The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 2:20 p.m., on Wednesday, April 7, 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

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Speaker Joseph Dini, Assembly District 38

Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, District 25

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

After roll was called the Chairman opened the hearing on A.B. 509.

Chairman de Braga called upon Mr. Carpenter to explain the proposed amendment to A.B. 509 (Exhibit C). The new language required a county to file a writ of mandamus on behalf of a private landowner in the county that submitted notice for action to remove wild horses intruding on private property. There was also the requirement the county must include in the petition for the writ a request to the court authorizing the county or the Nevada Division of Agriculture (NDOA) to remove the wild horses or burros humanely if the secretary of the interior so authorized.

Mr. Humke asked if the writ of mandamus would be filed in federal court. Mr. Carpenter responded in the affirmative. Mr. Humke said he approved of the new language and added the proposed amendment changed the original measure entirely. He said he would vote in favor of the measure but would reserve his right to vote against it if his constituents had a problem with the new language. His constituents needed time to review the new language.

Chairman de Braga explained work sessions did not usually allow testimony to be heard; however, A.B. 509 was a new piece of legislation because it had been rewritten. She would, therefore, allow public testimony to be heard but cautioned members of the audience to remain respectful, particularly because recent verbal attacks had been made against committee members. She said disrespect would not be tolerated.

Mr. Lee asked what a writ of mandamus was, to which Mr. Humke explained it was a court order specifically requesting someone to do or not do something. In the present case it was the request of a county for a federal court order commanding the secretary of the interior to carry out his duties under the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.

Marnie Miller, private citizen, was the first speaker to testify against A.B. 509. She said she objected to the measure because it made no clear distinction between wild, estray, or feral horses. She said it would be impossible to know where the horses belonged or to whom. She suggested more concise language be added to the measure in order to make clear distinctions between free roaming horses on the range.

Mr. Carpenter said the proposed amendment in its final form would give an ample amount of latitude in the determining how the horses would be dealt with upon receipt of the writ of mandamus. Each individual case would be individually addressed. Local governments would be making the choice as to how to correct complaints regarding wild horses.

Bobbi Royle, private citizen, spoke in opposition to the proposed legislation. She said she foresaw many lengthy and expensive lawsuits resulting from the legislation.

Betty Kelly, private citizen, spoke against the new language of the measure. She said she found the proposed legislation completely unacceptable.

The Chairman asked Ms. Kelly for suggestions on how to word the legislation; in particular what private landowners should do in order to mitigate the problem of wild horses straying onto private property. Ms. Kelly said the term private property was a loosely used term, which did not always apply. Much of the land upon which horses strayed was public land and most of the horses were wild horses, not estray or feral. The Chairman said workable solutions needed to be found because herds of wild horses were straying onto private land. Something needed to be done to protect individuals who did not want wild horses on their property while protecting the herds.

Mr. Carpenter offered to take Ms. Kelly to rural areas throughout the state to observe wild horses on private land. Ranchers and other private landowners had repeatedly requested Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to remove the horses, but the federal agency did not remove them. The proposed legislation gave the county the option to go to BLM and request, on behalf of the property owner, removal of the horses. Ms. Kelly said she did not trust the counties would handle the horses properly. Mr. Carpenter disagreed with her, adding the counties would treat the horses far more humanly than BLM would. He said the horses were overpopulating, which resulted in overgrazing and destruction of rangeland.

Mike Baughman, representing Eureka County, spoke in support of the measure. He said the number of livestock in Eureka County had fallen sharply in recent years and the number of wild horses had risen dramatically. Eureka County supported the language of the measure and suggested two minor additions in the language. They were as follows:

• The measure should be limited to areas outside horse management areas so as not to confuse wild horse herds with other horse herds.
• In addition to authorizing counties and NDOA to gather the horses upon request, the measure should reimburse counties and NDOA for the cost of gathering and holding wild horses.

The Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments on the proposed legislation and there were none. She closed the hearing on A.B. 509 and opened the hearing on A.B. 427.

Dawn Gibbons, Assembly District 25, was the first to testify in support of the proposed legislation. She said the measure was requested by several of her constituents, one of whom had accompanied her to the hearing and was prepared to testify. She introduced Lee Quilici.

Mr. Quilici explained he was the owner of tow automotive service shops in Reno. Recently he had difficulty with the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) regarding the strict department requirement that only licensed service technicians could perform smog tests on automobiles. The required license was called a G-2 license.

Because smog tests were required in Washoe County for automobile renewals, Mr. Quilici’s service shops were equipped to both perform the tests and make necessary repairs on vehicles to get them into compliance with the law. He was discovered by DMV&PS making minor repairs to an automobile before running the smog check and for that he was charged a $500 fine for not having a G-2 license. Mr. Quilici said the department was making outrageous rules that intruded on private businesses. He said he appealed to the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) but was given no information or help whatsoever.

Mr. Lee asked if acquiring a G-2 smog license to perform smog tests would prohibit service shops from legally doing automotive repair work on vehicles. Mr. Quilici responded in the affirmative. He added the proposed legislation stopped DMV&PS from requiring a G-2 license to repair vehicles, it did not stop the G-2 license requirement to repair vehicles that failed smog tests.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked for clarification of the two forms of license requirements. Mr. Quilici explained the G-1 license was required to do smog and emissions testing, but no repair work was allowed under that designation. The G-2 designation allowed service technicians to repair vehicles that failed smog or emissions tests. It was possible to have both licenses but it was very difficult to acquire a G-2 license. Mr. Quilici considered G-1 license holders to be penalized by DMV&PS because they were not allowed to perform service repair work on emission controls and could be fined for changing four spark plugs.

Chairman de Braga asked if having the two designations constituted a form of consumer protection. Mr. Quilici said the designations did not guarantee consumer protection.

Mr. Mortenson asked if a service shop had neither the G-1 or the G-2 license could that shop perform any manner of work. Mr. Quilici replied in the affirmative. He added having the G-1 designation brought customers into the shop for emissions tests, but without the additional G-2 designation, repair work to correct emissions problems was forbidden.

Ms. Gibbons thanked the committee for its time and urged the members to consider the proposed legislation.

Jolaine Johnson, Chief of the Bureau of Air Quality for the Division of Environmental Protection, spoke in opposition to the measure. She cited her main reason for opposing A.B. 427 was that her agency feared uncertified mechanics would repair emission control equipment in advance of emissions tests. She pointed out the significant improvements in Nevada’s air quality standards despite unprecedented growth throughout the state was attributable to her agency’s effective air pollution control programs. The motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program was at the heart of those improvements. She was concerned that any relaxation of inspection standards, combined with increasing numbers of vehicles and miles traveled, would push carbon monoxide concentrations over acceptable minimal levels. Her testimony in its entirety was included as Exhibit D.

Mr. Carpenter asked what was wrong with getting a vehicle tuned up prior to getting an emissions test. She said it was always a good idea to keep vehicles well tuned; however, federal standards made it unlawful to repair a vehicle’s emission controls immediately before a smog test. The reason for that federal mandate was the agencies needed to know how many vehicles were failing emission standard testing in order to gauge the effectiveness of the program. It was important to both the federal and state agencies to have an idea of approximately how many vehicles would fail the emission standards testing if they were not required by law to be tested. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would sanction NDEP for violating federal law.

Mr. Humke said years ago he was among the supporters of legislation requiring Washoe and Clark Counties to perform smog and emissions tests on vehicles in compliance with Federal Government requirements. He considered those federal requirements to be counterintuitive because they made no sense. Making it illegal to repair vehicles prior to emissions testing made no sense. Mr. Humke said Mr. Quilici was fighting two agencies, DMV&PS and NDEP. That did not seem fair, he concluded.

Mr. Mortenson asked why was it important to public agencies to know how many individuals would do something to fix their vehicles before testing was performed. Ms. Johnson said it appeared as though governmental agencies were discouraging people from fixing vehicles prior to smog testing. It did save money, she granted, to have a vehicle in good working order before paying for a smog test, otherwise the individual would have to pay for a smog test, fail the test, do the required repair work, and pay for another smog test. However, EPA was engaged in measuring the effectiveness of inspection and maintenance programs based upon how many vehicles were actually failing the emissions tests. She said EPA wanted to catch people with inadequate maintenance programs in order to measure air quality improvements and to attribute corrective action to the inspection program.

Mr. Mortenson and Mr. Marvel said it seemed as if EPA wanted people to fail the tests so the federal agency could take credit for correcting those failures in order to justify the program. Mr. Carpenter suggested a change in the rules.

Mr. Hettrick said EPA would probably take funding away from Nevada if the state deviated from federal guidelines. Ms. Johnson said EPA would take money away from the State of Nevada if the legislation passed. Mr. Hettrick said sooner or later Nevada might have to let EPA withdraw federal funding to the state rather than continue that form of bribery.

Russ Benzler, Chief Investigator of the Bureau of Enforcement, and Jim Parsons, Program Manager of the Division of Emission Control, both of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, were the next to testify against A.B. 427. They explained DMV&PS opposed the measure because it was a step backwards in the state’s efforts to meet air quality standards mandated by the Federal Government. The legislation would eliminate the department’s enhanced Class 1 and Class 2 emission station inspector program, which was developed and implemented to ensure only trained and certified inspectors could diagnosis problems with vehicles emission devices.

Mr. Carpenter said it made sense and saved money to make necessary repairs prior to taking vehicles through emissions testing. No one wanted to do away with emission testing or air quality standards, he explained.

Allen Biaggi, Administrator of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, agreed EPA often wrote rules and regulations that made no sense and burdened citizens. However, it was not only money going to NDEP, it was federal money designated for roads throughout the state that would be cut. Nevada could not afford to lose such a significant amount of money.

Andy Goodrich, Program Manager, Washoe County District Health Department, Air Quality Management Division, was the last speaker to testify against the measure. He said his main concern regarding the proposed legislation was the elimination of inspection classifications. It was important to license technicians in order to maintain a high level of emission standards.

Chairman de Braga asked if there was any further questions or comments and there were none. As there was no additional business before the committee the hearing was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: