The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 1:34 p.m., on Wednesday, March 17, 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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on A.B. 358.

Michelle Gamble, Program Analyst, Nevada Association of Counties, furnished the committee a handout (Exhibit C) which gave a brief overview of A.B. 358. Ms. Gamble said A.B. 358 was a response to growing concerns by Nevada counties regarding the diminishing tax bases in many rural areas. There had been land exchanges recently where large amounts of private land had been traded for small amounts of public land which took property off tax rolls.

A.B. 358 would ensure dialogue between local, state and the Federal Government would be initiated and negative impacts to assessed value of local government taken into account when consent of the state was given for federal use of public lands. In addition the bill provided an opportunity for any negative fiscal impacts to Nevada’s local governments to be mitigated especially when land exchanges were proposed. John Balliette, Contractural Resource Manager, Eureka County, said he hoped the committee would support A.B. 358. The main concern was the protection of the tax base. Outside of mining the agricultural industry paid the lion’s share of taxes. Speculation abounded a great deal of money might be generated by the Southern Nevada Lands Bill to buy environmentally sensitive lands throughout Nevada. Usually those lands were agricultural businesses; therefore there was a need for local involvement in the entire land trade process.

Chairman de Braga asked Ms. Gamble whether there would be marketable value in the lands if the northern Nevada version of the Southern Nevada Lands Bill passed. Ms. Gamble said the Nevada Lands Bill made it possible some of the proceeds of sale of lands might be returned to local governments to assist them in complying with federal mandates and for some of the planning issues surrounding federal lands. Eureka County had been able to hire experts to help them deal with public land issues. Most of the counties were not that fortunate, but with funds from the lands deal it might be possible for them to be active participants in the process. In addition to that possibility some public lands local governments had considered for expansion would be easier to acquire.

Chairman de Braga commented Eureka County had not been able to expand their city limits because of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. Mr. Balliette replied there were still 83 acres of BLM land within the townsite of Eureka.

Vice Chairman Segerblom asked if Nevada received money from the Payments In Lieu of Taxes Act (PILT). Ms. Gamble gave the committee a BLM newsletter (Exhibit D) explaining payments from the BLM intended to offset the loss of tax revenue to states and localities caused by the presence of tax-exempt federal lands within their jurisdiction. Clark County received a disproportionate share of that money and counties like Lincoln County with 98 percent of land in public ownership did not get nearly their share. PILT had been consistently underfunded by the Federal Government and did not begin to cover the cost of dealing with those lands.

Assemblyman Neighbors said Washoe and Clark counties received the maximum amount of money from PILT. The other counties got a great deal less yet had responsibility for a great amount of land.

Assemblyman Marvel said he was a member of the Standing Committee on Public Lands along with Assemblyman Neighbors. Several years ago the Olympic Land Exchange wanted to trade 3,500 acres in Elko County for over 50,000 acres, which would have devastated the tax rolls. The committee was always on record as opposing large land exchanges unless there was an equivalent tax base left in the county where the exchange was to take place.

Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, agreed with testimony about negative impacts some federal land actions could have on local tax bases. She had offered to assist with drafting legislation to address the issue. A.B. 358 only repeated an old statute which had not been effective in the past and adding a few words to that statute would not make it effective. Some other mechanism was needed to solve the problem.

Ross Chichester, representative, Douglas County, offered his support to A.B. 358. He said from 1996 to 1998 Douglas County lost approximately $7.4 million in assessed valuation at Lake Tahoe based on land exchanges. A.B. 358 would give local government the input to keep the revenue base stable.

Chairman de Braga said the Southern Nevada Land Management Act changed the way business was being done to require that a simple exchange did not happen. Public lands were put up for sale to the highest bidder as opposed to just a trade. Of that money, 5 percent went to education, 10 percent went to the Southern Nevada Water Authority, and the balance went to the treasury in trust for the purchase of environmentally sensitive land. Chairman de Braga wondered if the same act passed in northern Nevada would help the situation. Mr. Chichester said he did not know enough about the act to answer the question.

Assemblyman Carpenter said the Southern Nevada Land Act provided for the use of 85 percent of the funds to purchase private land. The Red Rock area was specifically mentioned as a place to purchase.

Chairman de Braga said another bad feature of the act was when environmentally sensitive lands were identified for purchase the Federal Government had to meet with local government to express the desire to purchase but did not require local approval.

Stephanie Licht, representing Elko County Board of Commissioners, expressed their support of A.B. 358. She was a secretary in the Cattlemen’s Association when Wayne Martini, who had been President of the Cattlemen’s Association, expressed concern of the Olympic Exchange Act regarding the River Ranch. The situation had deteriorated from that time. A.B. 358 was badly needed for the protection of the counties.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were objections from Elko County to the bill as written. Ms. Licht replied Elko County mostly supported A.B. 358. They had been working with the Nevada Association of Counties in presentation and preparation of the bill and supported them completely.

Robert Stewart, Public Information Officer, Bureau of Land Management, testified on A.B. 358. He told the committee federal agencies were well aware of the emphasis on Clark County and Lake Tahoe mandated by the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998. By extension emphasis was not put on the balance of the state. Federal agencies were looking at criteria to develop a statement on how to determine which lands were targeted for purchases as funds came into the treasury account. They had not developed those criteria as yet. Partners in the implementation of the act were Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Clark County.

Mr. Stewart continued there would be public discussion as the criteria were further developed. There was at present no definition of "environmentally sensitive land" in terms of the 1998 act.

Chairman de Braga asked how lands were assessed in the past if there was no definition. Purchase of "environmentally sensitive" lands had been ongoing. Concrete had been poured on "environmentally sensitive" land.

Mr. Stewart replied historically when a proponent came to the Bureau of Land Management with a proposal for an exchange of lands, for example the Olympic Exchange Act, the BLM assessed the offered lands as compared to looking for lands they actually wanted. There were definitions as to lands the Federal Government wanted as opposed to what they were offered.

Chairman de Braga asked why approval for acquisition was not required from the affected counties. Local entities did not have sufficient say in those decisions.

Assemblyman Hettrick asked if counties or the state would be given opportunity to participate in the "checklist" for criteria and would the criteria be considered the same for each county. Mr. Stewart replied there would a single statewide criterion determined. Those were national priorities.

Assemblyman Hettrick responded the problem with that was land in Las Vegas was worth a lot of money, as was Douglas County land. There was a reasonably fair exchange in terms of acreage because of the value. If the same exchange criteria were used in rural areas, dollar for dollar instead of acre for acre, it would devastate the county. Acreage must be taken into account as well as dollar value. Assemblyman Hettrick said he heard that one transaction in Elko County had removed 2 percent of their entire assessed valuation. That could not continue or state government would end up supporting every rural county in the state.

Mr. Stewart said there had been a reverse exchange in the instance Assemblyman Hettrick brought up, wherein lands in Elko County were put into private ownership. He said he did not pretend the values were the same but an effort had been made.

In answer to Ms. Segerblom’s question about PILT money, Mr. Stewart said Clark County and Washoe County received $1 million each per year of PILT money. The amounts determined involved an arcane federal formula that assessed population and other factors. He had numbers of what would be paid if the PILT program had been fully funded. He would provide those numbers to the committee.

Mr. Stewart read his testimony into the record (Exhibit E). He felt the primary purpose of A.B. 358 was to define an administrative process to ensure appropriate notification of affected local governments of proposed federal land exchanges. Should county officials believe the proposed exchange would adversely impact the local tax base those officials would request the state land- use planning agency to withhold its support for the exchange. Mr. Stewart believed such a proposal was unwarranted. He felt it would create a process which could delay a land exchange for which there was universal agreement.

Mr. Stewart said in remarks to the Nevada Legislature, U.S. Senator Harry Reid had announced his intention to introduce a Nevada Public Land Management Act to address sales of public lands throughout the state. A resolution in support of that act had passed the state Senate and was before the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agricultural and Mining. Given the provisions of the southern Nevada act and those proposed in the Nevada bill, Mr. Stewart asked the committee to set aside A.B. 358 pending implementation of federal laws designed by Nevadans for disposal of public lands within Nevada.

Assemblyman Hettrick said the word "exchange" needed to be clarified. He had land in central Nevada he had attempted to exchange with the BLM and the Forest Service. There was no such thing as a true exchange. What had recently happened was land was sold and that money was used to purchase "environmentally sensitive" land elsewhere. He disagreed with testimony from Mr. Stewart which contended A.B. 358 might stop "universally agreed upon" purchases. If the agreement was "universal", said Assemblyman Hettrick, there was no issue. If it was not "universally accepted" A.B. 358 was very necessary.

Mr. Stewart agreed the most difficult part of the southern Nevada act was the "environmentally sensitive" lands issue. He had continually attempted to reassure the committee the BLM was trying to work with counties far more than in the past.

Assemblyman Hettrick said there had been improvement, but it was not time to stop that improvement. He was also concerned with the statement Mr. Stewart made about federal law being implemented "by Nevadans for Nevada." He expressed doubt that Nevada representatives in Congress were deciding federal policy based on the needs of Nevadans. He felt it was being decided not by Nevadans but by the Federal Government.

Assemblyman Carpenter told the committee a huge land exchange was currently in motion in Elko between Brigg’s Springs Ranch and property around Wendover, Nevada. The county was adamantly opposed to that exchange because more lands would be removed from private ownership which should be put into public auction. A few years ago when the BLM decided through their planning process which lands should be for disposal counties were seriously harmed. It was necessary for the health of the counties that more land was acquired, not more land lost. He felt A.B. 358 would address those issues.

Mr. Stewart acknowledged the points raised by Assemblyman Carpenter. He explained the Brigg’s Springs Ranch deal was made before new policy was put in place. Certainly many exchanges had a great deal of value in the checkerboard lands in Nevada.

Assemblyman Carpenter said a lot of exchanges would be of great value but they were difficult to pursue unless there were lands the BLM wanted. He recalled it took over 20 years to exchange some lands.

Assemblyman Neighbors told Mr. Stewart he would like to see how much other states received from PILT. Mr. Stewart agreed to provide those figures to the committee.

Chairman de Braga said she felt there was a perception that public hearings were not effective but were like throwing a dog a bone. She said that was one reason A.B. 358 needed to make sure the affected areas were involved.

Joseph Johnson, Representing the Toyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, said they were opposed to A.B. 358 in its present form. He felt it made local counties absolute rulers of the process. While it was important concerns of the counties were reflected, and they have some voice in the matter, but too much control would interfere in future disposal of public lands declared excess. The Sierra Club gave tacit approval of consideration of excess land sales and felt the counties’ concerns about property tax base should be adequately addressed in the sale of excess lands but should not have absolute veto power over purchase of environmentally sensitive lands.

Mr. Johnson told the committee PILT was a very complicated formula based, among other things, on federal activities such as military bases or government employees on that land.

Mary Walker, Representative, Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County, said all three counties strongly supported A.B. 358. The local governments had worked for months on the bill. At a hearing on S.B. 253 different senators requested a list of top problem areas. Of the problem areas discussed from the perspective of the counties one was long-term care and the other was the federal land issue.

Chairman de Braga appointed Assemblyman Marvel as a committee of one to meet with interested parties to work on language amendments.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 358 and opened the hearing on A.C.R. 24.

Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District 33, said A.C.R. 24 was written to provide for greater cooperation between the Nevada Division of Wildlife and the ranching and farming interests in Nevada. For many years those people closest to the land knew wildlife needed private lands to survive. He felt the ranchers and farmers had been good stewards of the land. A.C.R. 24 was a wakeup call for everyone to notice that ranching and farming interests provided a great deal of the habitat for wildlife.

Bob McQuivey, representative, Nevada Division of Wildlife, spoke in support of A.C.R. 24. He presented written testimony (Exhibit F) in which he related stories of early settlers in Nevada and their contributions to Nevada wildlife. Records from journals and diaries of the pioneers and mountainmen clearly indicated the role ranching and farming contributed then and still did contribute to the diversity and abundance of wildlife in Nevada. Mr. McQuivey again expressed his agency’s desire to extend support for A.C.R. 24.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if Mr. McQuivey had published the journals and diaries he had reviewed. He commented such a publication could be helpful in educating the public to benefits farming and ranching brought to Nevada’s wildlife. Mr. McQuivey replied he would like to publish a proactive brochure on the interaction between ranchers and farmers and Nevada wildlife. He had met with members of the Cattlemen’s Association and others to address the possibility.

Joseph Guild, President-Elect, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, told the committee it had been his goal to help promote a cooperative effort between the Department of Wildlife and Nevada farmers and ranchers. To that end, he met with interested parties with the result that the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association passed a resolution which concerned those issues. It was time recognition was paid to the positive effects of ranching and farming on the environment and wildlife in Nevada. People forgot the United States had the cheapest and safest food in the world, and that was due largely to ranchers and farmers. Mr. Guild urged the committee to support A.C.R. 24.

Stephanie Licht, representative, Nevada WoolGrowers Association, said based on economic development and continued economic health in the rural counties the Nevada WoolGrowers Association supported A.C.R. 24.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO ADOPT A.C.R. 24.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL.

MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.C.R. 24 and opened the work session on A.B. 285.

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst, explained an amendment to A.B. 285 (Exhibit G) clarified that private property owners were contributing to the cost of implementing the Environmental Improvement Program. The amendment also stated the Division of State Lands was coordinating a multi-agency approach and the environmental improvement projects were based upon the Tahoe Regional Planning Association program. There were no subsequent amendments and no comments in opposition to A.B. 285.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 285.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman de Braga closed the work session on A.B. 285 and opened the work session on A.B. 198.

Linda Eissmann told the committee no action had been taken on A.B. 198 in previous meetings and there were no proposed amendments to the bill. There were concerns raised by the Bureau of Land Management but they had chosen not to propose an amendment.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED DO PASS A.B. 198.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS.

MOTION CARRIED.

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman de Braga adjourned at 3:04 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

______________________________

Lois McDonald,

Transcription Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: