The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, May 5, 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:

Rodney Smith, Vice Chairman, Clark County Wildlife Advisory Board

Cindra Smith, Representing the American Dog Owners Association

Pamela Wilcox, Administrator of Division of State Lands (DSL), was the first to testify in support of the proposed legislation. She said S.B. 508 was requested by DSL and was supported by the agency’s budget division. Her agency handled various land management expenses ranging from conducting surveys to placing signage. The measure was designed to establish a revolving fund, which would provide greater flexibility and authority in managing the division’s budget. She explained the proposed legislation carried an appropriation of $20,000. Upon passage of the legislation, the line item in the division’s budget would be eliminated and the appropriation would replace it. Ms. Wilcox pointed out the measure would need re-referral to Committee on Ways and Means because it contained an appropriation.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were any questions or comments, and as there were none, she called for a motion.

As there was no further discussion on the measure, the Chairman closed the hearing on S.B. 508 and opened the hearing on S.B. 211.

Daryl Capurro, a private citizen, was the first proponent of the proposed legislation to address the measure. He explained he was an avid hunter and conservationist and was concerned about current wildlife issues in the state.

The proposed legislation in its second reprinted form restored the language placed into law during the 1991 Legislative Session, which modified the hunting tag application law for big game. Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) considered the 1991 law to be session language applicable only to that session and, therefore, had not been placed in law within the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). The LCB determination caused a problem because the issue was ongoing and probably the most important public and private partnership in Nevada.

Mr. Capurro pointed out it was important for the big game hunting tag law to remain privatized and S.B. 211 ensured that the language of the original law would remain in effect, which was what sections 1 and 2 addressed. Section 3 was an additional proposal that concerned dog shows and would be addressed by witnesses from Las Vegas.

Gerry Lent, representing Nevada Hunters Association, was called to testify in support of the proposed legislation and presented the committee with language for a proposed amendment (Exhibit C). The amendment was a housekeeping supplement to existing law regarding requirements for big game hunting tag drawings. He explained he supported the measure because it reestablished the process of holding drawings and placed it back into law.

Mr. Lent explained the big game hunting tag drawing process. He said a private contractor would draw the tags from a random drawing computer and issue tags in the same process. That would streamline the process and make it very fair for both in-state and out-of-state hunters.

Chairman de Braga said in review the language for the proposed amendment eliminating the word and would create confusion. Mr. Capurro explained a semicolon would replace the deleted and, thus clarifying requirements for a vender to engage in a legal tag drawing. The proposed language would add back into the original legislation state control of requirements developed by contractors and approved by the State of Utah, which was a model for S.B. 211.

Mr. Lent continued the remaining language of section 3 of the proposed amendment clarified the intent of Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) to state its ownership of the program. Section 4 deleted the 10-day waiting period for the issuance of tags after the drawing because tags were printed instantly after the drawing was completed due to the computerized process. Section 5 lowered the category E felony to a gross misdemeanor. Section 6 placed the process under NRS 193.120 and removed it from NRS 193.130, which had to occur as a housekeeping measure resulting from the proposed change to section 5 lowering the penalty for violations.

Mr. Lee asked how the bidding system worked for contractors who were applying as vendors for the tag drawing process. Mr. Capurro explained the contracts were for 3 years and chosen from a list of 3 to 5 contractors who had applied for the contract. It was a concise process formulated to be easily understood and a new system. Vendors experienced in computerized drawing processes were preferred because they had previously shown ability and effectiveness. Applicants were not specifically experienced in wildlife issues.

Mr. Carpenter asked how often the bidding process was opened. Mr. Capurro explained between 2 and 3 years. Mr. Carpenter asked if the bidding process would be reopened after the conclusion of a vendor’s contract if the vendor had done a satisfactory job. Mr. Capurro responded in the affirmative and explained that requirement was mandated by state law. A formal bidding process would have to be opened and the state would retain proprietary interest in the program and all related records. Mr. Carpenter asked why it was important to remove the time requirement. Mr. Capurro explained the existing section required that if a vendor failed to provide a final report of the results of the drawing to the NDOW within 10 days the vendor would be charged with a misdemeanor. The new language removed that requirement because the agency was not concerned about receiving drawing reports in 10-days.

Mr. Mortenson asked why privatization of the process was considered desirable. Mr. Capurro responded privatization was desirable because the computerized tag drawing process was complicated, precise, and cost-effective. There was a universal lack of confidence in the old system. The computerized process was also able to access vital biological information, which was very valuable to NDOW and otherwise unavailable. The new system also eliminated the need for NDOW personnel to be involved in the old time-consuming drawing process.

Rodney Smith, Vice Chairman of Clark County Wildlife Advisory Board, was the next proponent of the proposed legislation to testify. He explained the measure was important for sportsmen throughout the State of Nevada. Furthermore, the inclusion of the language prohibiting certain acts relating to dogs used in exhibitions and other events was important to individuals who owned and showed dogs as well as to sportsmen and animal activists because it provided for the protection of the health and safety of dogs. Dogs had been mistreated, let loose, and poisoned at shows and other dog related events. The proposed legislation was intended to eliminate those activities and penalize those who were found guilty of perpetrating it. Many of the perpetrators were misguided animal activists who considered a dog better off dead than in a kennel or on display. Mr. Smith said he represented dog owners, dog lovers, dog handlers, kennel clubs, and sportsmen who all loved their dogs and considered all extremist activist behavior unacceptable and prosecutable.

The Chairman explained the hearing on S.B. 211 would be temporarily suspended and placed into a subcommittee hearing, which would immediately follow the meeting in order to allow the lengthy list of witnesses to testify. Chairman de Braga explained it was necessary to move the discussion of S.B. 108 forward on the agenda because numerous amendments were proposed and time was needed to consider all of them. The Chairman said she would prefer to pass the measure out of committee in its present form, expressing the committee’s concern s regarding the mining exemption, conservation concerns, and several other related matters, with a request to the Interim Committee on Public Lands to resolve remaining issues. She opened the hearing on S.B. 108.

Mike Baughman, representing the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority (HRBWA), was the first to testify in support of the proposed legislation. He explained proposed amendments offered with his testimony from a previous hearing were withdrawn because they were controversial. He provided the committee with a revised amendment, which clarified the definition of the phrase interbasin transfer of ground water and which imposed no new requirements upon applicants for mine dewatering or water transfer from a basin (Exhibit D).

Mr. Baughman said his previous testimony might have given the impression the five counties that comprised HRBWA opposed mining activities; however, that was not the case. HRBWA and representatives from those five counties supported the mining industry and understood its importance to Nevada, particularly in the rural areas of the state. He provided the committee with a letter of endorsement for S.B. 108 from the Board of Eureka County Commissioners (Exhibit E). In the letter, the commissioners expressed their concern regarding the exemption of applicants whose points of diversion and beneficial use were in the same basin. Although mine dewatering was not legally considered an interbasin transfer of water, the end result would be the same.

Mr. Baughman expressed the concern of HRBWA that by not considering mine dewatering and that mine dewatering was exempt from the proposed legislation the state engineer might be precluded by law from considering criteria regarding interbasin transfer of ground water. New language for those criteria was suggested in Exhibit F.

Mr. Baughman said HRBWA would welcome the opportunity to address all concerns with the Interim Committee on Public Lands. He explained HRBWA was particularly concerned about the issue of upstream storage of water passing through the system and out into the Humboldt and Carson Sinks where it was evaporating, which was a terrible waste of valuable water. The remainder of Mr. Baughman’s testimony was included in Exhibit G.

Mr. Marvel said he took umbrage at the letter from the Board of Eureka County Commissioners, which stated it was disappointed that legislators and mining lobbyists scoffed at the figures it presented as projected losses in base flows as a result of interbasin water transfers. He added he was seriously concerned about the condition of the Humboldt River. The committee in its previous hearing on the proposed legislation was not scoffing at the information the board presented in its testimony. Legislators were trying to determine the facts regarding the issue.

Chairman de Braga added she was concerned about the amendment proposed by HRBWA because if the measure passed with that amendment, there would be a risk water could be put to another beneficial use other than for what had been permitted, which could result in lawsuits. Also, she pointed out, the issue of mine dewatering was complex, and a hasty decision could prove detrimental resulting in a serious negative impact on the mining industry or Eureka County. She suggested revisiting the issue in the Interim Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. Carpenter pointed out the value of the Chairman’s opinion and agreed the Interim Committee on Public Lands was a permanent committee equipped to handle complex issues in detail such as interbasin water transfers and mine dewatering. He added the state engineer had historically considered those issues and would continue to do so in the future.

The Chairman explained she always approached the issue of interbasin transfers with a great deal of caution because the basin in which the water originated needed to be protected. S.B. 108 was a good piece of legislation and the proposed amendments were significant and required more study.

Paul Miller, Chairman, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority, responded to the Chairman’s expression of concern and agreed his concerns were the same as hers. He added HRBWA was also concerned that dewatering was not regulated. He said he was additionally concerned that water from mine dewatering entering the Humboldt River would be considered water from interbasin transfer for beneficial use for purposes other than what had been permitted. If that were to happen, HRBWA would be in violation of its permits.

Linda Eissmann, Legislative Counsel Bureau policy analyst, presented the committee with a breakdown of the proposed legislation, which also provided background information on the measure (Exhibit H).

The Chairman asked if there were additional questions or comments and there were none. She called for a motion.

Ms. Parnell suggested the motion to pass S.B. 108 without amendments include a letter from the committee to refer the measure to the Interim Standing Committee on Public Lands. Mr. Carpenter agreed with Ms. Parnell and put the suggestion into the record. The Chairman called for a vote on the suggestion.

Samuel McMullen, representing Barrick Goldstrick Mining Corporation, asked to put on record the definition of interbasin water transfer to be included in the letter of intent pertaining to S.B. 108 to the Interim Standing Committee on Public Lands. He pointed out the issue in question was the definition of an interbasin water transfer. He said it was important to recognize all water issues relative to mining was not in question. The Chairman acknowledged his point and requested Mr. Carpenter to restate the motion regarding the letter of intent.

Mr. Neighbors said he appreciated the cooperative efforts of all concerned entities, the committee members, and the Interim Committee on Public Lands for working on the extremely important issue of interbasin water transfers from mine dewatering.

Chairman de Braga reopened the hearing on S.B. 211. Cecil Fredi, representing Hunter’s Alert, testified as a proponent on the proposed legislation. He stated the measure originally had 5 different parts comprising it and, due to the shortened session, three of those five parts had been omitted. Chairman de Braga explained several amendments to the measure had been proposed and she wanted all amendments to be reviewed for comment. She asked if all witnesses testifying on the proposed legislation had obtained copies of the proposed amendments. An additional amendment had been presented to her, which would remove from statute the requirement that the offices of NDOW had to be maintained in the city of Reno, Nevada. She asked for comments on the proposed amendment along with the proposed legislation.

Freeman Johnson, Assistant Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DC&NR), was the next to testify on the proposed legislation.

He explained he was testifying for Peter Morros, Director of that department, in support of S.B. 211 as it was amended and to speak in support of the proposed reappeal of NRS 501.341, which required NDOW to maintain its headquarters in Reno. No other location restriction appeared in statute anywhere else for the department, and it was an unnecessary restriction. Mr. Johnson pointed out a significant improvement in both efficiency and economy could be achieved by bringing all divisions of DC&NR together in one location, particularly in Carson City.

Mr. Johnson stated recent press articles had created the impression a consolidation of the agency’s many divisions into the capital city was eminent; however, at present there were no plans to effect such a change. He presented the committee with a proposed amendment (Exhibit I), which was only a housekeeping measure intended to lift the restriction in the event a consolidation of the agency would eventually be implemented. He added the issue had the support of the governor. Mr. Johnson’s entire testimony was included (Exhibit J).

Mr. Humke asked if the amendment (Exhibit J) had been presented to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. Mr. Johnson responded in the negative. Mr. Humke said he did not favor the amendment and proposed an amendment to remove NDOW from DC&NR entirely. He said that would resolve the problem.

Mrs. Segerblom asked if there were plans to move NDOW to Las Vegas, to which he replied in the negative. He explained there were no plans to move the division anywhere presently; however, consolidating all divisions of DC&NR into one location in Carson City nearer the capitol complex was a good and viable option for the future.

Mr. Capurro said he had no position regarding the proposed amendment presented by Mr. Johnson, but he requested the amendment be considered separately from the proposed amendments previously presented to the committee.

The Chairman announced her schedule required her to testify in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources on another measure. At 2:15 she called for a recess. Following a 30-minute recess, the committee was reorganized into a subcommittee to discuss S.B. 211.

Several committee members needed to attend other legislative meetings and excused themselves. The attendance of various members of the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining changed continually throughout the subcommittee hearing due to their other legislative responsibilities. At times a quorum was available and at other times a quorum was not available. Vice Chairman Segerblom presided as the Chairman for the subcommittee on S.B. 211.

Floyd Arterburn, private citizen, was the first witness to address the proposed legislation. He said he supported the measure because it would resolve the inequities that currently existed regarding bonus points issued by NDOW. He presented a proposed amendment in the form of A.B. 488, which had not passed in the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining. The measure would have allowed bonus points for hunting tags to be granted to individuals who had received refunds for hunting licenses if they failed to acquire an animal during hunting season. His testimony was included in its entirety in Exhibit K.

Cindra Smith, representing the American Dog Owners Association, was the next witness to testify in support of the measure. She supported S.B. 211 because it protected dogs that participated in competitions and dog shows. Dogs had been poisoned, killed, harassed, tampered with, maimed, and let loose because of animal activism and competition jealousy. Ms. Smith said she also supported the proposed amendments. She added that if an animal was killed in a competition the charge should be a felony, not a misdemeanor.

Peter Liakopulos, radio and television host of Outdoor Adventures, said he supported the proposed legislation because it protected animals loved and shown by dog owners. Also, regarding NDOW aspects of the measure, he said it promoted fairness in the big game hunting bonus point system.

Terry Crawforth, Administrator of NDOW, said his agency supported the measure. He explained he had no additional testimony because it had previously been presented by others.

Mr. Hettrick proposed an amendment that would read the division shall contract with a private entity to conduct the drawing and to award and issues tags. Mr. Crawforth agreed the suggested amendment would be appropriate. However, he requested the provision regarding special hunting seasons needed to be left in because that language was referenced repeatedly throughout the NRS relative to hunting laws in order to distinguish between special hunting seasons and regular hunting seasons.

Mrs. Segerblom asked if Mr. Crawforth agreed with Mr. Johnson’s proposed amendment to allow NDOW headquarters to be moved. Mr. Crawforth agreed with proposal was sound. He added jokingly that he made it a policy to never disagree with his supervisors.

Ed Wagner, representing Nevada Wildlife Federation, testified in support of the proposed legislation and amendments with the exception of two amendments, which were as follows:

• He did not support the amendment proposed by Mr. Johnson removing the requirement that NDOW retain its headquarters in Reno, Nevada.

• He did not support the amendment proposed by Mr. Arterburn revising defeated A.B. 488 revising the statutes on bonus points issued by NDOW.

Mr. Wagner said he agreed with Mr. Humke that NDOW should be removed from DC&NR.

Mr. Capurro returned to the witness table to explain he agreed with the language of Mr. Hettrick’s proposed amendment as long as Mr. Crawforth’s concern was addressed and the language differentiating between regular and special hunter seasons was retained. He disagreed with the proposed amendment presented by Mr. Arterburn, but agreed with Mr. Johnson’s proposed amendment.

Mr. Hettrick said, regarding language pertaining to special and regular hunting seasons, his proposed amendment would read for a special season the division shall contract.

Mr. Lent returned to the witness table to state his agreement with Mr. Hettrick’s proposed amendments. He stated he agreed with Mr. Capurro not to include the language from A.B. 488 as suggested by Mr. Arterburn.

Larry Johnson, representing Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, was the last witness to testify in support of S.B. 211. He said he, too, opposed Mr. Arterburn’s proposed amendment because it was universally opposed by Nevada sportsmen and hunters. Regarding Mr. Johnson’s proposed amendment, he said he had no data available at the present time to determine a position on the suggestion. He said he was convinced that currently NDOW had no funding available to make any changes whatsoever, especially a colossal move from Reno.

Mr. Johnson returned to the witness stand to explain his position on previous testimony. He said the amendment he proposed did nothing more than remove the restriction from statute the limitation on location of NDOW headquarters. He reiterated that no move was suggested and none was planned. The proposed amendment was purely a housekeeping attempt at removing an unnecessary and unwieldy statute from NRS.

Mr. Hettrick said he was in agreement with Mr. Johnson that the location restriction in the NRS was unnecessary and should be eliminated. However, the issue could be addressed at the same time a change of location for the headquarters of NDOW was suggested, which could possibly be as soon as next session. He said that way animosity arising from attaching his proposed amendment would be eliminated as it had obviously be met with hostility.

Mr. Fredi returned to the witness table to express his support for the proposed legislation. He said there were some misunderstandings regarding the need for the measure that he wanted to clarify. He said there was a good possibility that if an individual applied for a sheep or bull elk tag for the rest of his life that individual might never be successful in receiving one because the demand was greater than the supply of animals. Mr. Fredi said NDOW needed to conduct surveys of animal herds throughout the state with greater frequency than had been performed in the past to determine actual numbers of animals of different species.

Mr. Johnson said big game animal survey studies were conducted annually throughout the state for the past several years. The studies were conducted frequently because it was necessary to establish the data necessary to set limits on big game hunting, which were based on game counts.

The Chairman asked if there were additional questions or comments, and there were none. The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: