MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Sixty-seventh Session
February 23, 1993
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman R. Hal Smith, at 8:45 a.m., on February 23, 1993, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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
Rayanne Francis, Committee Secretary
Caroline Allen, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, Research Division
Wayne Chimarusti, Chairman, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
David Ziegler, Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Willie Molini, Director, Nevada Department of Wildlife
Tom Atkinson, Chief Game Warden, Nevada Department of Wildlife
Fred Wright, Coordinator, Coalition for Nevada Wildlife
Tony Bator, Owner, Bator Farms
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau
Tony Citko, Representative, Nevada Alternative Livestock Association
Rich Bullard, Sr., Owner, Damonte Ranch
* * * * *
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, Research Division,
introduced himself to members of the committee. Mr. Welden directed
committee members' attention to:
SENATE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 6 (S.J.R.)
OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Urges Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to take certain actions to reduce traffic congestion in Lake Tahoe Basin.
and
SENATE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 7 (S.J.R.)
OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Directs Legislative Commission to continue committee to review Tahoe Regional Planning Compact.
Mr. Welden emphasized to the committee that most of the resolutions
that they will be receiving this session from the interim study
are not designed especially to take a real strong pro development
stand against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. He stated his
committee clearly wanted to express it's opinion and opinion of the
Legislature about areas which should be emphasized within the programs
of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. He further indicated this
would be more of an effort to help them set their priorities than
anything else, (i.e. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency). He also stated
Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 6 is along those lines relative to
traffic congestion.
Senator Rhoads asked when the committee looks at a resolution of
this nature, if it is just addressed to the Nevada side of the Tahoe
Basin or both sides?
Mr. Welden stated this resolution, Senate Joint Resolution
(S.J.R.) 6 is addressed to the agency as a whole, (i.e. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) which is both sides (meaning, California as the other
side.) He further indicated their effort is to get to the whole basin
as a unit.
Further discussion ensued concerning Senate Joint Resolution
(S.J.R.) 6.
Chairman Smith asked if there was anyone in opposition to the above
mentioned resolution?
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 6
SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Smith closed the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution
(S.J.R.) 6.
* * * * *
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution
(S.J.R.) 7. (Refer to page 2)
Fred Welden explained how Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 7
cause for the legislative committee to continue the activities
of the committee to review the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact.
Senator Neal asked why was this bill an S.J.R. (Senate Joint
Resolution), instead of a S.C.R. (Senate Concurrent Resolution)?
Mr. Welden stated he had asked the bill drafters the same question
and they'd said there was no reason, but indicating they may have
overlooked it, but it did not make a difference.
Senator Rhoads asked if California had a similar committee?
Mr. Welden stated they do not, stating the oversight committee
previously had contacted several of California legislators
and suggested they thought that would be a valuable idea in
California.
Wayne Chimarusti, Chairman, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
further expressed his views to the committee of the necessity
of them considering the proposed bill, Senate Joint Resolution
(S.J.R.) 7.
Chairman Smith asked if there were other testimonies for or against?
Senator Rhoads asked if this proposal of Senate Joint Resolution
(S.J.R.) 7 was in the Governor's budget?
Mr. Welden's response was that this project would be funded by the
legislature, the same as any other interim study.
Chairman Smith stated, in accordance with previous rules of how they
handle things, he would not accept a motion from the committee at
that time, but would hold this hearing over for a work session,
at which time the committee would further pursue this business.
Senator Adler asked if the numbers of the advisory committee could
be reduced to 5 or 3, asking Mr. Welden's committee if they would
be able to communicate with a smaller group of legislators?
Mr. Chimarusti responded by saying whatever way the legislative
committee structures the group is left up to them, that they would
communicate with whoever was willing to sit and talk with them.
Senator Titus commented she thought it was a good thing to maintain
open communications with Mr. Welden's organization but it seemed to
her that if they have a commission in place, which was not too many
legislators that meet regularly, why they could not just report to the
commissioners and use that instead of creating a special commendment?
Further comments ensued around this question.
Chairman Smith closed the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution
(S.J.R.) 7, indicating this bill would be taken up at a work session.
* * * * *
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 122.
Willie Molini, Director, Nevada Department of Wildlife, introduced
himself to members of the committee. Mr. Molini pointed out
S.B. 122 is merely a change in the fee for a person who loses or
has an unexpired hunting license stolen as defined:
...increases fee for duplicate license for hunting, fishing
or trapping.
NRS 502.110, Section 2:
...if an unexpired license is lost or stolen, the person to whom the license was issued may receive another license of
the same class by making application and certifying under
oath that the license was lost or stolen and by paying:
(a)if the application is made to an authorized agent, the
annual fee for the license; [fee;] or
(b)if the application is made to the department, a fee of
[$1.] $5.
Mr. Molini indicated with the $5 increase rate for the license, this would generate approximately $3000 a year in increased revenue.
Mr. Molini pointed out to the committee that they'd errored in their
initial bill draft request mission. They overlooked the fact that they do have two classes of licenses. These had a face value or original fee of less than $5. One being for a senior hunting license and the other for senior fishing license. These licenses cost $3.50.
He also indicated a senior handicap person pays $3.50. He suggested some additional language, alluding to application of the $5 fee, to add something to the effect, except for those licenses for less than $5.
Mr. Molini commented to Chairman Smith that if he would like, he
could submit some proposed language to the committee.
Further discussion ensued concerning the duplicate licensing fee.
Chairman Smith closed this hearing on S.B. 122 and re-scheduled for
a work session.
* * * * *
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 123.
SENATE BILL 123: Increases fee for duplicate tags for hunting.
Mr. Molini explained to the committee that S.B. 123 was a companion
bill to S.B. 122, making provision to increase the fee for duplicate
tag.
Mr. Molini indicated that in the previous year, they issued 171
duplicate tags, indicating this not to be a large number and would
only generate approximately $700 additional revenue.
Chairman Smith asked if there were questions from the committee or if
there was anyone else opposing the bill?
Fred Wright, Coordinator for Coalition of Nevada Wildlife introduced
himself to members of the committee. He explained this coalition
presently encompass some 24 sportsman, conservation organizations
throughout the state and they're suggesting an amendment to Subsection 3, NRS 502.210:
...whereby a person killing a diseased deer can obtain a
duplicate deer tag...
He further indicated their proposal would make that option available
to a person killing a diseased game mammal, including deer, antelope,
elk or big horn sheep. He stated the method would be established by
commission regulation.
Mr. Wright suggested re-wording subsection 3 to say that:
...when any person possessing a tag on a big game mammal
kills an animal that's believed to be diseased and unfit
for human consumption, that person may place his tag on
the carcass in the manner provided by law or regulation
and have the carcass inspected by an authorized department
representative.
Senator Titus asked Mr. Molini what his thoughts were about the
amendment?
Mr. Molini felt the way Mr. Wright had proposed an amendment that
is simply authorized the commission by regulation. He indicated
he didn't think inherently there was a problem with it.
Further discussion ensued concerning this amendment to S.B. 123.
Chairman Smith closed this hearing on Senate Bill 123 and re-
scheduled it for a work session.
* * * * *
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on Senate Bill 132.
SENATE BILL 132: Prohibits importation of game animals under
certain circumstances.
Mr. Molini apologized to the committee. He stated they were not
satisfied with the language in S.B. 132 and are proposing to amend it. He stated he recognized the bill drafters have an horrendous task.
He felt his department has a good working relationship with them. He also felt the language as written in S.B. 132 does not address what the department was trying to convey.
Mr. Molini stated what they really wanted to address in NRS 501.379
is:
...the importation in sale of meat products from game mammals,
game birds, or game amphibians raised in captivity is not
prohibited, if the importation is from a licensed, commercial,
breeder or commercial processor outside of the state.
Mr. Molini stated they were talking about importation and sale. He
used as an example an increase in restaurants that serve venison. He further stated they were not concerned about being in the process of
regulating importations of venison from an array of wild game that
come from commercial facilities in other states.
Mr. Molini stated this simply said that it is legal to import and sell meat products from game animals, birds or amphibians that are raised
in captivity and come from a commercial trader or processor.
Further discussion ensued around this amendment.
Tony Bator, Bator Farms, introduced himself to the members of the
committee. He stated he presently was constructing the facility for the raising of alligators in the state of Nevada. He stated there
seemed to be jurisdictional confrontations existing.
Mr. Bator stated he thought the biggest problem was going on in
Oregon. In that state, the Department of Agriculture has presently
set up all types of regulations for handling of diseased animals.
He further stated the Department of Wildlife was starting to get
into that area of regulation, but thought they had settled it.
Mr. Bator further expressed this is happening everywhere because
the meat industry is presently in a state of conversion. He fur-
ther stated that he had to deal with the FDA (Food & Drug
Administration), USDA (United States Department of Agricultural),
and the Department of Wildlife.
Mr. Bator stated he would bring animals from the state of Louisiana
and Florida. He stated they are raised and their generation is old,
but that he was still being told he was a game farmer.
Mr. Bator gave further testimonial as to why he opposed
Senate Bill 132.
Mr. Molini stated that he didn't think the language in their proposed
amendment would affect Mr. Bator at all. He indicated his organization had worked with Mr. Bator and authorized his operation.
Mr. Bator further stated he felt this was an overlapping of
jurisdiction.
Further discussion ensued concerning Mr. Bator's opposition to
Senate Bill 132.
Chairman Smith closed the hearing and rescheduled Senate Bill 132.
* * * * *
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on Senate Bill 133.
SENATE BILL 133: Makes various changes to provisions governing
collections of live wild animals.
Mr. Molini stated this is another proposed amendment that deals with
the whole topic of captive wildlife and the culturing of captive
wildlife.
Mr. Molini referenced to line 2, section 1, NRS 503.590:
...[Any natural] A person may maintain a [private] non-
commercial.....
indicating the first change would be to delete private and add
non-commercial. This would make it consistent with changes that
were made in other statues, several years ago. Mr. Molini indicated
they no longer classify it as a private collection of wildlife.
They now call it a non-commercial collection. Mr. Molini indicated
this is just consistency with other statutes.
Mr. Molini referenced other language changes to be made and further
discussion ensued concerning these amendments.
Chairman Smith asked if there were other testimonials from the
audience?
Mr. Bator came forward and stated he was opposed to Senate Bill 133.
His opposition was based upon the idea he believed the legislature
should write the laws, instead of an administrative branch of
government. He felt administrative agencies of government were
saying, "give me broad power to do whatever I want." He indicated
this made if difficult for people who do have a different idea.
Because of this, he now has to deal with the wills of the people that
are working within departments of government. This made it almost impossible to get anything accomplished.
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau,
introduced himself to members of the committee. He stated he was somehow confused as to what they may have an opportunity to speak
about. He mentioned the Nevada Farm Bureau did have some very
serious concerns as to what they could see as a very confusing and
complicated process. He felt that in the long run, this would
result in more complicated rules and regulations on what can and
cannot be raised.
Mr. Busselman stated he hoped that when they would have the hearing
on the rescheduled date. At that time, they would be able to
address a broad basis of concern over the whole issue of whether or
not the Department of Wildlife needs any more authority to do what
they are already doing.
Further discussion ensued concerning Mr. Busselman's statement.
Chairman Smith commented that this business would be pursued. He
stated representatives of the economic development would be coming
in to speak.
Tony Citko, Representative, Nevada Alternative Livestock, expressed
his displeasure with not being issued a permit, in opposition of
Senate Bill 132.
Rich Bullard, Sr., Owner, Damonte Ranch, introduced himself to members
of the committee and expressed he could not make sense of the bills
being presented.
Chairman Smith closed the hearing on Senate Bill 133.
* * * * *
Chairman Smith requested the committee's approval for bill draft
requests (BDR'S).
BDR R - 1253: Urge Congress to allow state to take over Western Area Power Administration distribution facility and transmission lines.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DRAFT BILL REQUEST BDR R - 1253.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
BDR 48 - 872: Allow existing residential customers on domestic wells to connect to community water system without dedication of water rights under certain conditions.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO DRAFT BILL REQUEST BDR 48 - 872.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
BDR 43 - 732: Require that boating accident be reported to Department of Wildlife before any claim is paid.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DRAFT BILL REQUEST BDR 43 - 732.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
BDR 51 - 885: Allows board to recover cost of extraordinary activities, enhance public safety and clean up proposals to make board more effective.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DRAFT BILL REQUEST BDR 51 - 885.
SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
There being no further business before the Senate Committee on Natural
Resources, Chairman Smith adjourned the hearing at 10:23 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Caroline Allen,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator R. Hal Smith, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Natural Resources
February 23, 1993
Page 1