BLM he would also be required to abandon his access road to his patented in-fee property and also restore the road to its original "pristine desert" condition as it was in 1859.  He concluded passage of the bill would prevent citizens as himself from being harassed by the federal government from just trying to gain access to their land.  He stated the bill would allow roads that were opened for many, many decades to remain open. 

Chairman Spitler commented there would have been no need for the proposed bill had the counties done what they were technically required to do. 

 

Gaylyn Spriggs, representing Rayrock Mines, Inc., voiced support of the bill.

 

Mr. Lewis, referring to an earlier challenge from Mr. Johnson asking for an instance where counties had "designated and laid out" minor county roads, presented a map utilized by Esmeralda County which had recorded minor county roads.  He indicated maps were placed on topographical maps which were then recorded.   Mr. Lewis concluded his testimony by informing the committee the Nevada Public Lands Commission and Senate had approved the bill as amended.  He urged the committee to also pass the bill.

 

With no further business, Chairman Spitler adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m.

 

            RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

 

 

 

            ________________________

            Carolyn J. Harry

            COMMITTEE SECRETARY

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Transportation

May 24, 1993

Page 1