MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Sixty-seventh Session
May 17, 1993
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman R. Hal Smith, at 9:06 a.m., on Friday, May 17, 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 Mark A. James
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Thomas J. Hickey (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Rayanne Francis, Senate Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
James P. Hawke VII, Director, Division of Emergency Management,
Nevada Office of Community Services, Governor's Office
Due to the fact four committee members constitute a quorum, and only three members were present, Chairman Smith temporarily convened a subcommittee hearing. He pointed out that as soon as another member of the committee arrived, he would then call the full committee work session to order.
SENATE BILL (S.B.) 147:Requires state land registrar to convey certain land adjoining Governor's Field to Carson City.
Chairman Smith drew attention to an amendment to S.B. 147 provided to members of the committee. He invited Senator Ernest E. Adler to summarize the assembly amendment as he intended to call for a vote on the matter.
Senator Adler mentioned the amendment would allow Carson City to construct a T-ball field on state-owned property adjacent to Governor's Field. He called attention to the fact the State of Nevada could request that Carson City reconvey this property back to the state no later than 2 years from the date of the original request.
Chairman Smith called for action on S.B. 147.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO CONCUR IN THE AMENDMENT TO S.B. 147.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS HICKEY, TITUS AND JAMES WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
After calling a brief recess, Chairman Smith reconvened a full committee work session. He invited Senator Mark A. James to describe the subcommittee's recommendations to those in attendance.
SENATE BILL 230: Directs state engineer to establish program that credits water rights to public water systems for adding certain customers.
Senator James explained considerable effort had been expended in improving the language contained in S.B. 230. He asserted the members of the Subcommittee on Water (Senator James, Smith, Adler and Rhoads) had unanimously agreed to recommend an amend-ment to the full Senate Committee on Natural Resources.
Senator Neal asked for more particulars on exactly what amend-ments were being recommended to the full committee. Senator James retrieved and passed out copies of the subcommittee's amendments. He summarized the amendment by explaining an attempt had been made to define the credit a public water system is entitled to receive for each new customer, who voluntarily surrenders their use of a domestic well in order to be added to the water system.
Chairman Smith called for action on S.B. 230.
SENATOR JAMES MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 230 AS AMENDED.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS HICKEY AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on S.B. 327. He invited Senator Mark A. James to describe the subcommittee's recommen-dations to the full committee.
SENATE BILL 327: Establishes guidelines for determinations by state engineer of "public interest" under water law.
Senator James passed out an amendment to the bill, which recommends that an interim study be conducted concerning water. He said a major function of the interim study would be to clarify the definition of "public interest" as it pertains to water law. He hoped this interim study would also provide the state engineer with statutory criteria when making water law determinations. Senator James stated at least three-fourths of other appropriations states had adopted some statutory criteria in the interest of providing guidance in public interest determinations.
Senator Rhoads commented that the proposed amendment only listed four members, instead of the standard six. He continued by pointing out the State of Nevada really consists of three areas: rural areas, Reno and Las Vegas. With this in mind, he asked Senator James if he would object to increasing the membership from four to six. Senator James said the only reason he had suggested four members was to keep the costs at a minimum. He responded to Senator Rhoads by assuring him that he would not object to increasing the membership to six.
Senator Adler inquired if S.B. 327 would have to be approved by the Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations. Chairman Smith replied by saying this was correct, but offered to look into the matter.
Senator Neal asked if the interim study would be attempting to define "public interest." Senator James explained this was certainly a part of what the study would attempt to achieve. Senator Neal asked how the state engineer would be able to perform his duties when one of the criteria he was required to adhere to (when determining who was eligible for a water right permit) was the "public interest." Senator Neal wondered how this would affect the rulings made by the state engineer concerning the Honey Lake Valley. Senator Neal concluded his comments by wondering if this interim study actually said the current law in statute was not clear enough and warranted further consideration. Additionally, was the legislature telling the state engineer that he should not perform his duties until the results of the interim study were known.
Senator James disagreed with Senator Neal's observation, and explained that setting forth additional statutory criteria should not prevent the state engineer from doing his job. He pointed out each state engineer has been responsible for making public interest determinations under the water law for over 87 years. He continued by saying the state engineer utilized three criteria when considering an application to appropriate or change an appropriation of existing water right in Nevada: 1) whether there is unappropriated water in the source; 2) whether it would adversely affect existing rights; and 3) whether granting the request would adversely impact, or be detrimental to, the public interest. However, he explained the water law does not define what criteria the state engineer should consider when making a public interest determination. Traditionally, Senator James commented the state engineer operates off of knowledge obtained from statute and case law when making public interest determinations.
With regard to the Honey Lake case, Senator James said the court decided that the state engineer had not sufficiently articulated in his opinion, with regard to what public interest criteria had been utilized when granting the applications. He continued by saying the court had remanded the state engineer to make addi-tional findings, which the state engineer had provided.
Senator James asserted that, by pushing ahead with the original version of S.B. 327, the legislature would have set forth findings that the state engineer would have to make in every case in which an appropriation of water of greater than 10 acre feet. However, considering the testimony the Subcommittee on Water had received during its hearings on S.B. 327, it was decided that a broader inquiry should be performed during the interim. Senator James stressed that it was the desire of the members of the Subcommittee on Water that the interim study would result in the development of procedures and a set of criteria to be used by the state engineer.
Senator Neal emphasized if a majority of the committee elected to support an interim water study, he would like to recommend that the state engineer be placed under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). He commented the state engineer would then be required to set forth clear findings as to what was public interest.
Senator James stated Senator Neal had made a good point, however, the APA would not address the substance of the public interest determination. He did agree that the APA would require the state engineer to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, but not to a particular issue. Senator James explained the interim study would attempt to clarify this matter.
Senator James said he did not, necessarily, want to amend S.B. 327 with a requirement to place the state engineer under the APA. However, he said he would not object to considering what kind of procedural mechanisms should be in place.
Senator Titus stated an interim study had already been completed prior to the 1993 session, resulting in over 100 recommenda-tions. She said concerns about the definition of "public interest" had not been a problem at that time and wondered why another interim study would be necessary.
Senator Titus also stressed the impropriety of not going through the legislative functions committee. She explained it is the responsibility of the senate and assembly committees to select the studies for which there is the greatest need. She concluded her comments by saying this interim study on water appeared to be a "thinly veiled mechanism to keep some people in the public eye during the interim."
Senator James responded to Senator Titus's earlier comments by explaining the previous study on water had been undertaken during the interim prior to the 1991 session. Since that period of time, the State of Nevada experienced the greatest number of proposed interbasin transfers in its history. He said the recent court decision, relating to the Town of Eureka, vastly changed the forfeiture doctrine in the State of Nevada. Addi-tionally, Senator James emphasized the impact of the Honey Lake and Alpine cases upon western water law.
Senator James was at a loss to understand how an individual serving on the Senate Committee on Natural Resources could fail to recognize the need for an interim study on water. He stressed the importance of developing innovative water legis-lation in an attempt to keep Nevada at pace with other western states that have changed their water laws. For example, he referred to a precept in the State of Arizona called the "Can and Will" doctrine. He continued by saying this doctrine deals with due diligence when proceeding with appropriations. Senator James voiced his opinion that there was an acute need to assess additional changes to Nevada's water law and to fashion suggested legislation to plan for the future.
Senator James stressed S.B. 327 was something the legislature could undertake in the interest of the state's children. He continued by emphasizing that planning for the future of the state's water was a step in the right direction. He insisted that he is opposed to not requesting another interim study on water, based solely upon the fact that a study had been com-pleted 5 years earlier. Senator James concluded his testimony by saying relatively few profound changes in water law occurred as a result of the previous interim study.
Senator Adler pointed out he had recently attended a water conference in Sacramento, California. During the proceedings, a comment had been made that the State of Nevada is behind in water law. He disagreed with this observation, and claimed Nevada was far ahead of other western states. He insisted the State of Nevada had made considerable progress on groundwater law, while the State of California did not even have any kind of groundwater law. Senator Adler said he would support passage of S.B. 327, but pointed out the state was far ahead of its neighbors in addressing water law.
Chairman Smith said, during the 1989 session, he was the author of the previous resolution calling for an interim water study. He said the results of that previous interim study were signifi-cantly immaterial to what the legislature is currently faced with. He pointed out he had been extremely disappointed with the manner in which the membership had been divided into three sections, with no consideration to their relationship to the water basins of the state.
Chairman Smith said it has become very clear that the public has a right to know how the legislature is protecting the environ-ment. He stated the following issues should be public know-ledge: 1) where water is being pumped out of the ground?; 2) who is selling water and is there a prudent buyer?; 3) is Nevada is prepared for the future in its food and fiber production?; 4) what is the tax structure on the property from which the water is being removed?; etc. He asserted that these were just a few of the issues to be addressed by the suggested interim study and emphasized that he supports its passage. Chairman Smith assured those in attendance that he would abide by the rules of the committee when preparing S.B. 327 as a resolution.
Chairman Smith it was his intention to accept an amendment to S.B. 327, which would recommend that the bill be reprinted and referred back to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. At this point, intensive hearings would be held to consider the elements of the resolution, as well as the size and composition of the interim study committee, and the areas and direction of the study.
In response to Senator Adler's earlier comments, Senator James referred to riparian water law, which is a type of water law utilized in states possessing a lot of water. For many years, the State of California adhered to a riparian law, but recently instituted a permitting system. Senator James called attention to the fact that California has been the beneficiary of a great number of federal reclamation projects, which benefitted the Central Valley and other areas. He disagreed with Senator Adler's earlier comment that the State of Nevada should be satisfied with existing water law, because the State of Cali-fornia was not further ahead with its water laws.
Senator Adler stated he had spent 2 days at the conference in Sacramento, California and did not need to have Senator James tell him what he had heard. Senator James pointed out the difference between a prior appropriation state and a hybrid state. He asserted the State of California had ended up with problems like Mono Lake and hoped Nevada could prevent these types of situations by being pro-active, not reactive.
Senator James said he would be open to any types of procedural changes recommended by members of the committee. He asserted that he did not have a magic formula as to how the process would work, but stressed he was very interested in having the interim study analyze possible solutions to the problems facing the state. He recommended that S.B. 327 be amended and referred back to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources for further consideration.
Chairman Smith called for action on S.B. 327.
SENATOR JAMES MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 327 AS AMENDED.
Senator Rhoads inquired if the amendment to S.B. 327 would increase the interim study membership from four to six. Senator James replied this was correct.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Smith explained he had received a request that the identities of individuals originally sponsoring the bill be removed. In this instance, he said the committee would have to request a new bill.
Senator Neal commented that the only way he could support passage of S.B. 327 would be if the committee agreed to bring the water engineer under the authority of the APA.
Chairman Smith asked Senator James if he would be willing to incorporate Senator Neal's suggestion into the amendment to S.B. 327. Senator James replied that he would agree to add language placing the water engineer under the authority of the APA. Senator Neal declared that he supports passage of S.B. 327.
Senator Adler pointed out that he was well aware of the State of California's water law, due to the fact he has attended numerous seminars over the years. He said he would not object to requesting another interim study on water, but disputed earlier statements regarding the inadequacy of the previous water study. Senator Adler asserted that a record number of bills, 33 in all, had been passed out of this interim study committee on water. He emphasized the fact that no other interim study had produced so many substantive pieces of legislation.
Senator James pointed out it had not been his intention to intimate in any way that the 1989 interim study had not been substantive. He stressed S.B. 327 was merely attempting to clarify the criteria utilized by the state engineer when making public interest determinations (NRS 533.370). He stated this was the only place in statute where specific conditions and procedures had been set forth to guide the state engineer in the approval or denial of applications. Senator James emphasized that, currently, all of the applications dealing with water transfers or interbasin changes of rights were routed through a "bottleneck." He asserted the 1989 interim study had not addressed the issues contained in S.B. 327.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR HICKEY WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on S.B. 378 and invited Senator Titus to present the subcommittee's recommendations to the full committee.
