The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 1:38 p.m., on Wednesday, February 3, 1999. Chairman Marcia de Braga presided in Room 3161 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:

Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman

Mrs. Gene Segerblom, Vice Chairman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. John Jay Lee

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Mr. Tom Collins

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Roll was called with all members present. Chairman de Braga made introductions of Legislative Counsel Bureau staff and committee members. She also introduced Christine Burchiel, a student from Western Nevada Community College who would serve as an intern for the committee.

Chairman de Braga opened discussion on adoption of Standing Rules of the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining (Exhibit C). The chairman stressed the point if a committee member was not present for a vote they would be recorded as such. There were no questions; the chairman entertained a motion for passage.

Chairman de Braga explained, due to the short legislative session, there would be many specific deadlines throughout the session, to which they must adhere.

The Chair called upon Linda Eissmann, Senior Research Analyst of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) to give an overview of issues presented in the committee during the session. Ms. Eissmann explained she had been assigned as policy analyst for the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining, and gave the committee a brief introduction describing her background and credentials. She presented copies of the Natural Resources Committee Brief (Exhibit D), the same brief presented to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. It outlined subject areas pertinent to this committee for the Seventieth Session of the Nevada Legislature. Among those subject areas were issues regarding agriculture, air and water pollution, forestry, recycling, hazardous materials, mining, public lands, wildlife, watercraft, weights and measures, noxious weeds and insects, estray horses, geothermal activity, oil and gas operations, water rights, state parks and monuments, and environmental regulations. Issues that pertained to irrigation districts, flood control, and planning and development of water resources were subject areas previously assigned to the one-time Assembly Committee on Infrastructure last session that were now assigned to the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining. Ms. Eissmann provided another handout to help monitor legislation and contact with legislators. She explained Assembly members must submit their bills by February 8. The second page provided a quick reference of key dates for various session deadlines (Exhibit E). Chairman de Braga asked Ms. Eissmann if the February 8 deadline for submitting bills included that day. Ms. Eissmann responded in the affirmative. The Chair asked if there were any other questions for Ms. Eissmann, and there were none.

Chairman de Braga introduced Dr. Robert Dickens, Director of the Office of Governmental Relations, University of Nevada Reno (UNR), representing the Nevada Cooperative Extension. Mrs. de Braga pointed out there had been a bill presented last session which would have allowed counties to withdraw from the university’s cooperative extension program and use tax money from that program to hire their own agents who would work on issues important to each particular district. The chairman reminded the committee the bill did not pass. Instead, an agreement was struck between the counties and UNR to design a program which continued the extension service, allowed modernization and urbanization of the program where needed, and provided agricultural support to rural areas of the state.

Dr. Dickens said he wanted to explain how UNR complied with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed between the university and interested parties in late June 1997. Dr. Dickens presented the committee members with a packet of information containing the MOU, follow-up information regarding the work group organized as a result of the process pursuant to the MOU of June 25, 1997, and a membership list composed of cooperative extension contacts and involved citizens (Exhibit F).

Dr. Dickens next introduced Karen Hinton, newly hired Dean and Director of UNR Cooperative Extension. She presented the committee with handouts, which described the many services provided by the Cooperative Extension service (Exhibit G). Dr. Hinton outlined the main focus of her agency, and emphasized its policy of shared expertise between counties, administrative agencies, and the community. She expressed her desire to increase communication efforts to share information about out Nevada Cooperative Extension programs with the community. Dr. Hinton described the importance of a thorough needs-assessment evaluation in an effort to provide service to as many people as possible. Her testimony is contained in Exhibit H.

Dr. Hinton stated among the primary concerns of the Cooperative Extension was the need for communication both internal and external, along with a program for conflict resolution. She also stressed the importance of flexibility in utilizing resources statewide. Another program mentioned was the Master Gardener Program in Reno, which trained master gardeners in Winnemucca. The same program was responsible for training gardeners in Pahrump for a similar program in Las Vegas. Dr. Hinton also discussed the new and innovative resource development program established by the Cooperative Extension called Extension Coffee Shop. It was an Internet chat room, which was developed to meet the needs of beef producers, and to answer their questions. Six faculty members were on hand for that program in order to share knowledge and expertise with producers. A web site was also in the process of being developed.

Dr. Hinton also mentioned the formation of the Extension Governing Board, established as a representative board composed of staff from all geographic areas of the state. It represented both faculty and non-faculty, urban and rural communities. That board was designed to provide communication, which concerned statewide issues throughout Nevada. Dr. Dickens added that 15 of the state’s 17 counties had agreed to participate in the Cooperative Extension program. The two counties not involved in the service were Esmeralda and Mineral. Each county, as part of their normal budget process, made a financial commitment to the program, with the state and the university contributing their share of the funding. When the budget cut occurred as a result of the current financial crisis in the state, the budget office accepted that cut, which superceded the local decisions of those 15 county commissions. Many counties were facing a tax cap and were strapped for revenue; yet those counties had not withdrawn from that program.

Chairman de Braga asked if federal contributions could be affected by the current situation, to which Dr. Hinton replied in the affirmative. She said that was a possibility because revenues from the General Fund could be reduced, as could federal dollars. Mrs. de Braga asked if the services returned to the counties were proportionate to the monies they contributed. Dr. Hinton explained the goal of Cooperative Extension had always been to match county funding and to provide comparable services for those county contributions.

Mr. Marvel asked what a county such as Lincoln, which had a minimal tax base, would receive in its needs assessment for various services. Dr. Hinton said that county would receive $8,000 in services. One such service would be the availability of a faculty member to Lincoln County who could provide the county with professional expertise. Dr. Dickens added that was a good reason why it was vitally important a flexible administrative model be used. To illustrate that point, he said 4 mils in Lincoln County generating $8,000 meant that county was fairly close to their capacity to support such a program. The university, along with federal and General Fund dollars, would amount to more than matching funds. However, that was what it would take to get a professional on board in Lincoln County. He pointed out that was the essence of both the Cooperative Extension service and a Land Grant University. Mr. Marvel asked how much a bankrupt county such as Nye would be assessed. Dr. Dickens said Nye County continued to contribute its share to the Cooperative Extension without interruption. He added he had a great deal of respect for counties such as Nye, which never wavered in their commitment to the program.

Mr. Mortenson asked Dr. Dickens to explain how county funding for the Cooperative Extension was tabulated. Dr. Dickens explained each county chose between 1 and 5 mils of its property tax assessment to be dedicated to the service. After that, the university had access to two additional sources of funding, the state’s General Fund and federal funding. Those three sources were "bundled" together to provide Cooperative Extension services. Mr. Mortenson asked how much federal money was contributed to the program. Dr. Dickens explained the local obligation was approximately 40 percent and the state’s General Fund contribution plus federal dollars to the university was approximately 60 percent. Mr. Mortenson asked what percentage of the 60 percent was the federal contribution. Dr. Hinton said the federal contribution was about approximately one-fifth of that percentage.

Mr. Neighbors asked if a working group had been established since last session to resolve outstanding issues concerning the service. Dr. Dickens said one of the issues was not all appointments had been made as promptly as promised; however, that issue had now been resolved.

Chairman de Braga asked if the issues from last session, which resulted in criticism of the Cooperative Extension service, had been resolved, and were the rural areas of the state receiving access to agricultural services. Dr. Dickens responded great progress had been made in modernizing the mission statement of the service and satisfying the needs of rural communities. Although things were not perfect, many issues had been resolved and had improved greatly due to administrative change within the program, and the hiring of Dr. Hinton.

Chairman de Braga introduced Pamela Wilcox, State Land Registrar, Administrator of State Lands, and Acting Administrator of Division of Conservation Districts. Ms. Wilcox began her presentation by explaining the responsibility of the State Land Office, under the Division of State Lands, was to take care of all the land in Nevada which were state owned, except land owned by the Department of Transportation and the university. Her agency held the title on lands under her division’s jurisdiction, and acquired and disposed of it as well. Ms. Wilcox explained her agency worked on land use planning projects, both with local government on zoning issues and with federal land management agencies on federal land issues. The State Land Use Planning Advisory Council was the only state board which had one representative from each of Nevada’s 17 counties. She described a new unit within her division, which worked on the Tahoe Bond Act. Also under the Division of State Lands was the Division of Conservation Districts which was statutorily separate but which overlapped quite often because she was administrator of both. Ms. Wilcox described the State Conservation Commission, which was a policy making and regulatory commission. That agency oversaw the 27 locally elected Conservation Districts throughout the state.

Ms. Wilcox described the historical archives of the Division of State Lands. She passed around several maps of the state, including two historical maps of Lake Tahoe. Her presentation included overhead projector exhibits, which showed both historical and present-day maps of the state, with particular reference to state owned lands under jurisdiction of her division.

Mr. Neighbors asked if Lincoln County had originally been part of Clark County; to which Ms. Wilcox responded in the affirmative.

Chairman de Braga asked Ms. Wilcox what was the state’s ability to acquire federal lands for future state, county, or city use. Ms. Wilcox responded it depended on specific circumstances. She said the Division of State Lands had the authority to use the Recreation Public Purposes Act to acquire Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land for public purposes. Most of the state’s prison facilities and many of the state’s parks had been acquired in that way. Mrs. de Braga explained people in Eureka informed her they needed to expand their city limits. Ms. Wilcox said the acquisition of land for community expansion had to be arranged by purchasing it at fair market value.

Mr. Marvel asked how much of the state’s original acreage had reverted back to the Federal Government. Ms. Wilcox explained originally the state received approximately 4 million acres, and Nevada traded it in because it could not be used until it was surveyed. Nevada in 1864 was unsurveyed, open territory. The state elected to trade it for half as much territory surveyed, taken from wherever the state wanted. The land was selected by allowing people to go out and select the land they wanted, and Nevada received titles for those lands from the Federal Government. The land was then sold to those private parties.

Mr. Mortenson said he was astounded that Nevada did not acquire more land from the Federal Government for public purposes. He asked if the problem was that the land acquired from the Federal Government had to be used within a specified time, or could Nevada just suggest certain uses for those parcels in an effort to hold that land for later use. Ms. Wilcox responded in the negative, and added the Recreation Public Purposes Act mandated land could only be acquired for specific purposes, within a specific time frame (usually 5 years), using a specific plan of development. All those requirements would be strictly followed, she explained.

Mrs. Segerblom, referring to one of the maps Ms. Wilcox handed out which was dated January 1999, asked why Eldorado Valley (now belonging to Boulder City) was not shown. Ms. Wilcox explained it was because the map in question did not show local government ownership, only state ownership.

Mr. Carpenter stated, in response to Mr. Mortenson’s observation concerning acquisition of federal land, a bill would be presented to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining to retrieve land from the Federal Government for Nevada.

Ms. Wilcox continued her discussion by explaining her agency’s land use planning programs were designed to provide technical planning assistance upon request to local governments wherever needed. She pointed out that a master plan update had been done for the city of Carlin, and for the County of Humboldt. Additionally, the Division of State Lands coordinated planning workshops. Those were public education workshops related to master planning and zoning. A solid waste management plan was developed for Lander County. Also, continued Ms. Wilcox, a great deal of work had been done in Lincoln County. Most of her agency’s work was done in rural counties, which did not have their own planning staff. Other projects included work on source water assessment programs in conjunction with the Nevada Bureau of Public Health.

Ms. Wilcox pointed out the federal government owned 87.25 percent of the State of Nevada. Her agency was involved in an ongoing, and productive, relationship with federal land management agencies. Another federal program in which her agency was involved included innovative policy planning pertaining to the use of federal lands. Among those were a BLM land exchange program with various counties, and a project with the city of Las Vegas to allow for exchange of federal lands for large amounts of acreage in rural areas of the state.

Mr. Carpenter asked if Ms. Wilcox had an updated list of land BLM was willing to exchange. She said her agency was working on an updated, prioritized list of all land identified by BLM for disposal, which would be ready before the end of this session. Mr. Carpenter said he would like to see that list as soon as possible.

The next question was from Mr. Marvel who asked if those recommendations would be submitted to a congressional delegation for discussion. He added he was under the impression Senator Reid was waiting for the committee to submit information regarding those BLM lands designated for exchange, so he could begin the process of developing legislation for the project at the federal level. Ms. Wilcox replied that information was correct. She added her agency had recently met with Senator Rhodes to work on developing a Nevada Lands Act, which would mirror the Southern Nevada Lands Act (SNLA) and encourage the Federal Government to offer those lands for sale.

Chairman de Braga asked if that were to happen, what percent of funding would go to northern Nevada. Ms. Wilcox responded nothing had been finalized yet; however, the committee’s input would be very welcome. At that point, she continued, 5 percent would go to the state’s permanent school fund for education, and 10 percent would go to local governments involved in land exchanges to cover the cost of providing infrastructure for development of those lands.

Mr. Hettrick asked if her agency intended to take money from private developers or from counties to pay for the land. Ms. Wilcox explained the SNLA, passed late last year in Congress, was the model for that program. The act provided that before the lands were offered for sale, the state and local governments were given the opportunity to set aside lands they need for public purposes. After those public lands were set aside, the remainder of the land was offered for competitive sale to private parties. Of the proceeds, Ms. Wilcox continued, 5 percent went to public schools, 10 percent went to local government, in this case Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), and 8 percent remained in Nevada for expenditure by the Federal Government for a list of items. The list of items was prioritized as follows:

• The acquisition of sensitive, privately held lands within the state, with precedence given to Clark County.
• Infrastructure development on federal lands.
• Development and maintenance of trails and recreational lands.
• Administrative cost for BLM.

Mr. Hettrick explained there was a federal arrangement, which allowed for the funding of transferred development rights in various counties. He said Douglas County allowed a person to take development rights and sell them. That allowed individuals to develop only a portion of the land and leave the rest undeveloped.

Mrs. de Braga stated she was troubled by the fact the congressional bill concerning the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands required only county discussion, not county approval. The Chair asked if the measure had passed with that wording. Ms. Wilcox said the wording of the bill required only county consultation.

Mrs. Segerblom asked if the land around Henderson and North Las Vegas was subject to the SNLA or federal land exchange. Ms. Wilcox said it was still legal to exchange land, but that was much less likely to occur now that the SNLA was in place.

Mr. Mortenson stated before any of the available land was sold, the county could identify certain sections, which could be considered for public purposes. He asked if that arrangement was part of a 5-year plan or could that land be held longer. Ms. Wilcox responded there was a provision within the SNLA, which allowed the BLM to set aside land identified for public purposes for future recreational development.

Mr. Marvel wanted to know the definition of sensitive lands. Ms. Wilcox said that was a very important issue, because there were many counties in Nevada, which were predominately on federal land, such as Lincoln County, which was 98 percent federally owned. She said she did not want to encourage the Federal Government to buy any remaining privately owned land in Lincoln County. It was her intention to clearly define how and where those monies would be spent.

Ms. Wilcox quickly briefed the committee on the Lake Tahoe issue, which stemmed from the President and Vice President’s visit to Lake Tahoe in July 1997. She explained $900 million was committed by President Clinton for the preservation of Lake Tahoe and the Tahoe Basin, with an additional $82 million committed by the State of Nevada. Most of those funds were spent by the Division of State Lands, Department of Transportation, and the Division of State Parks. Grants were being issued under the Tahoe Bond Act, which was approved by the voters for $20 million. Ms. Wilcox explained there were thousands of acres in state parks in the Tahoe Basin on which much environmental work was needed.

Next, Ms. Wilcox reminded the committee that last session the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining approved a bill for $135,000 in grants to the 27 Conservation Districts in the state, which amounted to $5,000 for each district. The conservation districts had done remarkable things with the money they received in the grants to districts program, including having used that seed money to receive local matching grants. Some of the projects the conservation districts have been working on include restoring riverbanks, range improvements, water quality monitoring programs, and the "paint-a-drain" project in which school children from Henderson stencil storm drains to warn people of the hazard of throwing pollutants in the storm sewer system. She extended the gratitude of the conservation districts to the committee for their continued support.

The chairman stated there was a separate bill for funding conservation districts. She said it was a long and involved educational process to convince everyone of the need to continue the beneficial work and wonderful projects performed by the conservation districts. She commended Pamela Wilcox for the work she had done as Acting Director of the Division of Conservation Districts, as well as all those who worked in the division, and the local conservation district members.

Mr. Neighbors asked if the BLM highlands in Clark County were going to be purchased or traded for sensitive lands. Ms. Wilcox said she did not anticipate much more happening in the way of land exchanges in Clark County. She added there were three large land exchanges pending, which would be completed soon. However, the SNLA process of selling land was much easier than land exchange, so she did not expect the process of land exchange to continue.

Chairman de Braga introduced Naomi Duerr, Administrator of the Division of Water Planning. Ms. Duerr provided the committee with an agency overview (Exhibit I). She also provided the committee with a catalog of her agency’s database and publication listing (Exhibit J). She explained data management was one of the most critical issues in Nevada. Ms. Duerr introduced two members of her staff, Randy Pahl (Hydrologist/Engineer) and Gary Horton (Economist) who were instrumental in developing Nevada’s State Water Plan. She said the State Water Plan was to be used only as a guide. Ms. Duerr provided the committee with the following handouts, all of which were Public Review Drafts, dated January 1999:

• "Nevada State Water Plan, Part 1, Background and Resource Assessment," (Exhibit K).
• "Nevada State Water Plan, Part 2, Water Use and Forecasts," (Exhibit L).
• "Nevada State Water Plan, Part 3, Water Planning and Management Issues," (Exhibit M).
• "Nevada State Water Plan, Part 4, Summary," (Exhibit N).
• "Nevada State Water Plan, Part 5, Appendices Part A," (Exhibit O).
• "Nevada State Water Plan, Part 6, Appendices Part B," (Exhibit P).

Ms. Duerr stressed her agency was involved in providing assistance to local governments. White Pine County was in the process of developing a local water plan, a project in which her agency had assisted. Her agency also provided assistance to Elko County, and served on the Washoe County Water Planning Commission.

Ms. Duerr noted last session the legislature had added a new program, which was involved in flood management issues. She reminded the committee the huge flood of 1997, at the start of last legislative session, caused approximately $600 million to $1 billion in damages. That flood caused state government to realize the need for prevention of flood impact. Two ways to prevent the impact caused by catastrophic flood events were to construct homes away from flood plains, and flood planning and mitigation. Her agency worked closely with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to intervene between FEMA and local governments. She pointed out recently Churchill and Lyon Counties, along with the city of Fallon, were all sent letters from FEMA, which said various things had to be done or those areas would be suspended from the National Flood Insurance Program. Most of FEMA’s concerns had to do with updating ordinances to be in compliance with the state model ordinance.

Ms. Duerr said her agency was assisting the state develop a Natural Resource Plan, which was a department-wide effort, meaning the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Her goal was to devise a group plan for all the agencies and resources managed within the department. The reason was the understanding that water resource management and water availability was the key to all other resource development. Another project her agency was involved in was helping the Walker River Basin develop a watershed plan for that area in an effort to resolve some of the problems which had been affecting farmers, as well as the lake. Water quality issues were also of major importance to the agency, for humans as well as fish and wildlife.

Ms. Duerr has been the administrator of Water Planning for over 5 years. During her time in the agency, she had stressed the importance of water education, construction of water shed planning, and the A.B. 198 Grants Program, which made $40 million available to help small local communities with their water systems. She said grants had been distributed to areas throughout Nevada, including Virginia City in Storey County, Blue Diamond in Clark County,

Kingston, Nevada, Austin, Nevada, and Cave Rock in the Lake Tahoe region. Those, as well as many other communities throughout the state, had received monetary aid in order to help them be in compliance with state and federal water standards.

The educational program in the division, Ms. Wilcox explained, was called Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) took the agency all around the state providing classes to teachers. She expressed her gratitude to the legislators from last session, who added $20,000 to the budget for contractors to continue work on the project. Several hundred teachers were instructed in water issues, water activities, the science of water, and water management.

Mr. Neighbors said, during the drought in Nevada, Walker Lake experienced a period of 6-years when no water was going into the lake. He asked if the problems caused by the drought were possibly compounded by agricultural diversions upstream from Walker Lake. Ms. Duerr responded in the affirmative, adding presently a study was being done by the Bureau of Reclamation, which worked with farmers on the various agricultural issues, and agricultural diversion in particular. Mr. Neighbors asked if the A.B. 198 Grant Program had run out of money. Ms. Duerr said it had not. She explained the fund had originally been $25 million, and she praised the legislature last session for allocating additional funding for the program. Over $25 million had already been spent on projects, but there was still $15 million in the fund. Mr. Neighbors asked if that was a matching grant fund, to which Ms. Duerr replied in the affirmative. The match requirement was a minimum of 15 percent, which included in-kind grants, loans, and grants from other agencies.

Mr. Marvel asked if Ms. Duerr had identified the source of salts and other pollutants, which were contaminating Walker Lake. She explained part of the problem was a natural up welling of salts under the lake, which was situated in a basin. Minerals all around the lake migrate and come up under the lake. Some of the contamination was from agricultural discharge, as well as incoming water flows dissolving minerals upstream and then washing them back into the lake. She said United States Geological Survey was in the process of researching the cause of contamination to the lake. Mr. Marvel asked if any steps were being taken by her agency to mitigate the problems. Ms. Duerr replied the process was still in the evaluation stage. She explained if there were less water usage, there would be less discharged water, which meant the total amount of salts going into the lake would be less. Therefore, conservation of water would improve water quality in that region.

Mr. Carpenter asked how much money had been given to Jarbidge for its water system. She said no money had been granted because of the iron problem in the system. Removing the iron was not cost effective due to the low population of the town, 20 individuals lived in Jarbidge in the winter, and approximately 100 in the summer. The cost would come out to about $20,000 per person. The use of reverse osmosis had been considered for use at the tap; however, that technology had not been accepted by the Division of Health. The Jarbidge problem was still a consideration.

Ms. Duerr described how the de-watering of mines was contributing to water problems throughout the state, adding that Nevada was the driest state in the union. That water evaporated as a coolant in the de-watering process at the plant, and was considered part of the consumptive use. Mr. Carpenter pointed out water taken from the ground in the process of removing water from mines was used for other purposes, and therefore contributed some benefit which should be considered.

Mr. Hettrick asked, in regard to the per person use of water in the state being the highest in the country, if the personal usage amount included water used for lawns and gardens as a total usage figure. Ms. Duerr affirmed that, and added that figure reflected total indoor and outdoor water use.

Mr. Mortenson wanted to know why, if there was a stated policy in place of not withdrawing water beyond the recharge rate, was the rate of water dropping so quickly; and why were municipalities continuing to pump water out at tremendous rates. No answer was given because the chairman interrupted the discussion stating the committee had run out of time. She requested the committee members review their handouts. She invited Ms. Duerr back to continue the discussion at a later date.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:41 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: