The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Tuesday, March 2, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Ms. Gene Segerblom

Mr. Kelly Thomas

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, Assembly District 39

Assemblyman Joseph E. Dini, Jr., Assembly District 38

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

The meeting was called to order at 8:10 a.m. Chairman Bache announced a request to reschedule the hearing on the last bill on the agenda, Assembly Bill 295 for another time. Hearing no objections, the hearing on A.B. 295 was rescheduled.

Chairman Bache then opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 264 and introduced Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick.

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District 39, said A.B. 264 was a request of Douglas County to allow county commissioners to donate personal property owned by the county to a nonprofit organization. He cited an example of a soccer league that was willing to maintain one of the county parks in order to play soccer there. The county was more than willing and even had an old lawn mower it could have donated to the youngsters, but existing state law prohibited it. A.B. 264 was an attempt to address those issues.

Assemblywoman Freeman asked for a description of personal property owned by a county. Mr. Hettrick explained it was something already surplus to the county, such as the old lawn mower cited above. It could not be land, he added. Personal property was not real property.

Mary Walker, representing Carson City, and Douglas and Lyon Counties, actively supported A.B. 264. She introduced Thomas Grady of the Nevada League of Cities, and Dan Holler, Douglas County Manager, both of whom expressed support of the bill.

Under the existing statutes (Nevada Revised Statute 244.1505), Mr. Holler said, there was no provision for a county to donate its surplus equipment except through the surplus and auction process. The county would give a nonprofit organization a cash donation and the organization would then have to buy the item back at an auction. It seemed simpler to request a modification of the authority to allow donation of personal property. He felt there was no problem with adding cities into the bill.

Assemblywoman Segerblom asked if all counties in the state supported the bill. Mr. Holler said the legislation had been presented to the board of the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) and there was no opposition.

Ms. Segerblom wondered if all cities had also agreed to the provisions of the bill. Thomas Grady, Nevada League of Cities, indicated there was already language in draft form that allowed cities to donate either cash or personal property.

Assemblyman Mortenson felt the language (line 5) "organization, not for profit" was a phrase that could easily be deleted, and suggested it be reworded to "not for profit organizations." Mr. Holler said the intent of the bill was to give surplus property to nonprofit organizations and that the wording could be redrafted.

Assemblyman Humke agreed and asked if the term "organization, not for profit" meant a private organization, not for profit. "Does that mean a private, nonprofit corporation that has filed appropriately with the Nevada Secretary of State?"

Chairman Bache asked Committee Counsel Eileen O’Grady to respond.

Ms. O’Grady said she had not drafted the bill and was not certain why the specific language had been used. Mr. Humke suggested referring to the chapter of the Nevada Revised Statutes that covered private nonprofit corporations or other entities the secretary of state might recognize.

Chairman Bache said in the past nonprofit organizations had been identified by Internal Revenue Service Code 501-C-3. Mr. Humke agreed it would be better to use the "tighter" definition of the IRS code, and would prefer to have the bill reference one of several IRS code designations for private, nonprofit corporations.

Al Kramer, Carson City Treasurer, supported A.B. 264, and discussed a problem common to many cities and counties in Nevada, namely "found" items such as stolen bicycles, recovered by the sheriffs’ offices and not reclaimed. County treasurers would hold sales of those items on a periodic basis. Treasurers would prefer to turn the bicycles over to nonprofit organizations for reconditioning and then donation to needy children. He cited NRS 179.164 which stated if a sale was to be held and if the cost of holding the sale would be greater than the amount that would be received from it, the sale items could be donated to nonprofit organizations. Mr. Kramer said, since the bill was going to be amended, he would like to see the same language applied to lost or found property.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if stolen property would be kept for some time before being turned over to a nonprofit organization. Mr. Kramer indicated there was no intent to change the existing rules. Counties would continue to go through the courts to get permission to transfer the property. Sheriffs simply did not have the room to store bulky recovered items. Donations could be made on a monthly basis under the amended statutes.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Kramer to provide the committee with his proposed amendments and said they would be considered.

Carole A. Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association spoke in support of A.B. 264. She cited an example where the Clark County commissioners wanted to donate 500 surplus computers to the Computers for Schools program. Because of restrictions within the existing law, the computers had to be donated directly to the schools rather than first being refurbished by a nonprofit organization. She felt the provisions of A.B. 264 would ensure that nonprofit foundations could receive such equipment without penalty.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 264 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 237.

Assemblyman Joseph (Joe) E. Dini, Jr., Assembly District 38, introduced A.B. 237. The bill, he said, would expand coverage of current funding to grants for water conservation and capital improvements to certain water systems. He emphasized the need for the State of Nevada to become deeply involved with water conservation. He cited the example of the Regional Planning Agency bill which had been negotiated for Lake Tahoe in cooperation with California.

Mr. Dini said there were only two large irrigation districts in Nevada: the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District in Fallon, and the Walker River Irrigation District near Bridgeport, California. A.B. 237 would allow the smaller irrigation and water conservancy districts to benefit from those grants.

Assemblywoman Freeman wondered if proposed conservation measures would be enough to save Walker Lake. Mr. Dini was not sure. He doubted that Walker Lake could ever sustain itself, but the problems were being addressed.

Ms. Freeman asked if the Indian tribes were involved in negotiations and discussions.

Mr. Dini referred the question to Naomi S. Duerr, Administrator and State Water Planner, Nevada Division of Water Planning.

Ms. Duerr discussed the Walker River Basin Technical Network, a consortium of researchers and public involved in Walker River issues. Through a grant from Senator [Harry] Reid’s office, the network was able to hire a full-time Walker River planner. She introduced Randy Pahl, an engineer/hydrologist with the Division of Water Planning, who was the current administrator for the grants to small water systems. She referred to the Water Conservation Issue Paper (Exhibit C) and indicated that several of the recommendations had been developed independently of Mr. Dini’s bill but addressed the same needs.

Ms. Duerr listed the recommendations outlined in Exhibit C:

1. The state should establish an Office of Water Conservation to provide technical, educational, and financial assistance.
2. Improve the program requiring all municipal water suppliers to implement conservation plans.
3. Have the state require water users above certain water use thresholds to prepare water conservation plans.
4. Develop a more formal "credit for conservation" program to encourage conservation.
5. Assist agricultural users in implementing conservation measures.
6. The state legislature should promote statewide water conservation by leading by example and assisting the various state agencies in becoming more efficient.
7. Establish a state fund to help pay for conservation demonstration projects.
8. Encourage public supply systems to meter water deliveries.
9. Encourage effluent reuse and greywater use where feasible.
10. Initiate a water measurement program for all water users.
11. Support existing state and federal minimum flow standards for plumbing fixtures.

She discussed several of the recommendations in more detail. She referred to Item 4, the formal "credit for conservation" program as very necessary because there was little incentive to conserve. Conserved water was considered to be abandoned water and subject to forfeiture. In Nevada the system was a "use it or lose it" system. There was no incentive to conserve. By implementing a "credit for conservation" program, for instance, a farmer could expand his fields, irrigate additional acres, or even sell his excess water.

Mechanisms to assist agricultural users in implementing conservation measures were outlined in Item 5, and included:

• Development of an irrigation management information system with weather stations in selected basins to provide real time evapotranspiration data for irrigation scheduling;
• Establishment of mobile laboratories to visit farmers to help them evaluate their water management efficiency; and
• Establishment of an irrigation training and research center.

The grant program, Ms. Duerr continued, would enable the state to establish funds to help pay for conservation demonstration projects outlining benefits of water efficiency (Item 7). Encouragement of effluent reuse and greywater reuse (Item 9) was eligible for grant funds. In conclusion, she said, measuring and metering devices were essential to efficient water usage (Item 10).

Nevada Division of Water Planning administered the grant fund program, and has authorized $40 million, of which $20 million was already obligated. Pending grant applications were about $4.5 million, and $16.5 million was available for allocation. By the end of the next legislative session, Ms. Duerr said, the program would be out of money. She reiterated her support for passage of A.B. 237.

Assemblywoman Freeman inquired if wells as well as river water were used for irrigation projects. Ms. Duerr replied affirmatively, and indicated the river flows were often variable and unreliable. The issue of the connection between groundwater and surface water had to be addressed.

Was there an accurate way of measuring, Ms. Freeman asked. Ms. Duerr replied that many interstate river systems were managed under federal decree by a federal watermaster. Groundwater was managed and allocated by the state engineer. Because the two agencies worked together, it was often difficult to obtain matching measurements, and that problem would be addressed by the recommended water plan.

Ms. Freeman asked if there were differences in the way water usage was measured and analyzed in urban areas versus rural areas.

In urban areas, especially where there was a municipal water utility, Ms. Duerr responded, wells were metered. In the rural areas, where costs of metering wells were often prohibitive, water usage was indirectly calculated by measurement of electrical consumption.

Ms. Duerr discussed section 3, subsection 3 of the bill which said, "The money in the fund may be used to defray, in whole or in part, the costs of administering the fund and the expenses of the board in administering the program." Subsection 4 provided that an administrative fee could be imposed on each of the grant recipients. A great deal of time was spent in evaluating applications and getting to the actual point of the grant itself before the administrative fee could be imposed. It was a cumbersome process, she said, and as a result the cash flow to the program rose and fell. It was a difficult way to run a grant program. She reiterated that subsection 4 as amended would allow the program to use proceeds and interest from the fund to administer the fund and would restore integrity to the program.

Assemblyman Lee addressed page 2, section 2(b) and asked Ms. Duerr to explain the term "eligible recipient". Eligible recipients, Ms. Duerr replied, were basically public entities. The state constitution prohibited granting money to private entities. Eligible recipients would be cities, counties, irrigation districts, water districts, water conservancy districts, tribes, nonprofit organizations or lending institutions.

Mr. Lee asked for an explanation of the word "tailwater" in section 2(b)(2).

Tailwater was water that ran off the end of a field during irrigation and was recycled by bringing it to the top of the field and running it back through the field, Ms. Duerr explained. The water that was left ran off the end of the field, flowed back into a canal and moved downstream for use by others.

Assemblyman Thomas asked if the process was called water harvesting.

No, Ms. Duerr said. Water harvesting was like using a collection system and siphoning the water into some sort of catchbasin.

Mr. Thomas indicated he would like to have the water harvesting term included in the language of the bill. He asked if funds and grants were paid for water conservation and capital improvements, why could not basic research also be included. He cited a study done by the Desert Research Institute to utilize greywater [treated waste water] for irrigating golf courses.

Assemblyman Dini responded by saying the fund had been created to grant money directly for rebuilding water systems or expanding existing ones. The original part of A.B. 237 was aimed at water systems that served less than 6,000 people.

Mr. Thomas asked what types of improvements would be funded. Basically pipes and other hardware, Mr. Dini replied. He reiterated the Desert Research Institute (DRI) did excellent studies on water and conservation.

Chairman Bache asked Ms. Duerr if adding "water harvesting" to the language ". . . conserve water, including, without limitation . . ." of section 2(b) would automatically cover the issue without having to add an amendment. Ms. Duerr responded by saying the bill addressed most irrigation issues, but she did not believe water harvesting was covered. She asked Mr. Dini for his opinion.

Assemblyman Dini felt the water harvesting issue was not covered in the bill language.

Assemblyman Neighbors addressed the potential problem of small communities not having the money available to fund a grant. Ms. Duerr replied an official limitation had not been put in place. Basically, the agency could grant up to 85 percent of the project, and a minimum match by a community would be 15 percent. She asked Randy Pahl to address the subject in more detail.

By using in-kind services, such as road construction, Mr. Pahl said, communities sometimes were able to finance the 15 percent up-front money. Mr. Neighbors mentioned the small communities of Beatty and Manhattan, within his assembly district, had water systems that had been built with funding from the Division of Water Planning. "It’s a fantastic program," he said.

Chairman Bache asked for further testimony on A.B. 237.

Assemblyman Dini suggested the committee might want to consider raising the bond by another $10 million to give the Division of Water Planning enough funding for the next 2 years.

Gordon DePaoli, general counsel, and Leo Havener, General Manager, both of the Walker River Irrigation District supported A.B. 237. Mr. DePaoli handed the committee a suggested amendment to the bill (Exhibit D), and explained his suggestions. The word "operations" was added to subsection (b)(5) because eligible recipients under the bill were public entities. In many cases improvement of irrigation efficiency was carried out by private parties, such as farmers and ranchers, and it was felt the language would provide more flexibility in terms of what an irrigation district could do. Subsection (b)(6) was proposed as another example of things that could be added to the list of things that could be done to conserve water. The Walker River Irrigation District badly needed improved operation of its water storage facility.

Assemblyman Lee asked for more clarification of the term "eligible recipient". In section 2, subsection (3)(b) the term "a lending institution" was used. He did not understand why a lending institution would be classified as an "eligible recipient."

Ms. Duerr opined she had raised the same question and said her understanding of a lending institution was it was a private entity and probably should not have been included in the amendment language.

Chairman Bache asked that the proposed amendments be submitted in writing.

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, spoke in favor of A.B. 237. The bill provided the mechanism for getting farmers where they wanted to be, he said. Farmers and ranchers financed many smaller irrigation districts in the state. Having the mechanism in place to make those districts eligible for grants would be most beneficial. He concluded by urging the committee to consider A.B. 237

Also adding support to A.B. 237 was Chris Weiss, Southern Nevada Water Authority/Las Vegas Valley Water District. The program had already benefited the smaller communities and outlying areas of southern Nevada, he said, and he approved of the added language.

Mary Walker, Walker & Associates, and Daniel Holler, Douglas County Manager, stated their support of A.B. 237. Mr. Holler commented the Carson River Subconservancy District had already looked at a number of projects, and because funding was always a challenge, the program would be of great benefit to the Carson River drainage area.

Chairman Bache, hearing no opposition to A.B. 237, closed the hearing. He said he would check through the possible amendments and bring them back to the committee.

Mr. Bache announced since there had been a number of questions on A.B. 227 that had been heard the previous week, he asked Committee Counsel Eileen O’Grady to address them. Ms. O’Grady provided a memorandum (Exhibit E). Mr. Bache suggested committee members read Ms. O’Grady’s memorandum. "It gives us direction for an amendment to tighten up that bill and make it do what it needs to do without having the broad language that is there," he said.

Assemblywoman Freeman asked the reason for the bill.

The bill was from Washoe County, Mr. Bache responded. It was a private/public partnership the county had done on health insurance. The way the statute was written, the county was prohibited from holding so-called "health fairs" and various educational types of health activities. Ms. O’Grady was asked to provide her opinion on the language of the bill. No one on the committee had a problem with the bill’s concept, and Mr. Bache’s concern was with the loosely written and unclear language.

Assemblyman Humke said he had read Ms. O’Grady’s memo and said he felt it simply explained the provisions of the referenced chapters of NRS. The memo stated the bill did what the witnesses said it would do. Mr. Humke indicated he liked the bill and if the Chair were willing, he would be happy to offer a motion.

Chairman Bache did not intend to take a motion at that time. He indicated he wanted to double check on his concerns before taking any action. The third paragraph of Ms. O’Grady’s memo said, "However, because the word ‘related’ has been deleted in section 1, page 1, line 11, the phrase ‘medical, administrative and educational services’ may be construed broadly," and that was still Mr. Bache’s concern. He indicated no action would be taken.

There being no further business, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 9:20 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Charlotte Tucker,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: