The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 1:34 p.m., on Monday, March 1, 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 Bob Beers, District 4

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Terry Crawforth, Administrator of the Nevada Division of Wildlife, was the first proponent to address the proposed legislation. Mr. Crawforth said the measure was an attempt to define the term bathers. The definition as it would be applied to the legislation meant swimmers.

Mr. Lee asked if there was real need to clarify the term. Fred Messmann, Boating Law Administrator of Division of Wildlife, responded the necessity for clarification stemmed from concern over the proximity of bathers and boaters, along with the wakes boats caused. The human safety issue was the motivating force behind the measure.

Mr. Hettrick asked how the law would distinguish between a bather and swimmer, and someone in the water who fell during water skiing. Mr. Messman explained there was a specific statute for water skiing, which included the raising of flags inside the boat and other operator requirements.

The Chairman called for a motion on A.B. 136.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 136 and opened the hearing on A.B. 138.

Mr. Crawforth explained the measure was needed to clarify laws regarding boating accidents, property damage monetary thresholds, and incident reporting requirements. The present threshold for property damage was $200 and it was his recommendation it be raised to $500. The proposed legislation was compatible with Coast Guard requirements. He provided the committee with suggested language for the measure (Exhibit C).

Mr. Messman pointed out his agency was responsible for enforcing the Nevada Boat Act and boating laws, as well as providing safe boating education programs. However, those responsibilities had never been established through law. The proposed legislation established the Division of Wildlife as the responsible agency for enforcing boating laws under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 0.60.

Mr. Lee asked if there was a fiscal note on the proposed measure or would the agency be taking on additional responsibilities without incurring additional costs to the agency or to the state. Mr. Messman said there would be no fiscal impact because the agency had been assuming those additional responsibilities for a while.

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 138 and opened the hearing on A.B. 199.

Assemblyman Bob Beers was the first to speak in favor of the proposed legislation. He explained the purpose of the legislation was to mandate boating education and was patterned after legislation from the State of Ohio passed last year. The measure was similar to laws throughout the nation regarding education and safe boating practices. Mr. Beers presented the committee with letters in support of the proposed measure (Exhibit D), along with a handout entitled "A Survey of Lake Mead Boating Accident Report" (Exhibit E). His testimony was accompanied by a computer Power-Point presentation (Exhibit F).

Mr. Beers said the legislation would apply to all boats and personal watercraft, commonly known as jet skis. The proposed measure would affect all boaters, including tourists and boat rental facilities. The measure carried state and local fiscal notes. Local fiscal impacts were the result of the creation of misdemeanor offenses within the proposed legislation. State fiscal impacts resulted from costs incurred from preparing educational materials and tests. Mr. Beers pointed out boating safety was a growing concern because the number of registered boats in Nevada had doubled in the past 19 years. The test could be proctored or non-proctored and was similar to the test provided by the Hunter Safety Program. Assemblyman Beers submitted a proposed amendment to A.B. 199 (Exhibit G) to qualify the ages of individuals the measure would affect. Enclosed in the information packet Mr. Beers presented the committee was a sample motorboat inventory agreement and safety check log from the Seven Crowns Resort. Mr. Beers suggested modeling the Nevada boating safety test, inventory agreement, and safety check log after the materials provided (Exhibit H).

Mr. Claborn asked for clarification regarding the age requirement the proposed legislation would affect. Mr. Beers explained people the age of 20 and over would be exempt from having to take the boating safety course and be tested.

Mrs. Segerblom asked if boaters on Lake Mead presently had to prove their ability to operate motorboats before renting them. Mr. Beers responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Lee asked what vessels a 15 horsepower motor operated. Mr. Beers replied some trolling motors were 15 horsepower as were most personal watercraft.

Mr. Lee asked if there would be reciprocity between Arizona and Nevada. Mr. Messman said Arizona did not currently have a requirement such as the one proposed in A.B. 199. Mr. Lee asked if someone rented a houseboat on Lake Mead at what point would an individual be under the jurisdiction of Nevada. Mr. Messman explained a temporary permit would be issued to allow non- residents of Nevada to boat legally in the state.

Mr. Bache asked for further clarification of reciprocity and the point of entry issue. He stated if an individual entered Lake Mead in Arizona under that state’s laws how would Nevada law be applied. Mr. Messman explained reciprocity was an extremely important issue. It would not matter where a safe boating course and test had been taken. It was important the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) approved the course and test. A 60-day temporary permit would serve as a legal waiver for jurisdictional issues. Neither the individual’s point of entry nor state of residence mattered. The laws of your state of residence applied to you if you were from any state other than Nevada. Foreign tourists would be issued permits and Canadians had an boating law association similar to NASBLA, which would govern their behavior on Nevada’s waterways.

The Chairman asked how would the law be enforced. Mr. Messman said the agency would have problems enforcing the 60-day permit law. Presently, statistics showed 90 percent of those involved in boating accidents had no boating safety education. Many of them were too young and inexperienced to be operating a motorboat. Mr. Messman stressed the fact the proposed legislation was not intended to be a license but was a certificate issued one time after completing the safe boating course and passing the test.

Mr. Hettrick asked for more clarification on the cost of the proposed measure and the fiscal impact on the state. Mr. Messman said the cost was minimal and essentially amounted to the cost of printing the tests. Mr. Hettrick asked how much of the proposed test would pertain to navigation and how would the navigational questions relate to jet skis. Mr. Messman said there would be an abbreviated test, which would apply to the marina operator. In addition, marina operators or boat rental facility personnel would be a required to advise boat renters of specific regulations in the area and safe boating practices.

Mr. Claborn asked what jurisdiction the United States Coast Guard had on Lake Mead. Mr. Messman said the agency had for many years managed the Boating Safety Detachment. In the early 1980’s Coast Guard involvement was phased out, and control and enforcement of boating safety was turned over to the states to manage.

Mr. Lee asked if boat registrations from Nevada or any other state played a role in the proposed legislation. Mr. Messman said boat owners did not always register their boats in their state of residency. Boats were registered in the state of principle use.

Mr. Carpenter said he was concerned a 10 or 15 horsepower motor, mostly trolling motors used for fishing, would not be speeding. They would be subject to the legislation. Mr. Beers said small engines on small boats used for fishing would be exempt.

Mr. Mortenson was concerned the proposed legislation would include sailboats with small horsepower motors. Mr. Beers said as a rule, operators of sailboats were more experienced sailors than operators of motorboats.

Ms. Parnell asked how business people involved in boat and Jet Ski rentals viewed the proposed legislation. She noted the measure required a passing score of 90 percent on the test. She was concerned so high a test score requirement would discourage renters and adversely impact rental facilities.

Mr. Beers assured the assemblywoman the test was very easy and the required score was negotiable. The intent was to ensure renters had knowledge of safe boating practices.

The Chairman asked if the horsepower requirement could be raised. Mr. Beers said that was possible and appropriate because it would be easier to enforce the measure if there were a consistent set of rules between California and Nevada.

Mr. Messman concluded the Division of Wildlife supported A.B. 199 and the agency was prepared to manage a mandatory boater education program.

Peter Kruger, a private citizen and boater, was the last to testify in support of the proposed legislation. He said A.B. 199 would be instrumental in ensuring safe boating practices throughout the state. Mr. Kruger pointed out California was presently processing similar legislation.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were any further questions or comments on A.B. 199. As there were none, the Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 199 and opened the meeting to a work session on A.B. 41.

Linda Eissmann, Legislative Counsel Bureau Policy Analyst, was the first to address the proposed legislation. Since the measure was first introduced, a proposed amendment had been submitted by the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority (HRBWA), which had been modified. The proposed amendment was resubmitted in revised form (Exhibit I). The problem with the first draft of the proposed amendment was the language jeopardized the state’s ability to keep administrative authority over the various environmental programs. Allen Biaggi, Administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted Attachment C of Exhibit I, which provided NDEP administrative authority over the program without changing the intent of the measure. The subcommittee, which was held to review the proposed legislation, agreed the revised proposed amendment from NDEP was the best compromise possible. The subcommittee voted unanimously to recommend to the full committee Do Pass on A.B. 41 with the revised amendment.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were any questions or comments on A.B. 41. There were none. The Chairman called for a vote on the proposed legislation.

The Chairman asked Mr. Carpenter to handle the measure on the floor of the assembly.

The Chairman closed the work session on A.B. 41 and opened the work session on A.B. 103.

Ms. Eissmann explained A.B. 103 was intended to re-establish the Division of Agriculture as a department and the Division of Minerals as a division of the Commission on Mineral Resources. A subcommittee was held to work out details of the legislation. Among those details was the placement of various agencies presently under the Department of Business and Industry, which have elected to go under the Department of Agriculture (Exhibit J). Regarding the Division of Minerals, the subcommittee agreed the agency would be incorporated within the Commission on Mineral Resources, which had policy setting authority. The subcommittee also agreed rates should be set by the commission and rate setting authority taken out of statute. The subcommittee recommended Amend and Do pass on the proposed legislation with the changes described.

Mr. Bache said the 1993 reorganization of state government intended to scale down the size of state government. He said he was concerned the proposed legislation would be the beginning of state government being expanded once more. He asked how many employees the Department of Agriculture would be employing and what other changes should be expected.

Paul Iverson, Administrator of Division of Agriculture, was called upon to respond to Mr. Bache’s question. He said currently the Division of Agriculture employed 75 full-time employees and approximately 120 part-time employees. He said his agency had requested additional employees through the budget process during the current legislative session, which had nothing to do with the division becoming a department. The re-establishment of Division of Agriculture to department status would not require additional employees.

Mr. Iverson said the Division of Agriculture already had an administrative infrastructure in place and could assist the various agencies under the new department with accounting, personnel, and administrative services. The new department would allow the opportunity for all agricultural agencies and boards to work together in addressing the problems impacting agriculture and to advance the industry throughout the state. Mr. Iverson reported the cost for the transition to department status would be minimal, as all existing material would be utilized until reordering was required.

Mr. Lee asked for clarification of rate setting authority in regards to the Division of Minerals. Mr. Hettrick explained the Division of Minerals was run by self-assessment, which meant there was no general fund and no budget. The agency set rates they charged themselves on assessment. If Division of Minerals was to become a commission responsible for themselves and answering directly to the governor, the commission should have rate setting authority rather than the legislature.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were additional questions or comments, and there were none. She called for a motion on A.B. 103.

The Chairman asked if there was any further business before the committee. As there was none, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:05 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: