The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 11:00 a.m., on Tuesday, March 30, 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. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. John Jay Lee

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman de Braga called for an approval of the minutes for February 24, 25, and March 5, 1999.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS.

MOTION CARRIED.

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst, introduced a work session document from March 22, 1999 (Exhibit C). She first discussed Assembly Bill 439.

The bill revised existing statutes for free permits and use of all state parks facilities for senior citizens. The current program allowed Nevada resident seniors aged 60 and over free access to all state parks and facilities. There was a requirement that one must be a resident of Nevada and age 60 or over. There was no limitation on length of residence. The Division of Wildlife had a reduced fee for hunting and fishing licenses for people aged 65 and over with a requirement of residency of 5 years. The free senior permit was also for passengers with senior citizens. Currently the bill called for a $10 fee to issue the free permit annually. Ms. Eissmann reported an amendment which suggested the specific $10 amount might be removed to allow the charge of a nonspecific amount to cover the cost of issuing the permits.

Chairman de Braga expressed concern that the permit would cover all passengers with senior citizens. Ms. Eissmann explained the permit was attached to a specific vehicle no matter who was in the vehicle.

Chairman de Braga wondered if fees would be collected in the usual manner or if bookkeeping requirements dictated another method.

Wayne Perock, Administrator, State Parks Division, replied permits were issued every 3 years at the rate of 7,000 or more per year. Vehicles often changed hands in that amount of time and if permits were issued annually there would be more control over who had them. Assemblyman Mortenson asked what the administrative fee might be if amended. Mr. Perock replied fees would be established through an administrative procedure act to determine market value and cost to provide services.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 439.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN LEE.

MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 439 and opened the hearing on A.B. 440.

Linda Eissmann informed the committee A.B. 440 would allow the Division of State Parks to establish and collect a fee from each employee, volunteer, and contracted employee living in 43 state housing units within the state parks. The fee would be deposited in a nonreverting account and used for the repair, maintenance, and renovation of the housing. The division estimated a deduction of $25 per pay period for each employee in residence would generate approximately $27,950 annually. No amendments to the measure were proposed. The State of Nevada Employees Association had opposed the bill.

Robert Francke, Chief of Operations, Nevada State Parks Division, reported Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) charged from $20 to $100 per month per residence under their control. The fee was based on the age of the residence. When asked if employees of NDOT were grandfathered in, the reply was that a long time ago in Elko, there were a few people who did not pay rent. There were no employees at the present time who were exempt from rent. NDOT rent did not go into a maintenance fund as was being suggested by A.B. 440 for rent from state parks employees. Mr. Francke believed NDOT money went into the general fund.

Chairman de Braga asked if parks employees had taken their jobs with the understanding housing would be provide free of charge. Mr. Francke agreed that was the understanding. The State Parks Division was attempting to find a way to get the employees better housing. The Division of Wildlife had used a similar plan for years and there was a noticeable difference between wildlife and parks housing. Mr. Francke had talked with a few parks employees who were willing to accept the fee, but certainly there would be those who objected.

Another reason for the request was questions were raised by the budget and/or the legislature as to why rent was not charged. Through the direction of the department director a policy that was consistent for housing was created.

Chairman de Braga asked if pay periods were the same for every employee. Mr. Francke replied that was the case. The original thought was to deduct $25 per pay period. Chairman de Braga asked how renovations were determined. Mr. Francke replied the housing facilities would be studied and money channeled to the greatest need.

Assemblyman Lee asked how many homes were inhabited by volunteers or contractual employees. Mr. Francke said at present there were no contractual employees living in state housing. In the past 15 years perhaps one dozen had lived there. Mostly permanent state employees were provided those facilities because there was not an excess number of those houses. On occasion seasonal employees were offered housing for a short duration.

Assemblyman Hettrick wondered if it would be a problem to amend A.B. 440 to allow for grandfathering of current employees who thought they were being provided free housing. He suggested perhaps January 2001 could be a target date to begin the rental program. Mr. Francke said he saw no problem with that plan. When new employees began to pay rent the funds would probably be channeled into their housing before housing occupied by nonpayers of rent.

Assemblyman Lee asked if all current state park employees would be grandfathered. Assemblyman Hettrick replied he had not completely formulated an amendment but had considered 2001 as a definite cutoff date for free housing.

Chairman de Braga commented she had a real problem with state agencies having to raise their own money to do what the state should be doing. She also would feel better if she knew it was the wish of people currently employed by the parks division. She stated for those reasons she had a problem supporting the bill.

Assemblywoman Parnell agreed with Chairman de Braga and said she would not support the bill.

Assemblyman Bache commented he would not support A.B. 440 for similar reasons.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 440.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION FAILED BY VOTE OF 3 FOR AND 6 AGAINST.

Chairman de Braga called for a roll-call vote.

ASSEMBLYMEN HETTRICK, HUMKE, AND MARVEL VOTED AYE.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 440 and opened the hearing on A.B. 441.

Linda Eissmann explained A.B. 441 would establish a minimum threshold for projects which required approval by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC). The statute as currently written required approval by the director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources on all emergency repairs, and approval by the director and IFC on all nonemergency repairs to state parks. A.B. 441 would require director approval for projects which cost less than $25,000 and approval by the director and IFC on all projects in excess of $25,000. No amendments were proposed.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS A. B. 441.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 441 and opened the hearing on A.B. 412.

Chairman de Braga referred A.B. 412 to a subcommittee which consisted of Chairman de Braga, Assemblyman Hettrick, and Assemblyman Neighbors. Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 412 and opened the hearing on A.B. 206.

Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36, introduced Assembly Bill 206. Mr. Neighbors said A.B. 206 referred to the protection of groundwater basins which were the subject of interbasin transfers of water. He discussed a recommendation from the Legislative Committee on Public Lands to the 1999 Nevada Legislature (Exhibit D). The committee, of which Assemblyman Neighbors was a member, had closely followed the interbasin transfer of water issue. Initially the subject was raised during the 1997 Legislative Session through Senate Bill 454, which proposed changes to Nevada’s water law by requiring counties within the basin of origin to approve any interbasin transfer of water that exceeded one-fifth of the perennial yield for that basin. Because of the bill’s late introduction it was suggested the Legislative Committee on Public Lands examine the issue during the 1997-1998 interim period. Recommendations from numerous state and local government officials led to the introduction of A.B. 206.

Assemblyman Neighbors continued A.B. 206 would ensure that rural Nevada had a future while at the same time would allow urban Nevada to secure water from rural Nevada.

Steve Bradhurst, Representative, County Commissioners of Nye, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties, testified in support of A.B. 206. Ten years ago, said Mr. Bradhurst, the boards were confronted with an unprecedented water importation project. Clark County desired to secure water from rural Nevada and transport it into the Las Vegas valley. The initial reaction from the counties was opposition. Over the past 5 to 8 years the parties had not worked well together. In the 1997 Legislative Session the rural counties looked for some way to provide protection for the rural areas in the future. Senate Bill 108 (Exhibit E) was a companion piece that came as a result of discussions in the Committee on Public Lands during the interim.

Mr. Bradhurst continued page 3, lines 11 through 20 of A.B. 206 dealt with subordination. Essentially subordination was an effort to determine water which had not been processed by the state engineer after 5 years should be distributed to people in the area who had filed for the water. Mr. Bradhurst realized there were significant problems with the language in the section and he recommended the deletion of that language altogether. The Las Vegas Valley Water District had suggested as an acceptable alternative a memorandum of understanding which was at present before the rural counties for consideration.

Exhibit D contained a subcommittee recommendation which referred to page 3, lines 35 and 38 of A.B. 206 and suggested replacement language. The language said there would be a fourth finding by the state engineer regarding interbasin transfer of water. The state engineer would have to consider without limitation whether the applicant for the water transfer had justified the need to import water and demonstrated an effective conservation plan had been adopted for the region in need.

Chairman de Braga said the amendment to the senate bill did not say "without limitation." She said the language stated "the state engineer shall consider." She asked if that language still applied. Mr. Bradhurst said he would investigate the question. He said one reason for the conservation element in A.B. 206 was to assure water in the area basin was used to maximum benefit before water was brought from outside.

Mr. Bradhurst pointed out the changes recommended by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources was acceptable to Nye, Lincoln, and White Pine counties. He continued the difference in language as submitted by bill drafters was significant and would need to be addressed.

Chairman de Braga suggested no action on A.B. 206 until the language was clear.

Mike Turnipseed, State Engineer, Nevada Division of Water Resources, submitted a letter (Exhibit F) written by him to Chairman de Braga on February 24, 1999, which listed communities that got their water from basins other than those in which they were situated.

Mr. Turnipseed said there were differences in language between what he thought was voted out of the Nevada Senate and the language in A.B. 206. He had originally opposed A.B. 206, but if it was amended as intended by the Senate he could support it. He continued the language in S.B. 108 said the project was environmentally sound. He felt comfortable with being in charge of the hydrologic health of the basin of origin but other agencies were in charge of changes importation of water might cause. He stated he would work with whatever committee was necessary to clean up the language.

Chairman de Braga suggested the language should be developed and the bill brought back before the committee.

Mike Baughman, Representative, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority, did not speak but submitted written testimony (Exhibit G) titled "Talking Points".

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 206 and opened the hearing on A.B. 450.

Alan R. Coyner, Administrator, Division of Minerals, Department of Business and Industry, said A.B. 450 was submitted on behalf of the budget committee at the request of the Division of Minerals and the Commission on Mineral Resources which sought to change two of the administrative fees from statute to regulation. Mr. Coyner discussed a chart of fees (Exhibit H) and a proposed amendment to A.B. 450 (Exhibit I). He told the committee the proposed amendments dealt with Nevada Revised Statute 513.094, 519A.250 and 522.050. The intent was to have the Commission on Mineral Resources establish fees and to include caps on those fees.

Chairman de Braga asked about changes to A.B. 450 itself. Mr. Coyner replied it simply moved two fees contained in Nevada Revised Statute 517.185 and 522.150 from statute to regulation. The intent of the commission was to be able to set those fees by regulation.

Chairman de Braga asked if the starting date mentioned was parallel to how fees were currently proposed and amendments to A.B. 450. Mr. Coyner replied section 3 was inserted by the Legislative Counsel Bureau to cover any gaps between July 1, 1999, and when the commission might act to raise the fees. He added the term "proposed cap" did not necessarily mean the commission would raise fees to that level. It was simply put into the amendment to ensure fees would not rise above that level.

By way of background for A.B. 450, Chairman de Braga told the committee Assembly Bill 103, which was awaiting amendment, would create the Department of Agriculture and put the Division of Minerals under the Commission on Mineral Resources. That gave the commission rate setting authority.

Carol Vilardo, Representative, Nevada Taxpayers Association, congratulated Mr. Coyner for being receptive to suggestions for definition of caps on rates and specific fee authority. She urged the committee to support A.B. 450.

Chairman de Braga asked why A.B. 450 was a taxpayer issue. Carol Vilardo responded it was the board’s position to be involved in anything which concerned a fee that had to be paid by an industry because of fiscal or regulatory issues.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if A.B. 103 would require further amendment because of A.B. 450. Chairman de Braga did not think so because A.B. 450 covered the Nevada Revised Statute pertinent to the other bill.

Russ Fields, President, Nevada Mining Association, said he supported A.B. 450 with the amendments as proposed by Mr. Coyner.

Chairman de Braga asked if Mr. Fields was confident the proposed caps would apply for a prolonged period of time. Mr. Fields replied it was determined the caps should apply for at least 3 sessions, depending on the health of the industry.

Chairman de Braga asked if the new commission would have authority to return to the legislature for needed changes. Mr. Fields replied that was the case and was a matter of law.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 450.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 450 and opened the hearing on A.B. 574.

Assemblyman David Humke, Assembly District 26, introduced his intern and told the committee she would introduce A.B. 574.

Carmen Sabin, Legislative Intern for Assemblyman Humke, told the committee an amendment to A.B. 574 asked that testing be properly done by proper authorities to safeguard water through the Safe Drinking Water Act. She deferred questions to Assemblyman Humke.

Chairman de Braga asked what circumstances applied which necessitated the introduction of A.B. 574.

William Pillsbury, Owner, Sierra Environmental Monitoring, responded A.B. 574 attempted to close a loophole in the current Nevada Revised Statute 445A.863 (Exhibit J.) The original intent of the statute was to ensure a certified laboratory must review and analyze drinking water involved in any transfer of property through the Division of Real Estate. One problem with the statute was lack of definition of "certified" laboratories, nor did it make distinction between the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Mr. Pillsbury asked that A.B. 574 be modified to read "laboratory certified for drinking water analyses" as requested in a letter from Alpha Analytical, Inc. to Assemblyman Humke (Exhibit K).

Assemblyman Hettrick wondered if the requirement for certification the amendments proposed might limit the use of laboratories to those certified by the State of Nevada.

Assemblyman Humke said Mr. Pillsbury attempted to cover the interests of all concerned.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked the difference between the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Mr. Pillsbury said the Clean Water Act related to water other than drinking water. There were different procedures in analysis of water requirements for both acts and so both acts needed to be covered.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 574. Chairman de Braga asked for approval of floor minutes from February 19, March 3, and March 8, 1999.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO APPROVE FLOOR MINUTES.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE.

MOTION CARRIED.

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman de Braga adjourned the meeting at 1:05 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

______________________________

Lois McDonald,

Transcribing Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: