The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 1:42 p.m., on Monday, February 22, 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. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. John Marvel (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Tom Collins, District 1

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mike Baughman, representing Humboldt River Basin Water Authority (HRBWA) addressed the proposed legislation. He explained the HRBWA board of directors had elected to withdraw its request for A.B. 133 on February 11. The board of directors requested a letter from the committee be sent to Senator Rhoads of the Legislative Interim Public Lands Committee stating the issues raised in the measure should be addressed during the interim and explored more fully. He said the issues raised in the bill were important and complex. Unlike the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining, the Interim Public Lands Committee would have ample time to explore the measure’s diverse aspects (Exhibit C).

The Chairman agreed with the decision of HRBWA; however, she explained she would receive testimony on A.B. 133 from anyone who cared to address the measure. As there was no one who wished to address the proposed legislation, the Chairman called for a vote.

Chairman de Braga called for a motion on Mr. Baughman’s request for the drafting of a letter from HRBWA to the Legislative Interim Public Lands Committee requesting it consider A.B. 133 during the interim.

The Chair closed the meeting on A.B. 133 and opened the hearing on A.B. 132.

Pamela Wilcox, Administrator of Division of State Lands, explained the proposed legislation was requested by her agency as a housekeeping measure. The intent of the bill was to codify the continuing provisions of several statutes, which were not codified when originally passed. Those statute provisions were as follows:

• The original Tahoe Bond Act (TBA) of 1985.
• TBA 1985 amendments from 1987 and 1989.
• Two bills establishing the Coverage Mitigation Program passed in 1993 and 1995.
• The second TBA passed in1995.

Ms. Wilcox said initially those bills did not require codification, but as time passed it became clear to both her agency and the Attorney General’s office the responsibilities mandated by the measures made it necessary to codify the legislation within the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). She said no new authorities were granted to the Division of State Lands by the measure, it was only meant to codify existing authorities in the Tahoe Basin (Exhibit D).

Mr. Carpenter asked if any lands considered private property were included in the measure. Ms. Wilcox explained Division of State Lands had no regulatory authority over private property. The various programs regarding the Tahoe Basin with which her agency was involved were as follows:

• Programs for acquiring land.
• Acquiring coverage rights.
• Retiring coverage rights.

• Providing grants for various erosion control projects.
• Providing grants for environmental restoration projects.

Ms. Wilcox explained coverage rights were the amount of land coverage allowed by law on a parcel of land. She pointed out Division of State Lands had been directed by the Nevada Legislature to protect the environment within the framework of property rights in the basin. All acquisition programs in the Tahoe Basin were from private individuals willing to sell their property. Division of State Lands paid fair market value for all private property acquired.

Mr. Carpenter said the measure contained a number of items, which caused him to consider the possibility Division of State Lands could move onto private property to conduct various work projects, such as preventing and mitigating the environmentally detrimental effects of development, land coverage, and pollution. He asked how her agency could move ahead on such a program without adversely affecting private property. Ms. Wilcox said Division of State Lands had been conducting similar projects since 1986 without damaging private property in any way. Currently, a priority project in the Tahoe Basin was stream restoration in areas damaged by development.

The health of the streams was critical to protecting the water quality of Lake Tahoe, Ms. Wilcox continued. Projects involving those streams had been difficult to conduct because the streams needing restoration typically originated on United States Forest Service land, and wound through both privately and publicly owned land enroute to Lake Tahoe. She said the agency was improving its ability to handle those complex projects, and developing procedural policies to allow for payments to private property owners for conservation easements across their lands whenever needed.

The Chairman asked if there were any other questions or comments, and there were none. She called for a motion on the measure.

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 132 and opened the hearing on A.B. 134.

Galen Denio, Supervisor of the Bureau of Health Protection Services of the Nevada State Health Division, spoke in favor of the proposed legislation. He explained the measure was designed to ensure consistency between state law and the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The proposed legislation would make sure funds appropriated by Congress and allocated to Nevada by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were not withheld because the Health Division did not obtain the authority to implement certain provisions of the SDWA. Without the requisite authority, Mr. Denio said, Nevada might be subjected to 40 percent withholding of federal capitalization grants in the future.

Mr. Denio explained the measure also changed the requirements for operator certification in order for them to be consistent with SDWA by eliminating the 100-person minimum requirement. Those changes would prevent Nevada from having a 20 percent withholding placed on it, which amounted to approximately $1.55 million annually. He acknowledged the cooperation of Nevada’s public water systems in ensuring safe drinking water for the state. He said his agency looked forward to working with public water systems in implementing the provisions of SDWA. Mr. Denio’s testimony was contained in (Exhibit E).

Mr. Denio provided the committee with additional handouts as follows:

• Classification of Public Water Systems flow charts using both existing and projected criteria (Exhibit F).
• Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program projected expenditure (Exhibit G).
• Existing NRS regulations pertaining to the classification of public water systems operator certification (Exhibit H).

Chairman de Braga asked what a transient water system was. Mr. Denio explained it was a public water system designed to service an indefinite number of people in areas where people were passing through, such as rest stop facilities along highways. It was not a regular public water system, which served a large number of people for a definite period of time.

The Chairman asked when Nevada was required to be in full compliance with new SDWA standards. Mr. Denio said that date was October 1, 1999. On that date EPA required each state to have a program in place to evaluate technical, managerial, and financial capability of new public water system standards.

Mr. Hettrick asked what the definition of non-community water systems was, and if the federal law required those systems to be in compliance. Mr. Denio explained the definition of non-community water systems were public water systems that had approximately 15 service connections servicing approximately 25 people who were not year-round residents of a community. Those systems were also required by law to be in compliance with SDWA standards.

Mr. Hettrick said the measure required an unnecessarily strict standard by mandating certified operators maintain non-community water systems with only 15 infrequently used service connections. Mr. Denio said the measure stated transient water systems were non-community water systems. Those systems were exempted from the requirement if their systems were supplied by ground water sources not under the direct influence of surface water.

Mr. Hettrick stated many campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks could fall under that classification, and maintained the requirement was heavy handed. Mr. Denio pointed out public water systems classification was difficult to understand; however, both the Federal Government and EPA mandated those regulations. A system was not a public water system if it did not serve an average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days per year. If a system served customers for a period of less than 60 days per year, it was not considered a public water system under federal guidelines, and was exempted from the federal requirements.

Mr. Carpenter said the definition would affect some ranches as well as campgrounds and parks. He asked what would happen to people who did not comply with federal regulations. Mr. Denio said none of the regulations applied to domestically supplied systems such as ranches. There were specific threshold criteria for determining if a water system qualified as a public system. Mr. Carpenter said everyone wanted safe drinking water. Hundreds of thousands of county funds had been spent on correcting the water problem in Jarbidge, but there was nothing wrong with that community’s water. Mr. Denio said that community was required to conform to safe drinking water standards enforced by his agency, and was on a priority list for obtaining grant money to assist the community’s public water system.

The Chairman said a situation arose in Gillman Springs, Lander County late 1998. One of the water users complained the water coming from the public system was unsafe and caused people to become ill. Some residents elected to remove themselves from the system; thereby leaving too few remaining citizens on the system to qualify for the protective standards guaranteed by federal guidelines. Federal safe drinking water standards were enforced only when there were adequate numbers of people receiving water service. Mr. Denio agreed the number of people in that community dropped below the threshold number for his agency’s jurisdiction. The Chairman stated the residents of that community could not afford to drill their own wells, and were forced to stay on an unsafe and unregulated system.

Mr. Mortenson asked how calculations were performed to determine accurate numbers of people receiving water service. He presented a hypothetical situation based on a real community with which he was familiar. It was a sparsely populated recreational community where only approximately half its residents lived there year-round. There were never more than 15 people in the community at any given moment despite the fact the water system serviced a total of 30 homes. He asked if given those criteria, would a community such as the one he described be under the authority of A.B. 134. Mr. Denio explained each community needed to be examined individually before determining its status under the provisions of SDWA. Situations such as the one described by Mr. Mortenson were being addressed through the Nevada Drinking Water Revolving Fund (NDWRF).

The Chairman asked if there had been any resistance to the federal law since it was enacted. Mr. Denio said every state in the nation had expressed concern regarding its ability to respond to changes in federal regulations. It was that concern which prompted NDWRF to be passed in 1996. Technical assistance programs were available to communities with small systems, which were those serving under 3,300 connections.

Mr. Hettrick pointed out the proposed legislation stated a water system that regularly served 25 or more people for 60 days or more a year was considered a public water system. He asked what impact the legislation would have on parks, particularly if certified operators would be required to operate those facilities. Mr. Denio said the definitions included in the measure were confusing. Water systems in parks were transient water systems rather than public water systems. Under the terms of the bill, if those systems were served by ground water, certified operators were not required. However, transient noncommunity public water systems would be required to meet certain requirements of SDWA. Mr. Denio referred the committee to Exhibit F, a flow chart detailing the criteria established for determining facility operation requirements.

Chairman de Braga asked what the term under the influence of surface water meant. Mr. Denio explained the term, for instance, could describe a system fed by a spring. It was a determination that needed to be made for each individual water source.

Mr. Hettrick asked if certification for water facility operators was required by federal law, to which Mr. Denio responded in the affirmative. The State Health Division had an operator certification program since 1991. The basic change in the federal law expanded the scope of operator certification requirements.

Mr. Neighbors asked if other states had to conform to the federally mandated deadline. Mr. Denio said the states had two years to implement an operator certification program. Other states were moving forward to implement the program because no state would refuse to cooperate with the federal mandate and risk losing 20 percent of its total funding.

Mr. Carpenter asked if there was a certification test the committee could review. Mr. Denio said the measure required the establishment of an advisory board composed of at least seven members, a portion of which had to be members of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and another portion had to be certified operators. It also required Nevada to enter into a contract with AWWA to administer testing.

Mr. Carpenter asked if a ranch supplying 25 ranch hands with water would be held to the same requirements as the city of Las Vegas. Mr. Denio said most ranches were not public water systems and would not be held to the same requirements as larger water systems. Small systems were held to different standards than large systems. The size and complexity of each system needed to be reviewed individually in order to determine its specific requirements.

Mrs. de Braga asked if ranches were considered domestic systems. Mr. Denio replied in the affirmative, adding unless it was a dude ranch, ranches were exempt from the law. She said the question was reasonable because in Nevada there were communities in which drinking water was only available from one source.

The Chairman asked how the proposed legislation would effect water service provided to rental properties, such as trailer parks, who often included water fees within its rental cost, also known as a "paid for service." Mr. Denio explained trailer parks that included water service with lot rental rates were not singled out for economic regulation by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). However, they were community systems and the State Health Division exercised the safe drinking water standard regulations over those systems. Those systems were administered to ensure water quality only if they met the threshold requirements for public water systems. Mrs. de Braga said it would be difficult to enforce those standards in rural areas.

Mr. Hettrick asked if condominiums were considered public water systems. Mr. Denio said if the condominium was served off the public water system they were not considered their own public system unless they had their own wells. Mr. Hettrick asked how much money the state received from the Federal Government over the last 5-years. Mr. Denio said Nevada received its first capitalization grant of approximately $12.5 million from the NDWRF in May 1998 for fiscal year 1997. The program was authorized in August 1996, and the state received its first grant within a year. He said the agency had not yet applied for grant money for fiscal year 1998, but would apply for $7.l million in the spring of 1999. For fiscal year 1999, he expected Nevada to be eligible for $7.7 million in capitalization grant money. Mr. Denio said the Public Water System Supervision Program, in existence for a number of years, had provided Nevada with grants every year of its existence, providing the state with between $750,000 and $1 million in grant money annually.

The next speaker was Charles Lawson, Vice President and Legislative Director of the Nevada Rural Water Association (NRWA). He said his agency supported A.B. 134, but added NRWA had some reservations regarding the measure. He said the State Division of Water Planning grant regulations were written without input from his agency. Provisions within the grant established guidelines and regulations, which prohibited the use of many necessary and innovative improvement practices. He requested the concerns of NRWA be considered before the measure was passed out of committee.

Mr. Lawson provided the committee with Part III of the Federal Register, the Environmental Protection Agency "Final Guidelines for Certification of Operators of Community and Nontransient Noncommunity Public Water Systems" (Exhibit I). He said the handout described federally suggested perimeters states were required to accommodate, not all of which were realistic when applied to Nevada. He provided the committee with a newspaper clipping from the Mason Valley News, February 19, 1999, which stated local opposition to the State Division of Water Planning grant program (Exhibit J).

Mr. Lawson pointed out the importance of having representatives from NRWA on hand to question regulations it considered unrealistic for Nevada, but at the same time to work within federal requirements through state agencies. He presented the committee with a pamphlet, "The Backbone of Small System Compliance" (Exhibit K), which illustrated the importance of involving rural community agencies in decision making policies. It was important for rural Nevada communities to govern themselves, rather than be controlled by outside federal agencies, Mr. Lawson concluded.

Mr. Hettrick asked if NRWA chose to apply the "grandparenting" provision to rural water systems, wherever applicable throughout the state, as provided within the federal register. Mr. Lawson responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Denio responded to Mr. Hettrick’s question regarding grandparenting provisions by stating it provided operators of existing systems flexibility in the certification and re-certification processes. Currently the agency provided provisional certification, which was a grandparenting clause.

Mr. Carpenter said he was concerned because the Federal Register did not grant states much say regarding the certification process. The Federal Government often dictated terms, which did not meet conditions in Nevada.

Mr. Hettrick pointed out the federal register allowed a system owner 2 years to apply for the grandparenting provision. If grandparenting was allowed, the state could stipulate the amount of time the provision was enforced.

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 134, and explained the measure would be brought up in a work session. The hearing on A.B. 135 was opened.

Robert Gronowski, Bureau Chief Plant Industry of the Division of Agriculture, spoke in support of the measure. He said the measure was proposed because, throughout the nation, plant industry bureau chiefs from state departments of agriculture were part of an organization known as the National Plant Board (NPB). The NPB was responsible for harmonizing and simplifying the movement of plant materials throughout the country without causing the introduction and spread of plant pests. Recently, objectives for NPB included review of nursery laws throughout the 50 states and Puerto Rico, with emphasis on establishing uniform regulations on management of nurseries and transportation of nursery stock. Mr. Gronowski said it was necessary to clarify existing state laws in order to define plant pests, establish inspection guidelines, and identify other conditions, which could cause economic damage to Nevada through interstate and intrastate nursery stock sales and transporting.

The Chairman asked if the measure was for clarifying and defining nursery related issues without the need for a particular effective date. Mr. Gronowski responded in the affirmative to both questions.

Mrs. Segerblom asked what prompted the legislation. Mr. Gronowski explained the mobility of people and goods had brought about a need for uniform nursery laws.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were any further questions or comments regarding the legislation and there were none. She called for a motion.

The Chairman requested Mr. Claborn bring the measure to the Floor of the Assembly. She closed the hearing on the measure, and called upon Legislative Counsel Bureau Analyst Linda Eissmann to review a list of proposed committee Bill Draft Requests (BDR) (Exhibit L). Those were as follows:

1. Resolution to the Secretary of the Interior regarding Surface Mining Regulations, also known as 3809 Regulations, urging compliance with provisions in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998.
2. Resolution to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regarding the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), requesting recognition of the value of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
3. Resolution to the USEPA regarding regulations of Animal Feed Operations (AFO), stating the industry was of crucial importance to Nevada and to express concern about proposed reduction in the threshold number for which animal permits were required.
4. Revisions to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 504.295, subsection 3, to waive the applicable fee if possession of live wildlife was for exhibition and display of animals for educational purposes only.
5. Revisions to Chapter 552 and 561 of the NRS regarding management of bees and apiaries.

Ms. Eissmann called upon Paul Iverson, Administrator of Division of Agriculture, to address item number 5. Mr. Iverson pointed out the apiary profession was no longer a large scale enterprise in Nevada, and currently most beekeepers in the state were hobbyists with no more than 4 or 5 beehives. It was no longer necessary to have extensive legislation and regulation of the industry as it was in the past. For that reason, Mr. Iverson explained, he was requesting a BDR to modernize current laws to reflect the change in the industry, and to minimize monitoring of beekeepers and hives. Beekeepers were willing and able to monitor themselves, particularly in northern Nevada where Africanized Honey Bees were not a problem. Apiaries and beehives in the southern part of the state would continue to be monitored due to the Africanized Honey Bee problem.

The Chairman asked if Africanized Honey Bees produced honey. Mr. Iverson said they did, but it was necessary to continually "re-queen" the hives in order to preserve the integrity of the beehive.

Mr. Mortenson asked Mr. Iverson to explain "re-queening." Mr. Iverson explained it was a systematic process of replacing the queen bee to ensure balance and productivity within the hive. He provided the committee with an explanation of the process (Exhibit M).

Mr. Neighbors asked how many hives large honey producers had. Mr. Iverson said that number was possibly as many as 25 to 100 beehives.

Mr. Claborn asked if honeybees were responsible for pollinating alfalfa fields. Mr. Iverson explained leaf cutter bees were pollinators for alfalfa fields.

Chairman de Braga called for motions on items number 4 and 5 presented by Ms. Eissmann.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on committee items and opened the hearing on A.J.R. 2.

Ms. Eissmann presented the committee with recommended language for amending the measure (Exhibit N). She explained attachment C contained the most current language suggested for amending the proposed legislation.

Assemblyman Collins explained the proposed amendments to A.J.R. 2 had been developed from information compiled in committee meetings, from the Division of Agriculture, from Farm Bureau, and various other agencies. It reflected a collaboration of all concerned parties. He said he hoped it would satisfy everyone involved in the wild horse issue, and improve the economies of rural Nevada communities by providing a sensible horse management program.

The Chairman stated the only remaining problem she had with the proposed legislation was the statement the purpose of the act was to preserve wild horses, and to protect those horses and burros from capture, branding, harassment, and death. Mrs. de Braga said in order to actually manage the horses it was necessary to capture and age brand the horses.

Assemblyman Collins agreed with the Chairman, adding the original intent of Congress in passing the measure in 1971 was to stop the capture, branding, harassment, and death of wild horses. The intent of the measure was to add to the original act and ensure accountability in herd management. He said the measure was also designed to prevent ranchers from augmenting their herds with wild horses.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were any other questions or comments, and there were none. She called for a motion.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: