The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 1:39 p.m., on Monday, March 15, 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 Marvel

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. John Jay Lee

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Speaker Joseph Dini, Assembly District 38

Assemblyman Bob Beers, District 4

Assemblyman Tom Collins, District 1

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Robert Stewart, Public Information Officer, Bureau of Land Management

After roll was called, the Chairman opened the hearing on A.B. 296.

Assemblyman Carpenter was the first to address the proposed legislation. He explained the measure was introduced to amend the elk tag incentive program. The legislation was passed during the 1997 Legislative Session (Exhibit C). Research conducted during the interim determined further amendments to the measure were needed (Exhibit D). Mr. Carpenter provided the committee with a handout describing the elk tag incentive program (Exhibit E).

Mr. Carpenter explained the proposed amendment addressed the issue of elk herd populations that used private land controlled by an applicant. It provided for the establishment of target levels for elk populations and the number of days elk herds used applicants’ private land in a calendar year. It also limited the number of special incentive elk tags issued in each calendar year to not more than one-half the number of bull elk tags issued in that calendar year in each management area. The Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) was the land management agency in charge of the program.

Chairman de Braga asked if the amendment changed any other sections of the proposed legislation. Mr. Carpenter responded in the negative.

Gregg Tanner, Program Officer for Nevada Division of Wildlife, was the next speaker to address the proposed legislation. Mr. Tanner explained A.B. 470 was passed in the 1997 Legislative Session and established the elk tag incentive program. During the interim, problems associated with the legislation surfaced, prompting the introduction of A.B. 296. He provided the committee with the codified and adapted version of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners (BWC) regulations for the program (Exhibit F). The regulations established the criteria for formulating the number of special incentive elk tags to be issued in one year. He explained A.B. 296 clarified the criteria established in the original legislation.

Chairman de Braga asked where provisions determining the number of elk and the number of days elk used private lands within specific management areas had been established. Mr. Tanner said those numbers and the approved formula used by BWC came from the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC), section 502.42279. When the original legislation was considered in 1997 specific criteria had not been developed. The new legislation was intended to incorporate into statute the established criteria and approved formula to be used by a program management agency in the issuance of special incentive elk tags.

Mr. Humke asked Mr. Tanner if the proposed legislation complied with BWC regulations. Mr. Tanner asked Larry Johnson, Representing the Coalition for Nevada Wildlife (CNW), to respond to the question. He explained modification of the 1997 measure was necessary because errors in the original language rendered the legislation unusable. The language contained in the proposed legislation and subsequent amendment was in compliance with BWC regulations. The regulations that had been formulated and approved provisionally were contingent upon the proposed amendment.

Mr. Humke asked if the regulations that went into effect in January 1999 were contingent upon Mr.Carpenter’s proposed legislation and the corresponding proposed amendment. Mr. Johnson responded in the affirmative. Mr. Humke said that information was incredible because he did not realize the legislature functioned in such a manner. Mr. Tanner explained the legislation had never been used and no tags had been issued as a result of the 1997 legislation. Mr. Tanner said the original language contained in A.B. 470 allowed the land management agency in charge of the elk tag incentive program to determine the number of elk above the target level for issuing elk tags. That section of the original measure was troublesome because BWC had that authority, not the land management agency, under Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 501.181. The intent of A.B. 296 was to make that correction.

Mr. Humke asked if current BWC regulations could function legally without any additional legislation. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation (NFBF), responded to the question. He explained the BWC regulations withstood the review of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, and could possible function legally without additional legislation. However, the proposed legislation clarified the elk tag incentive program and made it more understandable. A.B. 296 would simplify the program. Mr. Busselman said he was a member of a BWC advisory committee tasked with developing regulations for the elk program. When the regulations were submitted to BWC for approval the committee was aware they were on the edge of legal authority but within the bounds of the criteria established in A.B. 470.

Mr. Busselman continued A.B. 296 was the result of a process evolving since 1995. During that session the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining proposed and adopted the original idea of developing a statewide elk management plan. A recommendation was made during the 1995-96 interim to create a landowner incentive elk tag program. The 1997 legislation established the framework for promulgating legislative authority for the regulations suggested by the committee. The legislative intent of A.B. 470 was to increase the number of elk throughout the state and to develop an elk management program, which would provide incentives for landowner participation. The process was a combined effort of landowners, ranchers, NDOW, NFBF, sportsmen, and BWC. The result was good for elk, landowners, and sportsmen. A.B. 296 was the result of a long evolutionary process designed to satisfy all concerned entities.

Mr. Johnson explained legislation known as the Landowners Depredation Compensation Deer and Antelope Tag Program, which was over 10 years old, was a positive turning point in landowners and sportsmen relations because it resolved the issue of property damage caused by deer and antelope.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were additional questions or comments on the proposed legislation and there were none. She called for a motion on the measure.

Mr. Claborn requested the record show he voted against the measure. The Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 296 and opened the hearing on A.B. 324.

Speaker Joseph Dini was the first to testify in support of the proposed legislation. He said he was sponsoring the measure because the destruction caused by the noxious weed Tall white top was unacceptable. Mr. Dini explained Tall white top had infiltrated rivers and streams throughout the northwestern part of the state, and was a dangerous and prolific weed. The intent of the legislation was to assist in the eradication of that environmentally harmful weed.

Mr. Dini explained the measure contained two parts. One part was the fiscal impact of the legislation, which would be considered in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining would assist in the other part of the legislation, which established provisions for governing educational, research, service, and outreach programs of the Nevada Cooperative Extension in both rural areas and urban centers throughout Nevada.

Robert Dickens, Governmental Relations for University Nevada Reno (UNR), was the next proponent of A.B. 324. Dr. Dickens said the legislation was the result of an extensive interim process conducted by UNR in conjunction with the Nevada Cooperative Extension (NCE) and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. He presented the committee with the NCE mission statement (Exhibit G).

Karen Hinton, Dean and Director of UNR Cooperative Extension, was the next to testify in support of the proposed legislation. She said the recommended language modernized the topics and subject matter in which NCE was engaged. Dr. Hinton pointed out needs assessment studies conducted by UNR and NCE faculty were instrumental in developing programs appropriate to local needs.

Sarah Mersereau, Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), was the next proponent of the proposed legislation. Ms. Mersereau chaired the NCE working group tasked with developing legislation pertaining to NCE programs and agency modernization designed to satisfy all concerned entities. The working group was a task force and performed a great deal of research on cooperative extension programs throughout the United States. The working group reviewed a vast array of programs needed in Nevada by conducting field visits throughout the state. The result was legislation developed through a cooperative effort between individuals from the agriculture industry, environmentalists, private citizens, and local, state and federal governmental agencies.

Chairman de Braga said the task force helped determine a wide variety of needs throughout the state and assisted in the development of appropriate programs for meeting those needs. She said it was extremely important for NCE to continue working in the spirit of cooperation and to coordinate contemporary programs, which satisfied the diverse needs of the people of Nevada.

Ms. Parnell asked if NCE used distance learning to any extent. Ms. Mersereau said the extension was beginning to develop programs for distance learning in various communities. Dr. Hinton added compressed video productions were presently being developed in three locations and were proving to be successful. One compressed video program, which generated from the Reno office, was the training of master gardeners in Churchill and Humboldt Counties. Ms. Parnell said she was proud to cosponsor the measure.

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, was the next to speak as a proponent of A.B. 324. He said his organization was very pleased to have the cooperative working affiliation with the new dean and director of the Nevada Cooperative Extension. The changes recently made by NCE were positive and would benefit the state a great deal because they modernized the agency, which promised to give the citizens of Nevada a greater opportunity to utilize the many facets of the agency. He said the measure was also important and supported by his organization because it addressed the problem of Tall white top in the state. Everything possible needed to be done to eradicate that terribly noxious weed. Mr. Busselman’s testimony was contained in Exhibit H.

Mr. Mortenson asked what techniques would be used to eradicate Tall white top across the state. Dr. Hinton said developing a plan to eradicate Tall white top would be the first step in the process, which was an ongoing process.

Sue Donaldson, Water Quality Education Specialist from University of Nevada Reno Cooperative Extension, was called upon to address the issue of Tall white top eradication. Dr. Donaldson said she had been studying the issue of Tall white top for a long time and had prepared an informational handout on the subject (Exhibit I). The problems caused by that extremely noxious weed were many and diverse. Something had to be done soon because the devastation caused by the voracious plant threatened watersheds, river and creek beds, farming, and ranching throughout the state. Educational programs needed to be developed and carried out in order to educate people on how to identify the weed. After optimal procedures had been developed to eradicate the plant, educational programs on plant eradication needed to be developed. Developing safe solutions to infestations in riparian areas needed to be established.

John O’Brien, Agriculture Programs Coordinator of the Nevada Division of Agriculture (NDOA) testified next in support of the measure. He was also a member of the Nevada Weed Management Association (NWMA) a nonprofit organization dedicated to the management and eradication of invasive weeds such as Tall white top. He said the organizations he represented supported the proposed legislation, both of which worked closely with NCE in urban and rural community programs. Without NCE support, NDOA and NWMA could not continue working on the invasive weed problem. Among the possible techniques NDOA was considering for Tall white top eradication were herbicide use, various application techniques for applying herbicides, planting competitive vegetation in infested areas, and plowing under noxious weeds and cultivating those areas with useful crops.

Mr. Mortenson asked how the money provided for invasive weed eradication would be spent. He said he was concerned money would continue to be spent on studying the problem rather than actively doing something to eradicate invasive weeds. Mr. O’Brien said he did not have an answer to the Assemblyman’s question, but added hopefully money would go to both studying and eradicating noxious weeds. The Chairman pointed out the proposed legislation requested funding for abatement of noxious weeds, not research and study.

Chairman de Braga said the committee did not deal with appropriation of funds, but she agreed to provide the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means with a recommendation to support funding for NCE to carry on its work on invasive weeds.

Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, testified in support of A.B. 324. He said the agency he represented supported the measure because the issue was very serious. He added his agency supported the language within the proposed legislation describing the modernization techniques developed by NCE. The new programs would better serve the needs of the citizens throughout the State of Nevada.

The last proponent of the proposed legislation to testify was Robert Stewart, Public Information Officer for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Mr. Stewart said his agency wanted to go on record as being in support of A.B. 324. He agreed with all proponents of the proposed legislation and added the problem was as serious as described. Any effort to manage invasive plants in the State of Nevada would be supported by BLM.

The Chairman asked if there were any additional comments or questions on the proposed legislation. As there were none, she asked for a motion on the measure.

The Chairman asked Ms. Ohrenschall to handle the measure on the floor of the assembly. She closed the hearing on A.B. 324 and opened the hearing on A.B. 198.

The first opponent to the measure to testify was Robert Stewart, Public Information Officer for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Mr. Stewart said his agency was against the measure because it might result in confusion in the ranching community by creating a definition of grazing preferences, which was at odds with the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA). TGA stated preference in the issuance of grazing permits was to be given to those landowners within or near a district who were engaged in the livestock business. No preference was to be given to any such owner, occupant, or settler whose rights were acquired between January 1, 1934 and December 31, 1934 (Exhibit J).

Mr. Stewart said BLM was concerned A.B. 198 would create an expectation in ranching communities throughout the state, which did not and could not comport with federal law. Declaring a grazing preference transferee must not be deprived of grazing preference rights appurtenant to the land unless the individual consented to or received fair compensation for that right, could result in confusion. The statement reflected an intent to ensure reduction in permitted use below the level previously authorized by BLM and required just compensation after the base property was transferred and the transferee applied for a new grazing permit. The language, Mr. Stewart pointed out, was ambiguous because it suggested BLM was required to provide that just compensation. However, TGA plainly stated grazing permits were not compensable or protected as a private property right under the Constitution.

Mike Baughman, representing Eureka County, testified in support of the proposed legislation. He explained the measure attempted to correct a longstanding problem in the State of Nevada regarding the transfer of grazing rights and the granting of grazing permits. Mr. Baughman provided the committee with a chart showing the gradual reduction of animal unit months, or foliage allotment available to livestock, accessible in Elko and Eureka Counties over the past several years (Exhibit K). He said the intent of the legislation was to protect landowners that purchased property with grazing allotments attached from significant economic loss.

Mr. Carpenter explained the legislation was intended to limit BLM reductions of animal unit months, or grazing allotments, which were seriously hurting ranchers in rural parts of the state. The BLM should make appropriate reductions on a given piece of rangeland only after considerable scientific analysis. What was occurring, particularly in the Battle Mountain area, was unscientific and arbitrary reductions of rangeland allotments without formal studies or in-depth analysis. Most BLM animal unit month grazing allotments were done by BLM because ownership of land was transferred. Mistakes had been made, and continued to be made by BLM, which had seriously and negatively impacted rural Nevada ranchers. The proposed legislation would limit the ability of BLM to make those unfair determinations without conducting precise and detailed studies. It also ensured grazing rights permits would be transferred to the new owners when land changed ownership.

After welcoming a group of girl scouts who entered the hearing room, Chairman de Braga asked Mr. Baughman to explain how BLM contacted ranchers to inform them of grazing allotment changes and if those changes were based on scientific analysis. Mr. Baughman said BLM did inform individuals of the reason allotments were changed. Those changes were not always based on scientific determinations. Prior notification to landowners and ranchers of re-evaluations of allotments prior to land ownership transfers were desirable but not always performed. Appeals of BLM determinations were allowed but were rarely successful.

Mr. Mortenson asked how many years had BLM been suspending grazing permits as a result of land transfers and if the federal agency had ever adjusted grazing permits upward. Mr. Baughman said approximately 35 years. He was not aware of BLM allotments being raised, only lowered. Available forage for livestock had consistently gone down as well.

Mr. Carpenter said there was no question the general trend was downward; however, there had been some increases, which were recognized only after extensive review of rangeland. Adjustments made exclusively as a result of land ownership transfers were the target of A.B. 198.

Demar Dahl, private citizen, was the next speaker to address the proposed legislation. He was a proponent of the measure because, as a rancher from Elko County, he considered the unscientific deductions of allocated rangeland permits by BLM a genuine threat to ranchers throughout the state. The practice of BLM permit reductions at the time of land transfers had only been going on for the last few years. It was important to understand the history of grazing preference rights as addressed in the measure. Mr. Dahl said the Homestead Act helped to settle America, a process that occurred from east to west. Eventually homesteading was replaced by settlers who patented parcels of land along streams or in fertile, productive areas throughout the country. Federal land surrounded those small parcels of patented ranches and gradually ranchers began to graze their livestock on those federal lands, especially if water was present. TGA provided ranchers with grazing preferences that could be used as collateral at the bank or they could sell them. Grazing preferences were assets. They could be inherited and they were considered part of the value of an estate. BLM recently began to diminish those valuable assets upon transfer of land ownership. The proposed legislation would stabilize the livestock industry and give stability to Nevada ranchers. In a short amount of time, approximately 40 percent of cattle numbers had been lost. That was the result of BLM and United States Forest Service policies.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were actual significant reductions in forage available on public rangeland for livestock. Mr. Dahl responded in the negative, adding feed was better and more plentiful than ever.

Stephanie Licht, representing Nevada Woolgrowers and Elko County, was the last to speak as a proponent of the proposed legislation. She said her research revealed over the last decade Nevada had lost over 250,000 animal unit months from rangeland. She said wherever there was a lack of unified statewide policy from the legislature down to all branches and divisions of government in each county, federal policy took precedent.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were any additional questions or comments on the proposed legislation. She said A.B. 198 would be discussed in an upcoming work session. She closed the hearing on A.B. 198 and opened the hearing on a work session for A.B. 179.

Linda Eissmann, Policy Analyst for Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), opened the work session hearing on A.B. 179. She presented the committee with a synopsis of the legislation (Exhibit L). She explained one of the questions that arose during testimony previously given in committee was who had jurisdiction and enforcement responsibility if the legislation passed. The Legal Division of LCB confirmed enforcement responsibility did not need to be assigned to a particular state agency. Statute made use and sale of certain products a crime, enforceable by any law enforcement officer with general duties. The committee could assign enforcement to an agency if it wanted or amend the measure to another chapter of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).

Mr. Mortenson thanked Ms. Eissmann for the tremendous job she did on A.B. 179. He said the proposed legislation was acceptable in its current form with the exception of the requirement that more than one of five possible agencies were needed to approve the use of various cooling chemicals. He said

the approval of one agency was sufficient. Also, he did not want to assign an agency to enforce the legislation because a fiscal note would be required. He said it was sufficient to make the use of propane and butane chemicals for cooling illegal.

Mr. Hettrick said a constituent of his had pointed out that once a chemical was put into an automobile’s air conditioning system it automatically became flammable because oil used to lubricate the system vaporized within the refrigerant. Any loss of refrigerant in a heated environment would be combustible. It was possible the legislation was unnecessary because all chemicals became flammable once they were put into automobile air conditioning systems.

Mr. Mortenson said he became concerned when his son was badly burned in an automobile fire caused by flammable chemicals in an automotive air conditioning system. The proposed legislation might possibly save only one or two people but that alone would make the measure worthwhile.

Mr. Carpenter said the question was extent of flammability of certain chemicals and not a matter of chemicals causing harm to the environment. For that reason, he was in favor of keeping the federal Environmental Protection Agency out of the legislation. Mr. Mortenson agreed that was reasonable.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were additional comments or questions on A.B. 179 and because there were none, closed the hearing on A.B. 179 and opened the hearing on A.B. 199.

Ms. Eissmann reviewed the research she prepared on the proposed legislation (Exhibit M). She explained the measure allowed nonresidents of Nevada of at least 18 years of age to operate a motorboat for 60 days as long as the safe boating requirements of the person’s home state had been met. Also, the proposed amendment to the legislation changed the horsepower of personal watercraft to 15 from 10 horsepower as referenced in the original measure.

Ms. Eissmann said the proposed amendment also stated the requirements of an operator of a motorboat must complete a boat safety program and receive a certificate of completion. The proposed legislation raised the age of an operator of personal watercraft from 12 years old to 16 and required passengers and operators to wear floatation devices. It also required boat rental agencies to ensure only documented persons operated watercraft rented at their facilities. The measure would go into effect January 1, 2002.

Mrs. Segerblom asked if a person under the age of 16 could operate a small rubber raft with an outboard motor of less than 15 horsepower. Mr. Beers responded in the affirmative, adding the proposed legislation targeted personal watercraft, which were also known as jet skis.

Ms. Parnell asked for an explanation of the fiscal note. Fred Messman, Boating Law Administrator for the Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW), responded to the question. He said $78,000 per year would be needed annually for one and one half positions, which would be required to administer the program. Ms. Eissmann pointed out those funds were already available from user fees and additional funding was not required for the positions.

Ms. Parnell asked what new funds would be required. Assemblyman Beers said boating revenues were restricted by statute from being spent on anything other than boating and boating safety. User fees and federal grant funding from fuel taxes allotted to fuel sold at marinas, collected by the Federal Government, flowed back to the states under a complex formula. No new funds would be required to implement the new legislation. Mr. Messmann said it would be necessary to ask the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means to add the revenues described into the agency’s budget; however, the funds were available in a special bank account.

Mr. Claborn asked if the measure required passengers on a houseboat to wear floatation devices. Mr. Beers replied in the negative, adding the provision requiring the wearing of floatation devices applied only to those operating personal watercraft because it described those vessels as being 13 feet or less in length.

Mr. Bache said he was opposed to legislation mandating the wearing of safety devices. Mr. Beers said he empathized with Mr. Bache’s statement, adding the requirement was added by NDOW. He said it was added because two-passenger personal watercraft had recently been developed. It had previously been required operators of personal watercraft have floatation devices and requiring passengers to have them as well was a natural progression. Mr. Messmann said it was best to have them on your back because there was no place to store them on personal watercraft. Mrs. Segerblom agreed it was a good idea to wear them at all times.

Ms. Parnell asked for clarification on the administering and proctoring of safe boating exams. Mr. Messmann said NDOW would be responsible for administering and proctoring exams. A safe boating exam could be taken through the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, or through the Internet. The exams did not need to be approved. They did need to be approved by the National Association of Safe Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA). Ms. Parnell asked if exams could be made available to the public at the time boats were registered. Mr. Messmann responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Carpenter asked if NDOW would conduct classes on boater safety. Mr. Beers said NASBLA and NDOW had approved safe boating courses but NDOW would not be directly teaching the classes.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were additional questions or comments and there were none. As there was no further business before the committee, the hearing was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: