The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 1:45 p.m., on Wednesday, March 31, 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. Bonnie Parnell

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman de Braga introduced Michael Schulz, Associate Director of the Water Division of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 San Francisco office. Mr. Schulz explained 40 percent of the nation’s waterways did not meet the goals established by EPA for fishing and swimming. He said the nation’s drinking water supply was also at risk. The problem was attributed to water runoff from city streets, agricultural runoff from Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) and other agricultural activities, and various other non-point sources of water pollution.

Mr. Schulz pointed out in early 1998, the presidential announcement of the passage of the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP), which detailed 111 specific actions necessary to protect water quality throughout the country. The proposed new EPA strategy was not a new series of regulations, nor was it a substitute for existing federal regulations. It did not impose binding requirements on the United States Department of Agriculture (DOA), EPA, states, tribes, localities, or individual communities. USDA and EPA policies for addressing AFOs may evolve and change as the agency’s understanding of the issues increases. Mr. Schulz explained the agency’s regulations managed two distinct types of animal feeding operations, which were traditional AFOs and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). CAFOs were operations that had more than 1,000 animal units concentrated in one place or facilities that had more than 300 animal units and a discharge to waters within the United States. Mr. Schulz provided the committee with USDA and USEPA "Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations, March 9, 1999" (Exhibit C).

Mr. Schulz said the USDA and EPA goal was for AFOs and CAFOs to take actions to minimize water pollution from those facilities and land applications of manure and other agricultural land treatments. The national performance expectation was that all AFOs would soon develop and implement technically sound and economically feasible Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs). Mr. Schulz’s entire testimony was contained in Exhibit D.

Chairman de Braga said cows came and went out of feed lots. She asked Mr. Schulz to explain how the animals were counted and for what period of time were the animals present in the feed lot. Mr. Schulz explained the timeframe was approximately 120 days, but he was not certain.

Mr. Carpenter requested information regarding land application of manure for fertilizing fields as opposed to use of chemical fertilizers. He asked Mr. Schulz how the EPA determined if a ranch was an AFO. Mr. Schulz said the handout (Exhibit C) provided that information. The general distinction was animals were maintained in penned areas and food was brought to the animals in AFOs, which was unlike ranching operations. Mr. Carpenter pointed out during winter months ranchers brought feed to their cattle. He asked if that activity would turn a ranch into an AFO. Mr. Schulz replied in the negative, adding the reason those ranches were not AFOs was because the cattle were not confined. Animals confined seasonally were exempt as well.

The Chairman said feedlots operated seasonally and asked how the EPA would distinguish between feedlots and ranches under the definition he provided. He said the material he provided used specific language to define AFOs and CAFOs and the distinction between them and ranches was very clear.

Chairman de Braga asked if the current EPA clean water program was voluntary, to which Mr. Schulz responded in the affirmative. She asked how the EPA determined the number of animals needed to cause detriment to the water

supply. He explained the determination was dependent on clear evidence of runoff discharge or drainage problems that would result in endangerment of water sources.

Mr. Hettrick suggested Mr. Schulz review the proposed legislation in order to provide the committee with input on the measure to determine if it fell within the proposed regulations intended. Mr. Schulz said he had reviewed the proposed legislation and the measure did fall within EPA proposed regulations.

Allen Biaggi, Administrator of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, was called upon by the Chairman to comment on Mr. Schulz testimony and the proposed legislation. He said since 1973 Nevada has had CAFO guidelines in place, which were imposed in an effort to protect the state’s water supply. Those regulations were amended in 1974 and 1976. Under current state and federal regulatory arrangements there were approximately 12 facilities throughout the state that required permitting if they discharged into surface water supplies as mandated by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Most, if not all, of those 12 facilities mentioned were not available for discharges to surface waters due to the aridity of the State of Nevada, and would not fall under the jurisdiction of CWA. Those facilities, however, posed a potential impact to ground water. Therefore, they would be permitted under the state system and not under the federal system. Onsite inspections of each individual facility would be done to determine the potential pollution threat to surface water due to discharge.

Chairman de Braga asked if inspections were planned for facilities that had more than 1,000 head of cattle or if they were near surface water. Mr. Biaggi said the state required inspections of facilities with 700 or more head of cattle. The regulations contained formulas for cattle, sheep, goats, and chickens. Facilities discharging close to surface water supplies without proper controls in place would be permitted under federal clean water regulations. However, no facility matching that description was anywhere in Nevada; therefore, the state was deferring away from CWA and opting for state groundwater permits.

Mr. Marvel asked if DEP had specific criteria regarding ground water pollution rates caused by surface pollution permeation. Mr. Biaggi said there were no set state regulations for determining that because each site was different. Those differences ranged from number of animals in an area, distances from surface to ground water, and quality of existing ground water. Determinations had to be made by considering the differences in each case. Nevada followed a non-degradation policy, which meant no ground water could be degraded in excess of maximum contaminant levels as per state drinking water standards.

The Chairman asked Mr. Biaggi if he considered A.J.R. 21 capable of addressing the concerns of the committee. Mr. Biaggi responded in the affirmative. He added the proposed legislation would be beneficial to the state and the DEP.

Linda Eissmann, Legislative Counsel Bureau Policy Analyst, explained she worked on drafting the original language of the proposed legislation. She described the measure as an effort of the state of Nevada to comply with USDA and USEPA clean water requirements in regards to AFO activities as potential pollution sources and to protect Nevada’s natural resources.

Ms. Eissmann called upon Don Henderson, Deputy Administrator of Division of Agriculture, for additional testimony on the proposed legislation. He said the problem was the Federal Government was trying to develop national standards for AFOs; however, that was not possible because Nevada’s environment was not the same as that of a state such as Georgia. He said his agency fully supported the meaning and content of the proposed legislation and considered it a clear and practical solution to non-point pollution issues pertaining to AFOs. (Exhibit E).

Stephanie Licht, representing Elko County and the Nevada Woolgrowers Association, said both organizations she represented strongly supported the proposed legislation.

Andy Aldax, representing Carson Truckee Conservancy said his organization supported the measure. He said individual states should be allowed to enact state statutes, which would protect its natural resources from negative impacts resulting from livestock production.

Jim Arden, Chairman of the Washoe Storey Conservation District, said his agency supported A.J.R. 21 because the State of Nevada needed to take the initiative in determining how livestock production should be regulated. He said a great deal of pollution could potentially be generated by livestock production; however, in humid and precipitation rich states, which did not include Nevada, agricultural runoff was a very serious problem. Manure application to land was not generally a problem in arid Nevada.

Chairman de Braga asked why the Federal Government was reluctant to allow states to enforce common sense regulations directly related to specific regions to address local problems native to the area. Mr. Schulz said that was a good question that required a long and complex answer. He said he could say the Federal Government was generally interested in having basic level of environmental and public health protection standardized across the entire country in order to avoid the possibility of pockets of pollution arising anywhere in the country, which might endanger human health and safety. Delegation of federal programs to state agencies for administration was a facet of the concerns of the Federal Government for the environment.

Mr. Carpenter asked how the Federal Government’s policy positions had changed through the years regarding environmental regulations. Mr. Schulz said he had been employed by EPA since 1976 and had seen various changes occur in the agency’s policy positions. Most of those changes were positive in regard to state positions and more apt to be compatible with state policies. States were delegated more responsibility than in the past. Mr. Carpenter asked for that statement to be added to the resolution.

Ms. Parnell asked for clarification regarding the resolution, particularly the section relating to reconsideration of the reduction in the threshold number specified. She said it would be more appropriate to use a formula rather than a specific number because various regions within Nevada had very different environmental conditions. The Chairman agreed the question needed to be addressed because many variables needed to be considered. She said she was also concerned about the wording of A.J.R. 21 regarding land application of manure because it was an issue that had not previously been considered in the resolution. The issue should only be of concern during the time farmers were harvesting.

Mr. Hettrick said disposal of manure from closed feedlot operations had to be performed legally; therefore language needed to be added to specifically address the issue. He agreed with Ms. Parnell regarding substitution of a formula. The problem was in the adoption of standards by EPA without taking into account that water did not flow freely and regularly over the arid landscape of Nevada as it did in other parts of the country. Nevada needed to be held to its own standard and there could be no uniform, nationwide EPA standard.

As discussion continued, proposed language for an amendment to A.J.R. 21 was developed. Regarding the second Resolved statement on page two, lines 25 to 29, the committee considered the specific number of animals on a feedlot less of a problem than the formula used, which could result in a reduction in the number of animals allowed in a specific area as well as an expansion of the permitting process. The committee also voted to add another Resolved statement urging EPA to seek and seriously consider input from the states, local governments, farm bureaus, agricultural industry, soil conservation districts, and others affected by proposed federal revisions that would regulate AFOs.

Mr. Carpenter suggested the resolution specify EPA be required to consult with state government agencies, county governments, cattle associations, and farm bureaus before imposing any regulations. Mr. Hettrick and Chairman de Braga agreed. The Chairman added the problem with EPA was that the federal agency sought input from local entities in determining decision making polices, but never considered them or implemented them. It was wrong that local entities were not truly a part of the Federal Government’s decision-making policies. She called for a motion.

Representatives from the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation were unable to attend the hearing, but expressed their support for A.J.R. 21 (Exhibit F).

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.J.R. 21 and opened the hearing on A.B. 490.

Mr. Hettrick pointed out that several years ago a river channel clearance fund was established within the state budget on a contingency basis. After the flood of 1997 the legislature increased the fund substantially to $250,000, much of which had already been spent on an enormous amount of work. The fund would soon be down to less than $20,000 and requests had already been made for the remaining amount. Because of the current budget crisis, Mr. Hettrick said he was concerned the river channel clearance fund would not be funded. Completion of all planned projects must be accomplished somehow. Every dime of the state money had been used with matching funds and in most cases both the state and the counties had provided 12½ percent of the total cost. The Federal Government provided a substantial part of the remainder. A.B. 490 stated if the state would not pay its portion of the expenses for those necessary projects, Mr. Hettrick continued, then state permits would no longer be required prior to commencing work on river channel and other waterway clearance throughout Nevada. Individuals would be required to obtain work permits from the Federal Government and from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Good management practices would still need to be followed.

In conclusion, continued Mr. Hettrick, if a request for funding for river channel clearance was received and the State Engineer applied for money from the contingency fund to replenish the account, but the state did not comply within 90-days, no state permits were required to perform work on channels. Mr. Hettrick said representatives from the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation were unable to attend today’s hearing, but expressed their support for A.B. 490 (Exhibit G).

Edwin James, General Manager of Carson Water Subconservancy District (CWSD) was the next speaker to testify in support of the measure. He said the most important issue was protection of the state’s waterways and pointed out CWSD played an integral part in that endeavor by providing matching funds for projects along the rivers. Clearing channels along rivers was important because if stream banks were not maintained erosion would occur, seriously impairing water quality, clogging rivers, and enhancing problems. He said it was imperative the state assume its responsibility for paying for river maintenance, but if the state could not pay for the work, then the landowners along rivers should be granted the opportunity to fix problems before they caused greater problems to property owners, wildlife, and the environment.

James Settlemeyer, representing Carson Valley Conservation District and individual property owners along the Carson River, was the next proponent of the proposed legislation to testify. He said he supported the measure because the state had usurped part of his property to the high water mark, effectively making it impossible to work along the river to clear channels without paying for a state permit. It was necessary to clear river channels in order to protect private property along the river. He said if that land was now under the ownership of the state, the state should be responsible for maintaining it. However, no funding was available to maintain river channels. A.B. 490 was an investment in river channel maintenance because if no funds were available property owners would be allowed to do the necessary work to protect private property and the environment without sanctions, fines, or permit fees imposed upon them.

Al Hanley, representing Hodges Transportation, was the next proponent of the proposed legislation to testify. He explained he owned land along the Carson River and had the same concerns as had been previously mentioned. He urged the committee to pass A.B. 490.

Tom Minor, representing the Minor Ranch in the Dayton Valley, said he supported the testimony of those who spoke before him. He said he was the director of the Dayton Valley Conservation District, which was the newest conservation district in Nevada. He supported the proposed legislation because he knew how bad the condition of the Carson River was after the floods of 1997. Currently, over 22 projects were scheduled for the river and embankments. He pointed out continuous maintenance was vitally important to the area and the measure would allow much needed work to be done on a continuous and as needed basis.

Andy Aldax, representing CWSD, spoke in support of the measure. He pointed out the importance of river and channel maintenance along the Carson River was vital in order to maintain river flow and to avoid erosion of riverbanks. The work needed to continue and if state funding for the work was unavailable, local property owners and conservation groups were willing to perform all necessary work. Mr. Aldax said if the state was responsible it should assume the responsibility. Waiting 90-days for the state permitting process to be concluded was not acceptable.

Mr. Lee asked Mr. Aldax why the process took so how. Mr. Aldax did not know and deferred the answer to Mr. Hettrick, who explained the process took 90 days because work proposals had to be reviewed by a series of state entities. The state permitting process began with the state water engineer, after which the proposal had to be reviewed by the IFC, who then had to wait for authorization to fund the project from the contingency fund. By the time and IFC meeting was scheduled 90 days had transpired. Mr. Hettrick said state approval did not cause the delay. Funding difficulties caused the delay.

Ledo Quilici, representing Quilici Ranch Corporation, said he supported the measure because he owned land along the Carson River and knew what needed to be done along the river to ensure a safe environment for humans and wildlife. If a tree fell into the river it was impossible to go in and pull it out without going through a costly and time-consuming bureaucratic process. Mr. Quilici said since the flood of 1997 the river was in chaos and the state had tied the hands of concerned property owners who would agree work without compensation.

Mr. Mortenson said he was from the southern part of the state and problems such as those described were not an issue. He said it was inconceivable the legislature would allow the present situation to continue without finding an adequate remedy to the problem. If an individual needed to remove a fallen tree from the river and agreed to do it at his own expense the state should compensate the individual.

Mr. Lee asked Mr. Minor what would the fine be for pulling out an obstruction from the river with a truck and a rope if a rolling stock permit was not needed. Mr. Minor said the fine could be as high as $25,000 per day, but he was not sure if that was a state or federal fine or a combination of both.

Pamela Wilcox, administrator of the Division of State Lands, was the next speaker to address A.B. 490. She said it was important to begin by clarifying mistakes and misconceptions heard in previous testimony. The United States Constitution said the beds and banks of all navigable bodies of water were owned by each individual state, which was one of the most basic aspects of state sovereignty. The Carson River was not claimed by Nevada until it was adjudicated by the courts in 1970. At that time, the Carson River was declared a navigable river and therefore the responsibility of the state. The question of state ownership of the rivers of Nevada was not readily accepted by property owners who lived along rivers. However, state ownership of river property had its advantages to both property owners and environment because in the past work was done in an uncoordinated and haphazard manner, contributing to existing problems rather than remedying them. The state had no objection to obstructions being dragged from rivers as long as the beds and banks were not willfully disturbed.

Ms. Wilcox said recently progress had been made because all concerned entities were beginning to communicate with each other and cooperate together on coordinated projects geared toward the broader needs of the environment. Partnership was the key, she explained. The state required permits to disturb or place structures in riverbeds and riverbanks. Permits were not required to remove fallen trees from rivers and the state assisted individuals in that function despite budget limitations. Permits were required to perform work along the river because the river and its ecosystem needed to be protected and not for the pleasure of engaging in a complicated permitting process. Division of State Lands endeavored to make the process as uncomplicated as possible. Land lost due to a flood event was not usurped for the state and land ownership did not convert to the state as a result of a flood. The state not only authorized people to rebuild embankments where they originally were prior to a flood, but the state also assisted people in that effort. The state’s ownership of land along rivers was to the ordinary and permanent high water mark, not where the river rose in a flood.

It was easy to work with the state, continued Ms. Wilcox, and it was not the enemy or a demon. She said during the 1997 legislative session the Division of State Lands was eager to cooperate with Assemblyman Hettrick’s proposed legislation to further streamline the state permitting process. Permits currently went out in 60 days and emergency permits were not required at all. She pointed out she was in complete agreement regarding the problem A.B. 490 attempted to address. Ms Wilcox explained the state was responsible for one half of the cost of approved projects. She said money had consistently been available to fund all necessary projects and the state’s objective was to continue that work.

Ms. Wilcox said she agreed with the basis of the problem presented to the committee. Individuals who lived along rivers, along with local governmental agencies and conservation districts who were doing necessary work to maintain the rivers of Nevada, and who were applying for grants to fund approved projects, wanted to ensure money would be available dependably and on an annual basis. Many projects were multi-year projects and all concerned wanted to be assured funds would continue to be provided through the duration of those projects. She provided the committee with a handout developed by Division of Water Resources summarizing the amount of money in the channel clearance fund, which showed the state’s responsibility to its rivers and its willingness to continue contributing its share of money to continue the program (Exhibit H).

Mr. Mortenson said he was very surprised at the misconceptions people who lived along the Carson River had regarding state permitting for river channel clearance. He quoted Ms. Wilcox when she said there was a standard of reasonableness regarding the clearance of obstructions from rivers and asked who could have told people along the Carson River they could be fined as much as $25,000 for clearing debris from rivers. Mr. Mortenson said the record needed to show individuals did not need a state permit to remove fallen trees from rivers and Division of State Lands had no authority to impose fines on individuals who did remove debris from rivers. He encouraged all those who were involved in the issue to request copies of Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining minutes as verification of those policies.

Hugh Ricci, Deputy State Engineer of the Division of Water Resources, was the next to address the proposed legislation. He explained his agency had no particular position on the measure and regardless of what happened with the legislation his agency would continue to process requests as they came into the office based on the funds available.

The Chairman asked if there was a list of projects for which there was no available funding. Mr. Ricci deferred the question to Jason King, Chief of Engineering, Division of Water Resources. Mr. King explained he was responsible for administering grant money for projects. He referred the committee to page 2 of Exhibit H in order to answer the Chairman’s question. He pointed out the information showed no projects had failed for lack of funds.

Dan Kaffer, Coordinator for the Western Nevada Resource Conservation and Development Area (WNRC&D), was the next to testify on A.B. 490. He explained his organization was a nonprofit association of 18 different county governments, conservation districts, tribes, and water districts in western Nevada, which endeavored to find solutions to regional watershed problems along the Carson, Truckee, and Walker Rivers.

Mr. Kaffer said for many years money for priority projects along rivers was available but not used because those funds could only be used to clear channels to dredge rivers. Because the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) federal permitting process was so costly and complex no work was being done on rivers. A USACE permit cost more money than the fund had designated for an entire project. In the 1997 session A.B. 190, sponsored by Assemblyman Hettrick, was passed. It changed existing law by allowing funds to be used for bank stabilization, watershed restoration, erosion control work, and repairing the river system.

After the 1997 flood, Mr. Kaffer continued, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, a federal agency for whom he worked, provided Nevada with additional funding for those projects. Also during the 1997 legislative session, S.B. 218 was passed, which provided matching funds for disaster repair. Until recently money remained in the river fund because federal funding from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) grants were supplying revenues to it; however, those monies would not be available after 1999. The river fund was now in jeopardy and could only be used to repair specific flood damaged areas. The river fund was facing a serious deficit. He pointed out WNRC&D was desperately seeking funding sources to perform river repairs throughout western Nevada. Every dollar the state provided for river projects was leveraged between 5 and 20 times in order to complete projects. Mr. Kaffer said Division of State Lands, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, and federal permitting agencies such as United States Army Corps of Engineers were beginning to cooperate on WNRC&D projects; however, many people over the years have had thousands of dollars worth of damage done to their properties and had suffered as a result of the complex permitting process required for river channel clearance and maintenance. He said WNRC&D board of directors supported the proposed legislation and he urged the committee to pass the measure.

Chairman de Braga asked if help was available for repairing areas along rivers where property owners experienced the loss of acreage due to lack of maintenance. Mr. Kaffer said during the last flood some help was provided to individuals who experienced losses or damage, but federal money could not be used to recoup land that was washed away in a flood. That land was gone forever. Riverbanks needed to be stabilized and channels needed to be cleared before a flood occurred.

Kevin Piper was the next speaker to address A.B. 490. He said he was District Manager for the newly formed Dayton Valley Conservation District as well as Chairman of the Middle Carson River Management Group (MCRMG). His job for the last 3 years was to coordinate permits and projects along the Carson River. The proposed legislation was crucial to local management groups working along the Carson River to improve the environment, maintain the river, and protect property owners. Cooperation with state entities was vital to his organizations.

Bob Milz, Chairman of the Carson Water Subconservancy District (CWSD) and Lyon County Commissioner, was the next proponent of the proposed legislation. He explained his organization was a cooperative of county boards involving Carson, Douglas, Lyon, and Churchill Counties. He said he spent much of his time searching for funding sources through matching funds. The proposed legislation was an important step in making his job easier. During the 1997 legislative session, Mr. Milz concluded, Speaker Dini emphasized the need to make state permitting an easier process, not only in emergency years but in dry years as well. A.B. 490 addressed that same issue.

Chairman de Braga asked if an individual needed to be permitted to do specific work along a river, would that individual have to acquire permits from state, federal, and other agencies, and who would issue fines. Mr. Piper explained maintenance work was exempt from USACE permit requirements, but NDEP permits were required for rolling stock permits along with project proposals to Division of State Lands. The maintenance process was fairly flexible, but an individual needed to become familiar with it in order to satisfy all requirements in order to avoid getting fined. New project permitting was more complex; however, USACE and MCRMG had developed a streamlined permit referred to as a nationwide 27 permit, which covered 35 miles of the Carson River and was good for 2 years. Work plans were updated annually in order to track completed projects and new projects. From that information a pre-construction notification list was developed involving the USACE, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Division of Wildlife, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 401 Water Quality Certification, and several other state agencies.

Allen Biaggi, Administrator of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, testified in opposition to the proposed legislation. He said he was adamantly opposed to A.B. 490 because of its potential impact to the state’s water quality. He pointed out his agency worked diligently to process permit applications in a timely manner and in most cases permits were granted in a week or less. Also, a program was in place to grant 5-year permits for ongoing projects, particularly rolling stock and river channel clearing. He agreed, however, the State of Nevada should take a responsible position regarding financial contributions regarding the bed and banks of its waterways. Mr. Biaggi said the measure traded water quality for money in places where water quality was at the discretion of the state’s shifting budget system, which he said would be an unfortunate arrangement.

Mr. Biaggi said the ultimate impact of A.B. 490 should it pass was the listing of the Carson River as an impaired waterway. If that should occur, a signal would be sent to the Federal Government that Nevada was experiencing significant water problems on the Carson River and could result in the imposition of total maximum daily infiltration of pollutants into the water. Mr. Biaggi suggested NDEP work with Division of State Lands and the committee to develop an alternative solution to finding revenues to maintain the river fund or alternative language for the proposed legislation that would accomplish the goals the measure intended without sacrificing the state’s water quality.

Mr. Marvel said stabilized riverbanks and proper erosion controls were the most effective way to ensure good water quality. Mr. Biaggi agreed and added his agency worked diligently on projects to control erosion. However, siltration in rivers from uncoordinated river projects would be counter productive. Best management practices should be used at all time and the permitting process was in place to ensure water quality was not degraded.

Ms. Parnell requested all involved governmental agencies cooperate with concerned citizens involved in river channel clearing projects and develop proposed amendments to the legislation. She said she applauded the men who worked on the river at their own expense.

Mr. Arden returned to the witness table to testify on A.B. 490. He said many concerned individuals, particularly those volunteering in conservation districts, donated time, effort, and money to ensure a better quality of life for all of Nevada’s citizens. He said he agreed with Mr. Biaggi that water quality was the most important issue. His organization would support an annual $250,000 appropriation to protect the state’s water quality and maintenance of its riverbanks. He said it would be appropriate for all concerned entities and individuals to cooperate to develop legislation that would satisfy everyone without sacrificing water quality.

Kelly McGowan was the next to address the proposed legislation. He said he was the Coordinator and District Administrator of Smith Valley and Mason Valley Conservation Districts. He said he supported the measure because in the past, projects funded by the river channel clearance fund had been instrumental in providing both good water quality and river maintenance while continuing to protect private property and the environment. Streamlining the permitting process had occurred and should continue to be streamlined even further. The conservation districts and coordinated resource management groups in Nevada were the entities doing the restoration work on the state’s river systems. He urged the committee to promote those local citizen groups by continuing to provide necessary funds for river work.

Mary Walker said she represented Carson, Douglas, and Lyon Counties, all of whom supported the proposed legislation. Since the flood of 1997, a new awareness had emerged regarding potential flooding problems along the Carson River, which were enhanced by the lack of stream and river clearance. She said the proposed legislation was not asking for a handout, or any assistance whatsoever. It requested citizens be granted the right to help themselves.

Dave Hill, representing the city of Sparks, said he echoed the sentiments of Ms. Walker. He added the problem with lack of funding and coordinated river clearance projects was an urban problem as well as a rural problem. He reminded the committee the Sparks business corridor was directly on the Truckee River.

Dan Holler, Douglas County Manager, echoed the comments of those who had testified before him in support of the measure. Citizens were constantly requesting information from him in his county regarding the permitting process for river channel clearing. He said the fact that conservation districts had to hire people to help them work through the permitting process was a statement that the process was too complex. He said the process had improved in recent years, but had a long way to go. He said A.B. 490 would facilitate the streamlining of the permitting process.

Mr. Settlemeyer returned to the witness table to address the question of the nationwide 27 permit. He said it was very instrumental in helping local management and conservation groups expedite the permit process. He suggested Division of State Lands develop a statewide permit that could be used to coordinate and expedite the permit process. He said he disagreed with Mr. Biaggi when he stated the proposed legislation would allow unlimited pollution of the Carson River because federal mandates conducted comprehensive reviews to ensure compliance with environmental regulations. He said if the state wanted to be involved in river maintenance projects, they needed to just do it. If the state was not serious about river maintenance projects they should allow others to do the work and protect the river.

The Chairman asked if there were additional questions or comments and there were none. She closed the hearing on A.B. 490 and opened the hearing to a work session on A.B. 358.

Linda Eissmann, Legislative Counsel Bureau policy analyst to the committee, explained the measure had been heard in a previous hearing in Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining, but needed additional language. Mr. Marvel was instrumental in constructing an amendment that would alter the proposed legislation in the following way:

• The State Land Use Agency would be required to notify affected local governments within 1-week after receipt of notice federal realty action would occur.
• Local governments would be allowed to provide comments to the State Land Use Agency within 30-days as well as respond directly to the federal agency. Those comments would include estimates of reduction in total assessed valuation as well as recommendations for mitigation for loss of assessed valuation.
• If the State Land Use Agency elected to submit comments to the federal agency, comments must include remarks of local governments involved.

Ms. Wilcox returned to the witness table to review the proposed amendment. She explained she had met with Michelle Gamble, Program Assistant for the Nevada Association of Counties and had approved the language for the proposed amendment. Ms. Wilcox said all involved entities were satisfied with the revised measure.

Ms. Gamble said the measure was essentially rewritten and would become a new section in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 321. She provided the committee with the proposed amendment (Exhibit I). She expressed enthusiasm for the possibility that local governments would take advantage of the new arrangement. Ms. Wilcox agreed and said she hoped local governments would report back to Division of State Lands regarding any impacts the measure would have on their local tax base.

The Chairman asked if there were any additional questions or comments and as there were none, called for a vote on the measure.

Chairman de Braga asked Mr. Marvel to present the measure on the floor of the Assembly. She closed the work session hearing on A.B. 358 and opened the work session on A.B. 574.

Ms. Eissmann explained the measure had been heard in a previous hearing in Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining and was sponsored by Mr. Humke. In the previous hearing language for a proposed amendment was considered. She explained the amendment would clarify the requirement that laboratories be certified to analyze drinking water in accordance with regulations adopted by Nevada State Health Division pursuant to NRS 439.200. Ms. Eissmann asked Mr. Humke if he was satisfied with the proposed language for the amendment. Mr. Humke responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Mortenson asked if the Legislative Counsel Bureau allowed references to Nevada Administrative Code to be included in the language of proposed legislation. Mr. Humke said Mr. Carpenter was correct in regards to that question previously discussed in committee. Mr. Humke said Legislative Counsel Bureau did not allow references to Nevada Administrative Code to be made in proposed legislation because the code was subject to change.

Chairman de Braga asked if there was any further discussion on the proposed legislation and there was none. She called for a motion.

The Chairman requested Mr. Hettrick to present the measure and amendment on the floor of the Assembly.

There being no further business before the committee the hearing was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: