MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Sixty-seventh Session
May 11, 1993
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman R. Hal Smith, at 8:44 a.m., on Tuesday, May 11, 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 Ernest E. Adler
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Mark A. James
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman John W. Marvel
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Rayanne Francis, Senate Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Russell A. Fields, Executive Director, Nevada Department of
Minerals
Ronald Parratt, Director, U.S. Exploration, Sante Fe Pacific
Mining; Commissioner, Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources
M. Douglas Miller, President, Nevada Miners & Prospectors
Association
Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of
Counties
Dave W. Parkhurst, Mining Consultant/Writer
Hugh C. Ingle Jr., Mining Engineer
Fred F. Messmann, Boating Law Administrator, Nevada Department
of Wildlife
Richard T. Heap Jr., Regional Manager, Northwestern Division,
Nevada Department of Wildlife
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, Nevada
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 422.
ASSEMBLY BILL 422: Requires making and recording of specified affidavit for certain mining claims and increases fees imposed on filing certain documents relating to mining claims.
Assemblyman John W. Marvel introduced himself to members of the committee. He explained A.B. 422 was the product of considerable effort between the Nevada Department of Minerals, the Nevada Mining Association and various miners and prospectors.
Assemblyman Marvel spoke to members of the committee about a law passed by Congress imposing a $100 fee per mining claim. He explained this $100 fee was in lieu of filing an affidavit of labor. As a result of this law, he stressed an awful lot of Nevada's small miners and prospectors would be unable to retain their claims. He also pointed out the Nevada Department of Minerals is not a General Fund agency, but is funded through assessments on mining claims in the state.
Assemblyman Marvel said the latest estimate he was aware of had indicated that at least half of the state's claims, which had previously funded the Nevada Department of Minerals, would be dropped. He remarked the primary individual responsible for drafting language contained in A.B. 422 was Russell A. Fields, Executive Director, Nevada Department of Minerals. Assemblyman Marvel concluded his testimony by inviting Mr. Fields to discuss the bill in further detail.
Mr. Fields introduced himself to members of the committee. His testimony is contained in Exhibit C.
Senator Neal wondered if an individual could "jump" a mining claim if an "affidavit of intent to hold" was not filed on the claim. Mr. Fields responded by saying current state law does not set a requirement for filing with the county. He continued by saying if a miner or prospector had paid their $100 fee to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the claim would still be valid.
Senator James inquired what the consequence would be of not filing an affidavit of intent to hold. Mr. Fields explained if a filing is not made, the county would not have a record of the location of the claim. He continued by saying affidavit filings make it possible for an interested party to determine what the current status of a particular claim was at any given point in time.
Mr. Fields stressed if A.B. 422 was not enacted, an individual would have to search BLM records to determine what was the current status of a claim. He was positive that mining representatives in the audience could attest to the fact that BLM records leave a lot to be desired. Mr. Fields stressed that filing an affidavit of intent to hold a mining claim created title documents regarding the validity of mining claims in the county where the claim was located.
Senator James asked what the consequence would be of not filing an affidavit of intent to hold. Mr. Fields replied by saying that, prior to the passage of recent federal law, an affidavit of annual assessment work was to be filed with the county where each claim was located. He continued by saying this particular affidavit was prima facie evidence that some kind of work was taking place at the claim. Mr. Fields explained if this document was not submitted and filed, he recalled that case law had proven a claim would be valid if the miner or prospector could prove that work had taken place at a specific point in time. He noted the affidavit of intent to hold would be the prima facie evidence that a miner has done whatever is required to hold a claim. Senator James wondered why the bill did not just state this fact. He stated his concern centered upon not building some kind of infirmity into mining law, if the bill stated the filing of an affidavit served as prima facie evidence that the claim is in good status. Senator James continued by saying language of this type would prevent individuals from losing their claim if they had failed to file the affidavit. Under such circumstances, it would just be a matter of an individual proving they had intended to hold the claim.
Senator Adler pointed out section 3, subsection 4 contained the words "prima facie evidence." After reviewing the subsection, Senator James agreed an affidavit would be considered as prima facie evidence, but if an affidavit was not filed there would not be any kind of negative effect. Mr. Fields commented that an individual would have to prove that a $100 BLM fee had been paid on the claim. He continued by pointing out that the federal government would consider the claim to be absolutely void if an individual failed to pay the $100 fee.
Referring to section 3, subsection 1, Senator Adler said his only concern stemmed from the word "shall" on line 23 of A.B. 422. He interpreted this to mean that a person would have to submit an affidavit or lose the claim. He wondered if an amendment should be included in the bill to indicate that the failure to submit an affidavit would not absolutely void a claim.
Senator Adler noted the time requirements contained within section 3, subsection 4 appeared to be very restrictive. He interpreted existing language to indicate that if an affidavit was not submitted and recorded, the person would also lose their mining claim under state law. Mr. Fields assured members of the committee that the Nevada Department of Minerals was not intending to do anything different with the affidavit of intent to hold than has been done, in the past 120 years, with the affidavit of annual assessment work. Senator Adler said he was concerned that A.B. 422 was changing existing law, which could be interpreted as a change in the procedure and the method of securing a mining claim.
Mr. Fields said it was not the state's intent to get into the business of declaring a mining claim void. He stated this was the federal government's job. He stressed A.B. 422 is merely attempting to set up a mechanism to establish an orderly of record of mining claims within each county. Senator Neal interrupted by stating A.B. 422's goal was to show clear title to any given mining claim. Mr. Fields replied this was a correct statement.
Senator Adler pointed out he would support passage of A.B. 422 as long as the record clearly indicated that the legislature was not intending to declare whether or not a claim is proper or void. He continued by saying an affidavit of intent to hold was a method utilized to indicate a record of title. He still hoped this piece of legislation would not come back to haunt them, because an individual had not filed the affidavit of intent to hold and had lost their claim to another person.
For the record, Mr. Fields stated:
The record should be clear that this is to make sure there is clear evidence of title in the counties where claims are located, but that, by action of A.B. 422, the state is not intending to declare federal claims invalid in any way.
As Mr. Fields proceeded with his summarization of A.B. 422 (Exhibit D). Senator Rhoads inquired if the statutory fee of $.50 per claim (section 5, subsection 1) had been included in the Governor's budget. Mr. Fields explained the Nevada Department of Minerals had submitted its budget (September 1, 1992) prior to passage of the federal law (October 5, 1992) requiring miners to pay the $100 per claim fee. He continued by explaining the department had based its mining claim revenues on a 20 percent reduction in mining claims. Mr. Fields anticipated that members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources would receive further testimony on A.B. 422 indicating that at least 50 percent or more of the state's mining claims would be dropped. However, he stated the department's budget would be fairly close to what was originally submitted if A.B. 422 were enacted. He concluded his testimony by stating another advantage for the department was the fact that it was a non-General Fund agency and had the ability to carry its money reserve from one year to the next.
Ronald Parratt, Director, United States (U.S.) Exploration, Sante Fe Pacific Mining (SFPM); Commissioner, Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources, introduced himself to members of the committee. He stated his comments would also reflect the viewpoint of the Nevada Mining Association.
Mr. Parratt stated, in early 1993, the SFPM owned or controlled approximately 16,000 unpatented mining claims in Nevada. He said the company had been steadily reducing its claims holdings in anticipation of the BLM mining claim fee. He said the SFPM would be decreasing its holdings to, perhaps, less than 7,000 claims.
Mr. Parratt said the industry has come to rely heavily on the accurate information regarding the status and location of unpatented mining claims provided by the state's county offices. Due to the BLM's overall history of diffuculty in providing this type of information, it is very important to the industry that the counties continue to provide this service. For this very reason, he pointed out the SFPM, Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources, and the Nevada Mining Association readily accepted the proposed increases in the fees paid to the county and the Nevada Department of Minerals.
As a Commissioner with the Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources, he urged members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources to enact A.B. 422. He complimented the Nevada Department of Minerals on the excellent service and support provided to the state's mining industry and pointed out the commission supports the efforts and programs of this department. He stated the department administered the Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) program, which effectively reduced possible hazards to citizens and tourists by securing old mine workings.
In reference to Mr. Fields' earlier statement that the number of mining claims in Nevada may fall by 50 percent, Mr. Parratt agreed this was a realistic and, perhaps, conservative estimate. In conversations with representatives of the mining industry across the state, he noted there is broad support for the increase in fees for the county and the Nevada Department of Minerals. He concluded his testimony by requesting that members of the committee support passage of A.B. 422.
M. Douglas Miller, President, Nevada Miners & Prospectors Association, introduced himself to members of the committee. He stated he has resided in the State of Nevada for the past 33 years and is a registered civil engineer with the federal government.
Mr. Miller declared the Nevada Miners & Prospectors Association support passage of A.B. 422 and encouraged members of the committee to enact this important piece of legislation.
Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, introduced himself to members of the committee. He stated the previous presenters had already testified to the urgent need to pass A.B. 422. He said Nevada's counties are proud of the accuracy and quality of the records they retained.
ASSEMBLY BILL 592: Adjusts fees charged by local governments for certain services.
Mr. Hadfield stated the increase in county fees, alluded to earlier in the hearing, was not contained in A.B. 422, but is contained in A.B. 592. He explained A.B. 592 set forth fees for county government and that many of these fees has not been changed for 20 or more years.
Mr. Hadfield concluded his testimony by encouraging members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources to pass A.B. 422.
Dave W. Parkhurst, Member, Nevada Miners & Prospectors Association and the Nevada Mining Association, introduced himself to members of the committee. He explained that he had worked with the Nevada Department of Minerals for several years, and has provided his assistance in drafting A.B. 422.
Mr. Parkhurst said Mr. Field's earlier estimate of a 50 percent decrease in mining claims was a fairly accurate number, insofar as major mining companies were concerned. However, he stressed the decrease would be more dramatic (approximately 65 to 70 percent) for small claim holders, because these individuals would be less able to the afford the $100 BLM fee.
Mr. Parkhurst emphasized the importance of maintaining accurate mining records in the state's county offices. To demonstrate how inaccurate the BLM's records were, he quoted a recent figure released by the federal government indicating the existence of 1.2 million active mining claims in the U.S. He stressed, as of 1992, a more accurate figure of active mining claims in the U.S. would be 760,000.
With the upcoming imposition of the $100 BLM fee, Mr. Parkhurst claimed at least 20 percent of active mining claims in the State of Nevada had been dropped last fall. In the State of Alaska, he stated at least 24 percent of all mining claims had been dropped before the end of 1992.
Mr. Parkhurst said not only would a $100 assessment fee be levied for the current year, another $100 fee would be assessed for the following year. He said, personally, he would have had to pay $760 last fall to hold the claims he and his partners share. He pointed out the new fees would have increased the cost of holding these same mining claims to $24,300 this year only. However, he noted that he and his partners are working people who cannot afford this increased cost, so they have dropped a majority of their holdings.
Mr. Parkhurst concluded his testimony by saying it was imperative to enact A.B. 422, and hoped the Senate Committee on Natural Resources would support its passage.
Hugh C. Ingle Jr., Mining Engineer; Commissioner, Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources; and small mine operator, introduced himself to members of the committee. He stated, normally, he did not support increases in taxes or fees, but said he would make an exception with A.B. 422 due to the bill's importance to the state's mining industry. He explained it was essential to enact this piece of legislation, because the counties and the Nevada Department of Minerals needed the funding.
Mr. Ingle explained if he and his partners kept the 214 unpatented mining claims they currently held, they would have to come up with approximately $43,000 in BLM fees. He anticipated that he and his partners would drop all but 20 of their mining claims.
Mr. Ingle complimented the Nevada Department of Minerals on the impressive job they had performed on behalf of the state's mining industry. He continued by providing testimony on recent activities which had taken place just shortly after the Clinton administration had arrived in Washington, D.C.
Senator Neal wondered whether federal law would offset the amount being paid by the state's miners. Mr. Fields stated the answer to this question was, "No." He continued by saying at least $17 to $18 million, of the monies generated by the $100 holding fee, were "earmarked" for the BLM to conduct its mining-related programs. He said the remainder of these funds raised by the $100 fee would be routed to the U.S. General Treasurey. Mr. Fields said there was absolutely no provision for any of these monies to come back to the states. He pointed out there was no provision for any of the state fees to offset any of the federal fees.
Chairman Smith called for action on A.B. 422.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 422.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Smith asked Senator Adler to read a summarized statement on the bill when it was presented on the senate floor.
* * * * *
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on S.B. 437.
SENATE BILL 437: Revises provisions governing placement of buoys in waters of state.
Fred F. Messmann, Boating Law Administrator, Nevada Department of Wildlife, introduced himself to members of the committee. He also introduced Richard T. Heap Jr., Regional Manager, Northwestern Division, Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW).
Mr. Messmann stated the NDOW supports passage of S.B. 437, and proceeded with a section by section review of the bill.
Senator Neal asked Mr. Messmann to describe what was a buoy. Mr. Messmann responded by explaining a buoy is a boating traffic directional and speed device, similar to traffic signals on roadways. He continued by describing several different types of buoys and their purposes; for instance, a white buoy with a blue stripe is a mooring buoy.
Senator Hickey asked what agency would have responsiblity for Lake Mead. Mr. Messmann replied the U.S. National Park Service has jurisdictional authority on Lake Mead. Senator Hickey asked what agency was responsible for Pyramid Lake. Mr. Messmann stated Pyramid Lake is under the authority of the Paiute Tribe. Senator Hickey asked what agency was responsible for Walker Lake. Mr. Messmann replied the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Division of State Lands and the NDOW has concurrent jurisdictional authority over Walker Lake. Senator Hickey wondered who would be responsible for issuing buoy permits on Walker Lake. Mr. Messmann explained buoys installed on Walker Lake would be permitted by the Division of State Lands. He surmised some of the committee members' confusion was due to the fact the Division of State Lands is the agency responsible for permitting buoys in navigable waters.
Senator Hickey inquired what agency would have authority over the Colorado River. Mr. Messmann said the NDOW has concurrent jurisdiction with the U.S. Coast Guard on the section below Davis Dam to the borderline with the State of California. Senator Hickey asked who would be responsible for issuing buoy permits on this section of the Colorado River. Mr. Messmann explained the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard have primary authority. He continued by pointing out if the buoy rested on the Nevada side of the river, a permit would also be acquired from the NDOW. Mr. Messmann explained these laws already exist in statute (NRS 488.285).
Senator Rhoads asked who would be responsible for the Wild Horse, South Fork and Wilson reservoirs. Mr. Messmann explained most of these reservoirs are under the jurisdiction of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Division of State Parks. Senator Rhoads inquired if these areas would also fall under the protection of S.B. 437. Mr. Messmann responded by saying the NDOW would have concurrent authority with the Division of State Parks. However, in earlier conversations with the Division of State Parks, it was determined that the placement of mooring buoys in a state park was inappropriate.
Mr. Messman continued to review each section of S.B. 437 with members of the committee. At one point, he called attention to a handout he had provided to members of the committee, which listed three suggested amendments (Exhibit E). He pointed out the language contained in the first amendment had been fashioned after language contained in an assembly bill. He thanked Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, for her assistance in clarifying the definition of "mooring buoy."
Senator Neal asked what specific time period would be involved in the temporary placement of a buoy [section 4, subsection 3(b)]. Mr. Messmann explained the term "temporary," generally, referred to a maximum 6-month time period. He said the most common usage of a temporary buoy was to moor a jet-ski on Little Washoe Lake or to set up a water ski course at Lake Mead. The NDOW's usual procedure would be to determine what time period the individual(s) are interested in and ensure that this activity would not conflict with any other usage. He continued by stating a number of variables would be involved in the issuance of a temporary permit: 1) the time period; 2) days of the week for approved usage; 3) removal of buoys prior to nightfall; etc.
Chairman Smith invited Mr. Heap to present testimony to members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. Mr. Heap explained he had nothing to add to Mr. Messmann's testimony.
Ms. Wilcox introduced herself to members of the committee and stated the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources agrees with Mr. Messmann's testimony.
Chairman Smith discussed general scheduling issues with members of the committee.
SENATE BILL 230: Directs state engineer to establish program that credits water rights to public water systems for adding certain customers.
SENATE BILL 327: Establishes guildines for determinations by state engineer of "public interest" under water law.
Chairman Smith stated he was prepared to accept a motion on both S.B. 230 and S.B. 327. He invited the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Issues, Senator James, to give a brief presentation on either of these bills.
Senator James stated he had prepared an amendment to S.B. 327 and offered to provide members of the committee with copies of the amendment. He asked if Chairman Smith preferred to have this amendment printed by Jan Needham, Bill Drafting Adviser, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) Legal Division. Chairman Smith advised Senator James to have the bill redrafted with his suggested amendments and present it to the committee at an upcoming work session hearing. He continued by saying it was his intention to take S.B. 327 to the senate floor to request that it be reprinted and referred back to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. Senator James agreed with Chairman Smith's suggestion.
Chairman Smith stated the following bills would be scheduled for the Monday, May 17, 1993 work session: S.B. 230, S.B. 327 and S.B. 337.
Senator Hickey asked Chairman Smith if he would accept a motion of S.B. 437. Chairman Smith called for action on S.B. 437.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 437.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman Smith stated the next order of business before the committee was consideration of a bill draft request (BDR).
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-76: Revise membership of the State Environmental Commission.
Chairman Smith called for action on BDR 40-76.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 40-76.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
There being no further business before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Chairman Smith adjourned the hearing at 9:52 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rayanne J. Francis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator R. Hal Smith, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Natural Resources
May 11, 1993
Page 1