MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Sixty-seventh Session
February 15, 1993
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman R. Hal Smith, at 9:35 a.m., on Monday, February 15, 1993,
in Rooms 205/206, Cashman Field Center, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator R. Hal Smith, Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Vice Chairman
Senator Mark A. James
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Ernest E. Adler
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Caroline Allen, Senate Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert Swadell, Chairman, Issues Committee, Henderson Chamber of Commerce
Tom Atkinson, Chief Game Warden, Nevada Department of Wildlife
Fred Messmann, Boating Staff Game Warden, Nevada Department of
Wildlife
Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
* * * * *
Robert Swadell, Chairman, Issues Committee, Henderson Chamber of Commerce, was introduced by R. Hal Smith, Chairman. Mr. Swadell's testimony is contained in Exhibit C.
Mr. Swadell commented to the committee that the document being presented was not exactly conducive to the subject, but the major points would be covered. Mr. Swadell indicated that one of the problems to be addressed would be to identify the water situation in 1993. He specifically stressed pointing out what the difference was between short-term solutions and long-term solutions. He stated that the long-term solution had to be greater than 30 years.
Mr. Swadell then proceeded to give an overview of his presentation discussing some of the options, environmental factors, state versus local efforts, economic aspects, air quality control and conversation.
He alluded to environmental issues from Exhibit C.
Senator Rhoads asked when you take water out at higher elevations, would not it lower water level in the Columbia River? He mentioned being raised from that part of the country and knew what people in that area felt about the Columbia River. He also asked if that process would make the salt water come back in further to the inlet and be environmentally destructive?
Mr. Swadell stated how important it was to keep the flow rate down to 10 percent or as low as 9 percent and he mentioned that the positive flow is so high in the Columbia River at low tide situations that at Astoria, Oregon, there is fresh water 40 miles at sea. He explained how there was an 18-foot tide involved in the rive and you actually change the river level as far as 100 miles back in, indicating the influence of about an inch to of about an inch to an inch and a half.
Senator Hickey gave an explanation of how a law developed in interstate transportation started on a river in New York and dealt with the transportation of goods up that river and when another transporter started on that river, New Yorkers stated that they could own the river, therefore they had rights to license. He stated the supreme court ruled on it and said that the river belonged to the federal government, so to speak, therefore it was interstate transportation. He expressed the question in mind currently of the precedent already set dealing with river issues.
Mr. Swadell responded to Senator Hickey by stating had only been two cases that he was familiar with where the corp engineers built a sea-going channel for navigation and the water was specifically deeded to the states afterwards - i.e., one being in upstate Michigan and the other being near Louisiana. He mentioned in every other case, the federal government has maintained complete control of the river.
Senator Neal commented if Mr. Swadell seemed to settle on water coming from the Columbia River and expressing his concern about the size of the project, possible cost of the project and the fact that the water seems to empty into three lakes before getting a straight line to Las Vegas - specifically the Pyramid Lake and Walker Lake indicating this was Indian reservation water, the question was how were they to deal with those areas, indicating those waters would be incumbent with the same restrictions being faced with the Colorado River.
Mr. Swadell responded by stating in the original study done by the Bureau of Reclamation, it was envisioned that it would produce such a dramatic improvement to those lakes all along, i.e. Pyramid, Goose Lake, Walker and several others stating the problem being that many of those lakes having the salinity levels rising in which they're aware of, specifically the Pyramid Lake, indicating their process would inject fresh water into the project providing a stabilizing level, emphasizing the dramatic improvement in the usability in the lakes.
Senator Neal asked Mr. Swadell what was his assumption of the time limit of this project in terms of building it?
Mr. Swadell stated this would be a 10-year project but indicated in the third year usable water would begin to flow in the shasta region.
The project being accurately priced out in 1991 at approximately $30 billion.
Senator Neal asked who pays for the project?
Mr. Swadell stated in 1964 the Bureau of Reclamation who did the study estimated approximately 35% of it would be federally funded, but his organization had placed figures in their plan that stated perhaps as much as 60% could be funded by the federal government.
Senator Neal commented that even though it seems from the cursory review of the project that Nevada is at the end of the pipeline, so to speak and that it would have multiple usage intervening?
Mr. Swadell said they were not really at the end of the pipeline because what would pass through the channel would be capping off a 1/2 million acre-feet in Oregon, 1 1/2 million acre-feet in Nevada and 10 million acre-feet would go to Southern California.
Chairman Smith concluded this portion of the presentation by asking for Mr. Swadell's availability sometime in the future to pursue the subject in greater depth.
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 116.
SENATE BILL 116: Makes certain changes relating to discharge of sewage from vessels into waters of Nevada. (BDR 43-736)
Tom Atkinson, Chief Game Warden, Nevada Department of Wildlife,
introduced himself and Fred Messmann, Boating Staff Game Warden,
Nevada Department of Wildlife to members of the committee.
Mr. Atkinson stated the revisions they're requesting in the bill draft
are update revisions of the laws currently on the books in their code
referring to Chapter 488, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) originally
adopted in 1960 and were amended once in 1973 indicating those laws
to be 20 years old. Mr. Atkinson stated there was a need to do to do updates before the legislation that day. Mr. Atkinson mentioned in putting in their presentation, they'd worked with the people at
DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) and the Human Resources
ensuring the federal regulations are proposed plans like those in the
past.
During the course of the presentation, Mr. Atkinson discussed various
sections of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) which outline prohibitions on the discharge of sewage in marine waters. He
concluded a summary of charges and asked if there were any questions.
Senator Rhoads asked if on a regular fishing boat, that you would
throw on top of your car, what would Mr. Atkinson visualize would be
a proper system for a discharge?
Mr. Atkinson stated in that particular circumstance, they would hope
the persons would return to shore or dock facility. He indicated most
of the legislation addresses larger water crafts that actually have
built-in toilets.
Senator Rhoads replied by clarifying Mr. Atkinson's definition for
vessel is any water crafts or structure floating on the water which
he assumed would include a normal fishing boat.
Mr. Atkinson agreed to Senator Rhoads interpretation. Mr. Atkinson
also alluded to a specific question that had been asked about what one
would do if you were in a 12-foot aluminum boat. Mr. Atkinson said
what their purpose was in that particular situation would be that
person returns to the shoreline or to land and the problem would be
taken care of hopefully at a facility accessible to them.
Senator Rhoads asked if they currently had a jurisdiction for
regulating the bigger boats for this purpose, i.e. no regulation
on line to enforce dumping in water of bigger vessels?
Mr. Atkinson stated they had no regulations at this time and asked if
the legislators would allow the commission to establish those set of
regulations. Mr. Atkinson said regulations they would adopt would be
in concurrence with those set up by the coast guard. He stated
specifically what they would have to do is to find MST which is the
Marine Sanitation device by Type and there is several types indicating
they did not want this to go into law.
Senator Rhoads asked if it would be possible to amend this bill where
it would eliminate the smaller ordinary boats used for fishing?
Mr. Atkinson answered yes it would and allowed Fred Messmann to
elaborate on the question.
Fred Messman, Boating Staff Game Warden, Nevada Department of Wildlife
commented by stating according to the proposed statute, it would not
include portable toilets, in other words, only fixed systems. The
manufacturer installs them in the boat and they usually have a white
valve, so that the portable can be automatically discharged in the
water. Mr. Messman further explained the smaller boats do not have
this device, but the smaller boats were capable of handling the
portable potties, but portable potties have to be removed off the boat
so this statute would not cover portable potties.
Senator Hickey alluded to section 3 NRS 488.315, 488.325 and 488.335
which repealed this process, asking how would this be handled?
Tom Atkinson stated the revisions in NRS 488.325 were basically as he
envisioned this to be covered under the first line of section 1:
...whereas a person shall not maintain or operate upon
the waters of this state any vessel which is equipped with a marine sanitation device unless the device is approved by the United States Coast Guard...
He stated they changed the wording basically saying the same thing
by not being able to discharge sewage from a vessel.
Senator Hickey asked what type of device is approved by the United
States Coast Guard?
Mr. Atkinson said, as he had mentioned briefly before, the United
States Coast Guard had set regulations in place that defined specific
means of sanitation device by type, i.e. similar to lifejackets. He
further expressed when speaking of lifejackets, (referencing
lifejackets as being generic) explaining there are five types of
lifejackets:
Type I - has a certain amount of buoyancy which holds the person in a conscious fashion.
Type V - is a special use device that may go along with the craft itself.
Mr. Atkinson further stated what they would envision doing basically
is to incorporate the federal regulation into their regulation if the
commission approved.
Senator Hickey asked if the reason for this was if this process was
in broader detail?
Mr. Atkinson said correct because there is a wide variety of devices
available depending on the kind of crafts and the way they are
handled.
Senator Neal said with Mr. Atkinson repealing the language that allows
the Health Division of the Human Resources Department to inspect these
particular vessels, and now the inspection would be done by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are they now looking at the
same expertise there in terms of performing an inspection that would
be carried out by a health division as opposed to a person who would
be working for the Environmental Protection Agency?
Mr. Atkinson stated what happened is over time these responsibilities
were taken over and shifted and changed, so basically the answer to
question is yes and further explained what they're doing is properly
citing the agency that is doing this now, indicating the old language
that was written 20 years ago is no longer dealing with this issue.
So Mr. Atkinson explained that in this case, they're designating
those individuals that have been given the responsibility
for this action.
Senator Neal also alluded to a question Senator Rhoads had asked about
the one paddle boat in the lake where you're not allowed to hang it
on the side of the boat, but on the shore?
Mr. Atkinson agreed. Further discussion pursued around these safety
procedures.
Chairman Smith then asked if there were other proponents to the bill
or other opponents to the bill?
Chairman Smith declared the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 116
concluded. He stated the committee would take action on this bill in
a work session.
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 117).
SENATE BILL 117: Makes various changes relating to procedures for testing persons suspected of operating watercraft while under influence of alcohol or controlled
substance.
Mr. Atkinson announced in 1987, the Department of Wildlife passed
water passage laws about operating under the influence of alcohol similar to what they have with the State Motor Vehicle Code.
Mr. Atkinson made reference to the traffic laws under NRS 484.383:
... allows Peace Officers to direct a blood test of
anyone suspected of drugs or in cases where an accident occurred and someone is seriously injured.
Mr. Atkinson stated what they were looking for in this legislation is
for boating safety officers to be able to detect and arrest people
operating a boat under the influence of alcohol, using criteria which
is used in motor vehicle regulations.
Mr. Atkinson stated they are asking for specific provisions that would
allow them to use Driving under the Influence (DUI) laws in the same
way? He reminded the committee of an accident that occurred several
years ago where there were drugs found in a park service boat and
there were several fatalities, but no one was ever tested to determine if this was a factor in the accident. Discussion ensued.
He directed the committee's attention to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 57 which has been introduced which changes the language to allow for more than
one sample of blood - indicating apparently there was a problem in the
courts in taking a single sample of blood, they were not able to
determine whether the individual's blood alcohol was going up or
coming down after the accident.
ASSEMBLY BILL 57: Clarifies procedure for obtaining involuntary
samples of blood from certain persons suspected
of driving under influence of controlled sub-
stance or alcohol.
Mr. Atkinson further stated in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary
currently, there is consideration of language that would allow for
three samples of blood during 1/2 hour intervals. Mr. Atkinson stated
they would offer an amendment to this to allow them to include that
same language again so that the laws are consistent in both the motor
vehicle code and the boat and safety code. He mentioned to the
committee he had that language with him if they wanted him to give it
to the Research Analyst (Caren Jenkins) if it were the committee's
desire to consent to that so the two laws would be consistent.
Mr. Atkinson also offered to make his presentation to the committee
section by section if they preferred to compare the laws, otherwise
he was open for questions.
Senator Titus said to Mr. Atkinson he mentioned that Nevada does not
have any license for waterways and asked if some other states have
license available and asked how this would work in other states?
Mr. Atkinson responded that this had been a major issue in the boat
and safety area for a number of years. He mentioned the National
Association of Boating Law Administrators brought a proposal to
require mandatory education, because it was a strong feeling of the
people who are in charge of boating programs that it did not make
sense for a person to be able to buy a $2200 boat and travel on
waterways of the state without any type of education or knowledge
about that vessel or the rules of the road. He expressed to Senator
Titus, he thought in time, there would be a change in direction to
allow for some type of provision for licensing, although it would be
slow in coming. He mentioned the boating industry doesn't support
this stance and there were a large number of recreational boaters who
don't support licensing provisions. They see this as another
administrative burden without any supporting justification for
it.
Senator Titus asked if Nevada has a voluntary education program?
Mr. Atkinson stated they have their own state course and a course that
is taught by a Coast Guard Auxiliary and the United States Power Boat
Squadron, indicating these to be very good courses.
Mr. Atkinson also added they have arranged through several of their
justice courts a mandatory program where a person is cited for a
boating violation, as a part of the penalty, the court directs
them to go to a boat and safety course.
Further discussion pursued around the subject of boating and safety
provisions and procedures.
Chairman Smith asked if there were further questions from the committee and other proponents to the bill or other opponents to the bill?
Jim Nadeau, Lieutenant, Washoe County Sheriff's Department, introduced
himself to the committee. Lieutenant Nadeau explained he was not
there to discuss the pros and cons but he believed A.B. 57 is
currently in a subcommittee for some kind of language change so that
might be a consideration of the committee.
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 130.
SENATE BILL 130: Revises restriction on terms of sale or lease of state land or interest therein.
Chairman Smith mentioned there was a letter from David Lanz and Pam
Wilcox and he understood there were significant questions to be asked
and without Pam Wilcox being present, he wasn't sure if he wanted to
hear the bill. Chairman Smith also asked if there were other people present who wanted to address S.B. 130?
Chairman Smith postponed hearings on S.B. 130 until each of the
presenters were available.
* * * * *
There being no further business, before the Senate Committee on
Natural Resources, Chairman Smith declared the meeting adjourned at
10:35 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Caroline Allen,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator R. Hal Smith, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Natural Resources
February 15, 1993
Page 1