SENATE BILL 378: Increases penalty for killing wild horse.
Senator Titus provided members of the committee with a copy of the suggested amendments to the bill. She noted that wild burros had been, inadvertently, left out of the original bill, but were included in the proposed amendment. She drew attention to three newspaper articles (Exhibit C), which described the senseless slaughter of 14 wild burros near Lake Mead in southern Nevada.
Senator Titus commented on testimony heard by the subcommittee, which suggested that the felony charge be reduced to a gross misdemeanor with some type of minimum penalty. She explained that after considerable thought, it was decided the gross misdemeanor was not enough of a deterrent to prevent the killing of wild horses and burros.
Senator Adler said he had done some homework on his own time to determine whether there was a similarity between the penalties for shooting a domestic horse and a wild horse. After con-ducting some research, he discovered it is a felony to shoot a domestic horse if its aggregate value is over $250. In other words, S.B. 378 would make the penalty for killing a wild horse the same as the penalty for killing a domestic horse, with a value of $250 or more. He noted the language currently con-tained in statute also includes horses, cattle, mules, asses, sheep, goats and swine.
Chairman Smith called for action on S.B. 378.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 378 AS AMENDED.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR HICKEY WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. SENATOR RHOADS VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 122: Expands costs for which money may be expended and recovered regarding response to accident involving hazardous material.
ASSEMBLY BILL 123: Provides for issuance of permits for transportation of radioactive waste by Nevada highway patrol division of department of motor vehicles and public safety with approval of public service commission of Nevada.
Chairman Smith informed members of the committee that he had received conflict notices on both Assembly Bill (A.B.) 122 and A.B. 123. Due to this fact, he explained these two bills would not be discussed at the day's work session.
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on A.B. 124.
ASSEMBLY BILL 124: Authorizes director of the division of emergency management of the department of the military to facilitate development of a comprehensive, coordinated approach to emergency management.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 124.
SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR HICKEY WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on A.B. 125.
ASSEMBLY BILL 125: Makes various changes relating to repository for information concerning hazardous materials in Nevada.
Chairman Smith informed committee members that he had heard from James P. Hawke VII, Director, Division of Emergency Management, Nevada Office of Community Services, Governor's Office, who had requested that A.B. 125 be indefinitely postponed. At the request of several committee members, Chairman Smith invited Mr. Hawke to present testimony on A.B. 125.
Mr. Hawke introduced himself to members of the committee and explained that his request to remove A.B. 125 from further consideration was based upon a conversation he recently had with his counterpart for Clark County. Mr. Hawke said he had recently been informed that the information currently being entered into the hazardous materials repository was at least 2 years old. He continued by saying Clark County is interested in developing their own system for maintaining this type of infor-mation and would not support passage of A.B. 125.
Based upon the Clark County situation, and other objections to the bill, he asked members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources to indefinitely postpone A.B. 125.
Senator Neal asked who would be responsible for collecting information in accordance with Public Law 99-499. Mr. Hawke replied by saying the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) would continue to collect this data. He continued by saying the data collected by the NHP would still be entered into a data bank by employees within the State Fire Marshal Division. Additionally, the central state repository of information would be available to law enforcement agencies via computer display terminals. However, Mr. Hawke pointed out Clark County felt confident that its own system would be more accurate and up-to-date than the state repository.
Senator Neal asked if the information contained within Clark County's hazardous materials repository would be similar to the information contained within the state's central repository. Mr. Hawke anticipated the information contained within Clark County's system would be more current than the 2-year-old data provided by the state.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 125.
SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR HICKEY WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on A.B. 291.
ASSEMBLY BILL 291: Authorizes cooperative agreement between state department of agriculture and local governments regarding placement or disposition of estrays.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 291.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR HICKEY WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on A.B. 337. He invited Senator Mark A. James to provide a report on the subcommittee's recommendations to the full committee.
ASSEMBLY BILL 337: Clarifies certain provisions of water law and ratifies past actions of state engineer.
Senator James commented the Subcommittee on Water had heard extensive testimony on A.B. 337 and recommended the bill be passed out of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources.
Senator Neal asked Senator James to provide further information on how the subcommittee had arrived at their recommendation to pass A.B. 337 out of the full committee. Senator James replied by saying current water law requires the state engineer to grant a permit. However, before this permit can be granted, the state engineer must conduct substantive inquiries to determine whether the permit should be approved. He described the three criteria the state engineer took into consideration when reviewing an application to appropriate or change an appropriation of existing water right in Nevada: 1) was there other appropriated water in the source?; 2) does the application adversely affect existing water rights?; and 3) would approval of the application adversely impact, or be detrimental to the public interest? Senator James explained that once the state engineer determines that all of the criteria have been satisfied, he grants the permit.
Senator James pointed out a key issue had been raised by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit during the Alpine and Honey Lake Valley decisions. He continued by saying this issue questioned whether, once a permit had been issued (but before the proof of beneficial use had been filed), could the permit then be transferred to a new point of diversion, place of use or manner of use. Senator James commented that for 87 years, the state engineers of Nevada have uniformly inter-preted Nevada law to say that water already appropriated includes a permitted right and allows that a permit be trans-ferred to a new place, manner or point of diversion. He emphasized the Ninth Circuit Court had determined that the proof of beneficial use must be filed and certified before the trans-fer of any water right could take place.
Senator James pointed out A.B. 337 set forth that a permitted right, or unperfected right (a water right which has not had a proof of beneficial right filed upon it), could be transferred to a new point of diversion, place of use or manner of use. He said this bill was consistent with 87 years of water law. Senator James said the subcommittee had been very concerned with the possibility that the decisions handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court might cause speculation about the transfers of unperfected rights previously rendered by the state engineers during the past 87 years.
Senator James asserted the subcommittee had recognized that the federal court decisions had been based upon pre-statutory law. In other words, he said this dealt with placing a water right to beneficial use in order to give public notice of a water right filing. Under statutory law, he stressed the public notice was served when an application was filed, as well as the public hearings which would take place shortly thereafter. Senator James emphasized a water right should be transferrable, under statutory law.
Senator Neal recalled a Nevada State Supreme Court case, in 1902, which established the definition of "appropriated water." He also recalled that, in 1913, a requirement for filing proof of beneficial use had been incorporated into statute as a means of retaining a water right. He asked why A.B. 337 would be necessary when any applicant, who suspected that their water right might be affected by the federal court decisions, could just re-apply for the particular water right. Senator Neal also wondered how the Honey Lake case would be affected if the legislature did not pass A.B. 337.
Senator James responded to Senator Neal's earlier questions by explaining that everything in prior appropriation of water law is based upon priority. He stressed the priority issue was at the crux of exactly why A.B. 337 had been drafted. He continued by saying if a water right holder went back to the state engineer to re-apply for a water right they currently held, they would have a 1993 priority. Senator James explained the whole concept of transferring an existing water right, which is unperfected, is to retain the original priority date.
Senator James assumed Senator Neal's question was on whether the definition of "appropriated water" had been adopted into statute in 1902. He stated he felt the definition of "appropriated water" had not been adopted into statute at that time. He continued by saying, in 1902, a new statutory mechanism had been adopted as a means of determining who had prior rights to water. Senator James explained prior appropriation law had its beginnings in the days of the miners and irrigators. He pointed out that, in the old days, the only way public notice could be served on the appropriation of water was based upon whether the water was actually being used. For example, if a miner was running water through a slough, or a farmer was irrigating his fields, the amount of water being utilized was considered to be appropriated.
Senator James commented that when the statute was put into effect, a permit was required before any water could be taken. This permit process began with the actual filing of a water right and required that a notice of the application be run for 4 consecutive weeks in a local newspaper of general circulation. He explained that once the permit was granted, the applicant retained the water right even if they did not put the water to beneficial use.
Senator James stated, "the definition of water, already appro-priated under the statute, is different than the definition of water, already appropriated, that was adopted by the case law before the statute." He concluded his explanation by saying A.B. 337 attempts to ratify that interpretation of the statute which has been utilized by the state engineers for the past 87 years.
Senator Neal asked what are supplemental water rights. In reply to this question, Senator James used the example of a person who had three wells and one place of use on their property. He pointed out these three wells could be considered to be supple-mental to one another, thus the water right might state, "diversion at _____ second feet, for a total annual duty of 500 acre feet." He explained this would allow the applicant to take not more than 500 acre feet out of any one of the three wells.
Senator Neal asked if an individual drilled a dry well, would they be entitled to drill another well. Senator James responded by saying another well could be drilled, but only within 300 feet of the original point of diversion.
Senator Neal asked what would happen to Washoe County if the legislature did not pass A.B. 337. Senator Adler responded by saying he did not think anything would happen. For the sake of clarification, Senator Neal rephrased his question by pointing out Washoe County was the next in line to the Honey Lake water right. He inquired, if A.B. 337 was not enacted by the 1993 legislature, would the Honey Lake decision be upheld? Senator Adler stated he felt, "it was wholly inappropriate for this legislature to be passing laws based upon one case or a single county." He said he supported passage of A.B. 337 based upon his belief that Nevada's legislators had been elected to set general policy, not water policy for each county. Senator Adler stressed that it was each legislator's duty to pass the best laws for all of the citizens in the entire State of Nevada. He refused to look at A.B. 337 from the viewpoint of addressing only 13,000 acre feet of water, when the big picture deals with approximately 1,000,000 acre feet statewide. Senator Adler pointed out if A.B. 337 was enacted, and the legislation interfered with the Honey Lake Valley decision, the Honey Lake importation project would still have to be reviewed by the Washoe County Commissioners. Based upon the testimony provided to the Subcommittee on Water, Senator Adler predicted the project would not receive final approval.
Senator Neal asked Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst, to provide him with information relative to what might or could happen if A.B. 337 did not pass out of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. He said his main concerns are focused on the Honey Lake situation.
Senator Adler pointed out that some very serious water speculation would take place if the Senate Committee on Natural Resources did not support passage of A.B. 337. He continued by saying approximately 6,000 water permits would be invalidated if this legislation was not enacted. He voiced his fears that some very clever speculator could file over these permits with a different point of diversion.
SENATOR JAMES MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 337.
SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Adler pointed A.B. 337 is very similar in content to a recommendation made by a group of environmentalists supported by the Clinton administration. He emphasized the environ-mentalists' recommendation addressed water usage in the Western United States, which would benefit the environment. The Clinton-endorsed version stressed the importance of transferring water rights as a means of protecting the environment, wildlife and agricultural activities.
Senator Neal interrupted by asking why the Nevada Cattlemen's Association is opposed to A.B. 337. Senator Adler admitted that he had not received any information supporting their reasons for opposing A.B. 337.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR HICKEY WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. SENATOR NEAL VOTED NO.)
With reference to A.B. 337, two handouts were provided to Rayanne Francis, Committee Secretary. The first handout (Exhibit D) was provided by William Aue, on behalf of the Nevada State Democratic Central Committee, and the second handout (Exhibit E) was provided by the Citizens for Honest Government. A sizeable attachment was also provided to Ms. Francis by the Citizens for Honest Government, entitled "Exhibits to Statement to Nevada's Legislators and Other Government Officials" (Exhibit F - original in the Research Library).
* * * * *
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on A.B. 386.
ASSEMBLY BILL 386: Revises provisions of Senate Bill 97 of this session concerning management of solid waste.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 386.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR HICKEY WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
There being no further business before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Chairman Smith adjourned the hearing at 10:07 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rayanne J. Francis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator R. Hal Smith, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Natural Resources
May 17, 1993
Page 1