MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 24, 1993
The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 2:35 p.m., on Thursday, June 24, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson
Senator R. Hal Smith
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Diana M. Glomb
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Matthew Q. Callister (Excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mark James, Senatorial District 8
Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Crossley, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water
Resources
Gordon DePaoli, Sierra Pacific Power Company and
Walker River Irrigation District
Dr. Earl Nissen, Governor's Commission on Substance Abuse Education, Prevention, Enforcement and Treatment
Kevin Quint, Nevada Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs
Victoria Hamilton, Nurse Consultant, Nevada State Health
Division, Bureau of Family Health Services
Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women's Lobby and National
Association of Social Workers
Joseph Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen's Association
Chairman McGinness indicated that four members of the committee were in finance, Senator Callister was excused, and Senator Titus had a meeting in her office; therefore, Senator Smith and he would act as a subcommittee until the other members arrived and that they would report the findings back to the committee. He stated that John Crossley advised them that they can do this legally.
Chairman McGinness opened the hearing on Senate Bill 327.
Senate Bill 327: Creates legislative committee to study use, allocation and management of water.
(BDR S-1197
The following is verbatim testimony.
Senator James, Senatorial District 8, said:
Thank you Mr. Chairman and member of the committee and Mr. Crossley. Senator Mark James representing Clark District 8. This is a bill, and I will be brief, in explaining it to the committee because it came to the floor and I explained it there and so I think you have a familiarity with it. But it proposes the formulation of an interim study of the subject of water, and quite broadly defines what this study would deal with. But I think, in being an observer of the water issues in Nevada for actually a relatively short time, but very interested observer, I've seen in the last several months probably more activity in public interest in the area of water than maybe there has been in this state for many, many years. As it's because we are coming to a point where existing supplies are allocated and there is a situation where the traditionally competing interests for water are coming to a head. And so, we have just a tremendous amount of activity in this area, and the need for the legislature to deliberatively address various of these issues. This bill comes from a bill that I originally introduced which was to address the public interest determinations under the water law made by the state engineer, and to set forth statutory criteria that the state engineer would have to deal with each time that he made a determination of an allocation or a change in an existing water right under the water law. And there was truly, in the natural resources committee, an outpouring of interest on both sides of this issue. And that, I think, evidenced what I just articulated earlier about the need to study this area. But in addition to studying how we define the public interest and how those determinations are made by our state agencies, this study would also examine other things. Examples of that are the fact that we have right now probably the biggest and the greatest number of projects for reallocation of supplies in the state from areas of supply to areas of need and a lot of that's rural to urban, and the competing interests involved there, and the little legislative declaration of what public policy is as regards those reallocation projects. I also had a bill that I am holding, I did not introduce. It was one that I was greatly interested in, and, in fact, mentioned a great deal in my campaign, I had it drafted. It was to create conservation credits. ... Nevada water law is based on a use-it-or-lose-it system and so that if you don't use the right you can either forfeit it or abandon that portion of the right that you're not using. And this concept would encourage people to conserve their water rights with the notion that they wouldn't lose their rights in the conserved water just because they weren't using it. They would have the right either to reapply for that water for a different use or to reallocate that to someone else or sell it to someone else for reallocation for a different use. I didn't introduce that because there are so many questions about how that program would be implemented, principally, how people who have existing water rights, principally rural users, would finance these necessary conservation changes, such as lining of ditches, changing of irrigation methods, etc. And so there is a need to study here also, just how we would finance something like that whether it be through a loan program or a grant loan program, or whether there's other funds that could be available for that. Financing, and I've just been discussing this with a couple of agency heads who deal with the water area, is very difficult to find for many small water companies who could make improvements and new developments that would greatly enhance the use of our water and our existing supplies. That's something else the committee would propose to discuss. There's a whole long litany of things I could go through, and I don't want to bore you through all of them, but I am assured by the state engineer and the various other agency heads who deal with water that they would support this and be happy to, be anxious in fact, to deal with this because we have a dire need in this state to really address water policy and water planning head on, and to come back to the legislature with some concrete proposals to put Nevada in a position to go forth into this next century with adequate water supplies for growth and development of our state. And so, with that, I would answer any specific questions the committee might have.
Senator Smith stated:
I have two concerns. One is the selection of the chairman of the committee. I think that it would be more appropriate if the Legislative Counsel, Commission, or somebody named the chairman. I think that's important, and I think you and I both share the need for a very broad brush ability to study this water situation, and my experience with legislative interim studies has been they almost are always limited to what you have written down. And I just want to be certain that we are all of accord that this is an extremely broad brush study that we are endeavoring to accomplish. So, I can probably ask John [Crossley] that. I know that in the past that we have been rather strictly limited to answering the questions that are addressed, and I just think this thing needs to be, and I know you understand that, and I know you're capable of bringing all these things to the front. And so those two areas that I would like to see very definitively approached.
Senator James replied:
I don't have any problem with how the chairman or vice-chairman are selected. I'd be willing to go with whatever this committee's recommendation is. Right now, it's selected by the committee from among the members. If you want to change that, I would be happy to support that. I personally drafted this original resolution that dealt with this. Now LCB has changed it and added in some mechanisms for making sure that we have the cooperation of the various state agencies and things, but when I did draft this, I put in the catch-all phrase to allow us to deal with any matter ... page 2 line 38 'An examination of any other issues related to the use, conservation, allocation and management of water resources that may affect the economy or the environment of this state.' Mike Turnipseed pointed out to me, that the word policy is not mentioned there, but, I think, that in all of those things, management, use, conservation allocation, all of those are policy questions. And so I think, the unwritten word here is policy. We would study that and so that would be as broad as possible. I appreciate that concern and I hope. ...
Senator Smith said:
I was thinking perhaps beneficial use priorities of those beneficial uses as water is available. The roles of the state engineer, and the planner. Those people are responsible for the clean water acts, and things like that, and we need to meld them all together which is a very significant part of this. And one of the areas that we did not discuss was the ability to recommend funding for the various agencies that we have out there. And these are the things that I'm trying to address in this broad brush approach.
Senator James stated:
I agree with you and those are areas we do want to study. We intend, certainly, to examine the beneficial use concept and not necessarily to overhaul it, but to examine it to see how the law treats the various beneficial uses and so I think that would be embodied in the term use, but in the financing area, I think that would be embodied in the way we allocate and manage our water supplies. I will support any amendment you'd like to propose one that might state that more succinctly. We don't use the word financing here but it's implicit throughout. It's one of the things we need to do is study the way that we fund the various agencies that are charged with this monumental task of dealing with allocation of existing supplies and planning for future supplies. I think that's something the legislature really needs to deal with, and I think this committee is going to examine that very closely. I gave a couple of examples. How a small water company comes up with the funds necessary to develop resources, and improve existing facilities, and how can the state make money available to encourage conservative use of resources by large water users. And then, I guess, maybe this committee should also look at the question, without becoming a finance committee, but also look at the question of how well equipped our existing agencies are. I am of the strong belief that our state engineer, who does such an excellent job with what he has, has been greatly handicapped by lack of resources dedicated to his most important duties.
Senator McGinness said:
Senator, I think we will probably visit with Mr. Erickson and Mr. Crossley and make sure that they feel this wording is broad enough. I think that section 2 sub 4 is pretty catch all. I think when you talk about management I'm sure that would bring in the role of the state water engineer, but we'll make sure that those things are covered. Also there are six meetings scheduled for this and I know you've got some sense of the importance of this, and I know I may ask John [Crossley] that six meetings are probably about the most, but do you think you can adequately cover such a tremendous study in six meetings?
Mr. Crossley is that the maximum number of meetings committees have ever gone to?
Mr. Crossley, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, replied:
Mr. Chairman, no, that's not the maximum number. It was just a case of when we looked at this, we've been using five members and then four. Here we have six members and recognizing the scope of this, we put six, and of course we listen to testimony and then we also have input afterward, Bob [Erickson] and I get together and see if what we feel, whether we're high or we're low, and then work with you on that. A lot of this has to do with the testimony.
Mr. Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, said:
Mr. Chairman, member of the committee. My name is Mike Turnipseed, I'm the state engineer. I just came to lend my support to the bill. We've of course have been in the water management business for 88 years as it pertains to surface water and over 50 years as it pertains to ground water, and I think we've done an excellent job throughout the state. My predecessor should be commended for that. We have a handful of water problems in the state and then it would not hurt to have some policy direction as it pertains to importation, exportation. The title of our water conference year before last was Whether to Take the Water to the People or the People to the Water. Of course that's a big issue in this state. In addition in you're going to try to define what's in the public interest, I think you should deliberate that very carefully. If the legislature feels that it is time to define what that is, what is in the public interest of the citizens of this state, I think you better take a great deal of testimony on that. We deal with it every day, and there's just a myriad of opinions as to what that means. It all depends on where you're coming from. My predecessor says it all depends on whose ox is getting gored as to what the public interest is. And so, if you're going to attempt to define what that is, and what's in the public interest of the citizens of Nevada, then you better be very careful. This language was in the law in 1913 and we've interpreted that to mean whatever it needs to mean at the particular moment. If you're going to now define that, you want to make sure that you don't exclude something that may be in the public interest for the citizens of Nevada. And with that, I'll just answer any questions.
Senator McGinness said:
I think you've made some good points there, I appreciate that. We'll make sure we pass that along.
Gordon DePaoli, Sierra Pacific Power Company and Walker River Irrigation District, stated:
I am Gordon DePaoli, appearing on behalf of Sierra Pacific Power Company and the Walker River Irrigation District. I've been coming over to the legislature for the last couple of sessions to testify occasionally on various water bills and did so this past session on several occasions. I've noticed that with each session there seems to be more and more interest, and more and more bills, concerning various issues concerning water matters. In my experience, at least, I've found that water law is, where the attention to the water laws and water policy of the state is much like determining water rights on a stream system and that is you can't just look at one you have to look at the whole picture. It seems to me that you are at that point where it would be useful to stand back and take a look at, in a comprehensive, broad sort of way, the water law and water policy of this state. And that you should not continue to try to deal in a piecemeal fashion with tinkering here and tinkering there with various aspects of the water law and water policy of the state, because everything you do in one area has an impact on another one. For that reason, and as an example of that, there's been a number of bills this session, one that I was just looking at today, Assembly Bill 461 which deals with a domestic well issue, but tends to go beyond that and gets those kinds of issues intertwined with some provisions that apply to surface water. I just think you need to look at things in a comprehensive fashion and for that reason we support this study and would urge you, in the ending days of this session, as some of these other bills that are piecemeal bills that come before you, keep in mind that you may have the study going on and that perhaps that is a better way to deal with some of these issues than to try to pass something right here at the end of the session.
Senator Smith said:
I certainly support what you're saying and I think that's been our effort. Of course, I've resisted some of the things that have been going on this year because I really looked at and want the whole subject to be looked at very carefully. I think we've done some possible damage in some of the action that we're taking and I hope we don't do any more before we really get the broad brush look at it.
Joe Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattleman's Association, testified:
I am, Joe Guild, representing the Nevada Cattlemen's Association, Santa Fe Pacific Minerals Corporation, and the Santa Fe Pacific Corporation which is the largest private landowner in the state of Nevada. I, too, like Mr. DePaoli, have followed these issues through the years and was keenly interested in all the bills that came forth in this session. It's interesting that you had a comprehensive study primarily directed towards conservation as a legislature between the 89 and 91 sessions, but it's time to again, ironically a few years later, to take another comprehensive look at this issue as we near the end of this century. So, I support the idea of the study, I plan on participating in it if this legislature decides to go forth, as I think it should, and just urge that you and this committee recommend to the entire senate that this study be undertaken.
Chairman McGinness closed the hearing on Senate Bill 327 and after a short recess opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 425.
Assembly Bill 425: Allows greater flexibility in taking extended adjournment during regular session of legislature. BDR 17-1884
Mr. Crossley stated:
I'm John Crossley, Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Speaker Dini asked me to make the presentation on A.B. 425. This is a bill to allow greater flexibility in taking extended adjournment during the regular session. This is the 2-week adjournment that we normally take. The first change is on line 3 where the 'shall' is changed to 'may adjourned for not more than 16 days.' It was put in initially the 56th day which this year would have been the 14th of March and it was changed in the assembly to the 63rd which was 1 week later. You adjourned during the fourth and fifth week, right in the middle of that. Line 6 is changing 'shall' to 'may' and that's where they may hold hearings in both morning and afternoon. In other words, the way the law reads now, they shall hold hearings in both mornings and afternoons, and it gives them a little flexibility. Those are the two money committees, the senate finance and assembly ways and means. The major change in the bill starts on line 14, and that has to do with the other committees. The big change is on line 16 while the commission can make the decisions, they have to consult with the speaker and the majority leader in determining the dates of the adjournment, which committees, other the senate standing committee and finance, and assembly standing committee and ways and means may meet, and the location. So it not only just the members of the commission, but the speaker and the majority leader. On page 2, the major change there is, on line 4, during each regular session the legislature may by concurrent resolution direct the legislative commission not to carry out the provisions of subsection 2. In other words, subsection 2 on the previous page has to do with the other committees. That really doesn't have to do with the money committees. The only thing the commission does is determine the time of the adjournment. It gives a little more flexibility in the commission. This becomes effective on passage and approval. Just from an operational standpoint, that resolution would almost have to be passed this session, for the reason being that in order to have facilities in Las Vegas, we have to contract early. Like with Cashman Center, I had that contract a year out because it goes fast and I can't wait. Four years ago remember we moved around from room to room to room because we only had a month to get ready. This year we leased the whole facility and it worked much better.
Senator McGinness questioned:
On page 2 does that say that the legislature may direct the legislative commission not to carry out provisions of sub 2. Does that mean that other committees may not go to Las Vegas.
Mr. Crossley replied, "That's right."
Senator McGinness asked, "Mean they may stay here?"
Mr. Crossley replied, "No. They wouldn't meet."
Senator McGinness said, "So they may go to Las Vegas or they just may not meet at all."
Mr. Crossley indicated:
That's right. Actually what it means is that you wouldn't have the money committees either, because the commission, on line 18, is supposed to set the dates of the adjournment. So they would not carry that out, so you would not have a 2 week adjournment.
Senator McGinness said, "So there wouldn't be a 2 week adjournment at all."
Mr. Crossley responded, "No 2 week adjournment."
Senator McGinness said, "Now the commission would have to decide that. They'd have to do that relatively early."
Mr. Crossley stated:
If you wait until session, after session ends, and I'm going to recommend to the director that the commission meet and decide this, so I can contract, because on page 2 under lines 1-3, I may contract for the necessary facilities, and you have to start a year out to do that, to make sure you have it.
Senator McGinness said, "So you'll go to the commission and ask them to make a decision."
Mr. Crossley noted, "The commission could say no, because on line 3, it may adjourn. So, we have a lot of flexibility. I think the commission could turn it down also."
Chairman McGinness closed the hearing on Assembly Bill 425 and opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution 46.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 46: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning method of establishing Legislative Budget Office. BDR R-2141
Senator Rhoads testified:
I'm Dean Rhoads, for the record, Northern Nevada Senatorial District. For a long time now, I served on the money committee most of my legislative career, but thank God I'm not on it this year. I've really been disappointed in the final budget that we've come out with and the rapid pace that we go through budgets that's worth millions and millions of dollars. I did some research, a lot of research as a matter of fact this last 4 years, and found out that there's several states now, that the legislators themselves make out their own budget, Colorado is an example, and Texas. They really have a lot more time analyze the budgets and I'm sure that some of these agencies go out of here where they're bleeding and others of them are walking out of the door they're so fat they can't get out. But we really don't have the necessary time to analyze what each agency needs. So I would like to propose an interim study. I would like you to consider possibly an amendment that this be eight people: two from the senate taxation committee, two from the senate finance committee, two from the assembly taxation committee, two from the ways and means committee. I think that might give it a little more balance because for the first time serving as the chairman of the senate taxation committee, it seems like we prepare our budgets backwards. The money committees finally decide what their budget's going to be and then they come to the taxation committee and tell us how much money to raise, and I would think it should be the other way around like it is in business where we finally conclude what taxes, how much money it will generate, and then they will spend the money accordingly. So that's the purpose of this Senate Concurrent Resolution 46.
Senator Smith asked, "Could staff do that study?"
Senator Rhoads replied, "Well, they could. That's a possibility. I have discussed that with Judy [Matteucci]. Do you mean our staff or the Budget Office?"
Senator Smith said, "Our staff."
Senator Rhoads said:
I would rather see the legislators themselves take some action in it. Judy [Matteucci] has discussed that with me. I might add I have talked with Dan Miles and Mark [James] at length about it. It would cost us some more money and a couple more bodies, but it is very possible. And another computer or two.
Senator Glomb asked, "What prohibits us from authorizing a budget unit within that office and hiring of some personnel."
Senator Rhoads responded, "Maybe, Mr. Crossley could answer that. That's what would be the end product of this study."
Senator Glomb asked, "Why couldn't we just do it now without a study."
Senator Rhoads answered, "Well, I don't think we know what we need for sure."
Senator Glomb noted, "Other states have their own office and we don't have to reinvent the wheel."
Mr. Crossley stated:
I believe in some states, like Colorado, the governor prepares it and the legislature prepares it and they just try to use the governor's as a guide. I think you have to make several statutory changes in [NRS] 218 in order for the Budget Office to do that, and I think that would be the thrust of this study to find out what you're doing and what the scope of it is.
Senator Rhoads said, "I think we need to look at Texas and Colorado and some of these other states that are doing it and take the good things out of all of them."
Chairman McGinness closed the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution 46. The remaining committee members were now present and Chairman McGinness opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution 47.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 47: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study on problems related to fetal alcohol and drug syndrome in Nevada.
(BDR R-2114)
Dr. Earl Nissen, Chairman of the Perinatal Substance Abuse Subcommittee, of the Governor's Commission on Substance Abuse, distributed a publication, (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.) indicating that it represents 2 years of meetings and work by 14 Nevadians who are trying to represent the horrendous problems that we have. He urged the committee to adopt the resolution, saying there are approximately 3500 to 4000 babies born in the state of Nevada each year, who are substance abused, and every one of those babies has the potential of becoming a real social problem, and a person who will become a member of many of Nevada's social agencies. Dr. Nissen stated that he would talk about information from the field of education, and read from prepared text (Exhibit D.) He noted that the most damaging thing that they are witnessing is the devastation in the schools, i.e. students and teachers being hit by these students. Again he urged the adoption of this study.
Kevin Quint, Nevada Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs, indicated support of S.C.R. 47, and noted that the program treats people that come to them, and that this study would help them to prioritize and to be more strategic in how they allocate their resources. He said most of the people they treat are adults who were once fetal alcohol babies or fetal drug babies, and that as adults have become alcoholics or drug addicts. He stated that they are very difficult to treat, and a great cost to society, in both money and human suffering.
Victoria Hamilton, Nurse Consultant, Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Family Health Services, and read from prepared text, (Exhibit E).
Senator Glomb indicated that she serves on this board, and that they are getting more and more special needs children into foster care. She noted the difficulty in finding foster parents willing to care for these children. She also stated that planning is difficult as they do not know how many of these children Nevada has, and this is one of the problems that will be addressed in this study. Senator Glomb then asked Dr. Nissen if he said they are applying for federal funding so that state General Fund dollars would not be needed to do the study.
Dr. Nissen said no, that they are talking to all the agencies attempting to get them to match funds, but that if they have state backing, it would help the grant writers prioritize things for the people who review the grants.
Senator Glomb asked for confirmation that there was no fiscal note attached to this request, that it is just a request for authorization to proceed and apply for the grant?
Dr. Nissen confirmed this. He noted that this is not just a welfare-mother, minority problem but it is across income levels and across grouping levels in the state. He said, in a blind study done at South Lake Tahoe Clinic, it was found that 28 percent of the mothers tested positive.
Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women's Lobby and National Association of Social Workers, indicated that both of these organizations support S.C.R. 47. She stressed that this is a profound problem for families in Nevada, and that though there will be a cost to the state, it will save the state many future dollars.
Senator Titus stated that if they were just asking for an endorsement of their study in order to get a federal grant, why the committee could not just endorse the study instead of having another interim study.
Dr. Nissen indicated that the study was at a stage where they are ready to apply for a grant and work with agencies. He said they are told that if they have the state of Nevada backing them, through an interim study, that it would make the grant writing an easier process.
Senator Titus asked if the committee could do an endorsement of your efforts other than setting up another interim study committee. She noted that there was nothing prohibiting their committee, as a Governor's Commission, from bringing proposed legislation to this body.
After discussion, Senator Raggio noted that the staff time involved, as well as funding, is what drives the interim studies. He further endorsed, rather than delaying for 2 years, Senator Titus' suggestion of vocally endorsing the study at this time, with an appropriate resolution, thus providing a useful tool from this legislature for them to apply for grants.
Chairman McGinness closed the hearing on S.C.R. 47, and he asked if the committee wished to explore the idea of a resolution.
Senator Titus asked if it was possible to just amend the resolution retaining the whereases which emphasize the importance of the issue, and change the resolve from "resolve to have a study" to resolve to support the efforts, to support their attempts to get federal money, and to mention this report.
SENATOR TITUS MOVE TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.C.R. 47 CHANGING IT TO A SUPPORTIVE RESOLUTION.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * *
Chairman McGinness indicated that the members have a draft from Senator Hickey asking for an introduction of an interim study to determine what local school districts can do in collaboration with local social service agencies to strengthen the family.
Senator Raggio indicated that this could be added to the list without being drafted, and then the committee could decide collectively on which studies they would recommend. He suggested that the draft be added to the list, giving it equal dignity with the others. They agreed.
Senator McGinness asked for a motion to suspend Rule 92.
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO SUSPEND STANDING RULE 92.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
The meeting adjourned at 3:41 p.m.
??
Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
June 24, 1993
Page 1