The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 1:45 p.m., on Wednesday, May 12, 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:

Dr. David Thain, State Veterinarian for Division of Agriculture, was the first to testify in support of the proposed legislation. He explained the intent of the measure was to address the issue of confidential reporting, which had no provision in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 571. All information presented to the state quarantine officer was available by request. Diseases of a public health nature would always be addressed truthfully and quarantines would be enforced. In some cases, confidentiality was required, but never when public health was threatened.

Dr. Thain said a reportable animal disease system could add an enormous amount of information about conditions in the state. However, practicing veterinarians might be hesitant to report disease situations if they felt confidentiality would be broken. Catching an emerging disease at its earliest outset would allow the Office of the State Veterinarian, in cooperation with the University Extension Service, livestock producers, and allied industries to develop programs to help control, manage, and eradicate certain diseases (Exhibit C).

The Chairman asked how the need for confidential quarantines was determined. Dr. Thain said if a reportable disease was considered a public health problem, the state quarantine officer would determine a public health emergency existed. At that point, confidentiality was waived. Confidentiality helped eliminate unnecessary panic as well as provided needed time to develop appropriate programs to address each situation on an individual basis. The long-term goal of the proposed legislation was compliance with new international trade agreements that required certification by the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), which required national systems for monitoring animal diseases. The long-term effect would be a greater export potential for United States and Nevada livestock products. A reportable disease system was a requirement for the certification. Another positive aspect was putting in place a method for developing quality assurance programs for the future. No facts concerning public health would be hidden.

Mr. Mortenson asked for clarification regarding public health and confidentiality, stating the two expressions were ambiguous. Dr. Thain said diseases of a public health nature would not be placed on the confidential list; however, it was necessary to formulate policies that both veterinarians and producers would comply with. If the process was not trusted, and inappropriate disclosures were made regarding issues not of public concern, reporting would not occur.

Linda Eissmann, Legislative Counsel Bureau policy analyst, presented the committee with a summary on the proposed legislation (Exhibit D).

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

The Chairman closed the hearing on S.B. 330 and opened the hearing on S.B. 526.

Naomi Duerr, State Water Planner, was the first proponent of S.B. 526 to address the proposed legislation. She pointed out the measure was important to the Division of Water Planning (DWP) and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DC&NR). Ms. Duerr reminded the committee that earlier in the session she had presented the proposed State Water Plan, which was needed because the population had greatly increased and water resource issues had become extremely important. Additionally, the 1995 legislature directed the DWP to develop the State Water Plan. The State Water Plan was developed, using public input, as an educational tool and as a guide for water management decisions. The State Water Plan did not change existing law or existing water rights.

Ms. Duerr provided the committee with a fact sheet detailing the Nevada State Water Plan (Exhibit E). She continued by explaining key provisions of the proposed legislation as referenced to the State Water Plan (Exhibit F). One key provision required the Administrator of DWP to report to the Legislative Commission three times over the next year regarding development and implementation of the State Water Plan. Another provision deleted the requirement the legislature approve the plan before the plan was implemented.

Mr. Marvel complimented Ms. Duerr for her work on the State Water Plan. He said he was satisfied his original concerns had been eliminated. The Chairman agreed with Mr. Marvel.

Richard Holmes, Assistant Manager of Clark County and Chairman of the Advisory Board of Water Resources Planning and Development Council, said a great deal of effort had gone into the development of the State Water Plan, which was an extremely voluminous document. He expressed his support for the plan.

The Chairman asked if public input would continue after the plan was accepted, to which Mr. Holmes responded in the affirmative.

Pete Morros, Director of DC&NR, was the next speaker to testify in support of the proposed legislation. He said certain details of the water plan had been resolved in the Senate. Support for the state plan was considerable and he urged the support of the committee.

Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, was the next proponent of the proposed legislation. He said the plan had been amended and therefore satisfied all concerned entities. Chairman de Braga said appropriate changes had been made to the plan and that it was helpful to consider the State Water Plan a guide rather than law.

Allen Biaggi, Administrator of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) said he had provided a substantial amount of testimony and input into the State Water Plan. As the agency responsible for water quality, he concluded, his agency was satisfied with the plan and urged the support of the committee.

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, was the next to speak in support of S.B. 526. He explained provisions included in the measure, as amended, provided clarification to state water law. He said the plan addressed many concerns critical to Nevada farm and ranch families and he agreed the plan was a guide, which could provide strategies for future water resource development. He urged the committee to support the proposed legislation. His entire testimony was included in Exhibit G.

Diana Langs, representing Sun Valley General Improvement District, expressed her approval of the State Water Plan and the proposed legislation. She expressed her appreciation and respect for Ms. Duerr and her staff for their excellent work.

Jan Gilbert, representing the League of Women Voters, stated her support of the State Water Plan. She commended Ms. Duerr for the work she and her staff did as well as for the methods used. Ms. Gilbert said open public forums allowed for citizen input and her organization favored community involvement.

Ms. Eissmann provided the committee with a work summary on the proposed legislation (Exhibit H).

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

The Chairman closed the hearing on S.B. 526 and opened the hearing on a work session on S.B. 310.

Ms. Eissmann presented the committee with a work session document detailing the proposed legislation and amendments (Exhibit I). She reviewed the language discussed by the committee in a previous meeting and pointed out the committee had approved amendments A and C. She explained a slight modification to Amendment C was suggested by Senator Rhoads, which changed the word utilize in the definition of active preferences to authorized for use. As amended, the bill would be changed in several ways as follows:

• The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the commission would be elected to their positions. The original provision requiring the chairman to act as president of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association was deleted.

• It clarified the point the measure was intended to pertain to livestock grazing specifically on public lands.

• Section 8, subsection 6, part (b), was deleted, eliminating the commission's authority to make determinations regarding the emergence of new markets or the expansion of existing markets.

• It deleted section 11, subsection 2, which allowed the commission to enter into agreements with BLM or the United States Forest Service (USFS) to collect fees. It also changed section 11, which set fees at 10-cents for each active preference animal unit month, as well as defining the term active preference.

• It added a sunset clause, which established the provision that if refunds exceeded 50 percent of total revenues collected in the year 2001, or any year thereafter, the commission was required to pay its debts and cease to exist as an entity after 1-year.

Chairman de Braga asked Joe Guild, representing Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, to come to the witness table to answer questions from the committee pertaining to the proposed legislation. She said the measure would become effective October 1, 1999. She asked for clarification regarding the sunset clause. Mr. Guild said it was necessary to make a distinction between amendments 3 and 4 as proposed by Eureka County. The purpose of amendment 3, which stated if the amount of money refunded pursuant to subsection 3 of section 11 was more than 50 percent of the revenues collected in the year 2001 or any year thereafter, was necessary to give the commission 2-years to establish a track record. He said the proposed amendment suggested by Eureka County found in Exhibit I, attachment B, paragraph 4, should be deleted and in its place insert the language found in attachment C, paragraph 3.

Mr. Marvel asked for clarification of the term public lands. Mr. Guild explained those were pastures operated by the Bureau of Reclamation. Chairman de Braga asked if the term public lands included lands under the jurisdiction of the United States Secretary of the Interior, such as the two public land grazing pastures in Churchill County. Mr. Guild responded in the affirmative, adding that was because the Secretary of the Interior was the department head of the Bureau of Reclamation and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mike Baughman, representing Eureka County, said Eureka County supported the amendments reviewed by Joe Guild, particularly as outlined in attachment C in Exhibit I. The Chairman asked if the language in attachment C replaced all the language originally proposed by Eureka County. Mr. Baughman replied in the affirmative.

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

Mr. Neighbors voted no. He said he had received a combined letter from the Board of County Commissioners and ranchers from Esmeralda County stating their opposition to the proposed legislation. He said he would inform all concerned entities from Esmeralda County of the new language developed in the amendments in the hope they would view the legislation in a more positive light prior to voting on the floor of the Assembly.

Mr. Carpenter said a good deal of effort had gone into developing the proposed language of the amendments and the spirit of cooperation provided a positive outcome.

The Chairman asked if there were additional questions or comments and there were none. She closed the hearing on S.B. 310 and opened the hearing on S.B. 396.

Ms. Eissmann presented the committee with a work session document on the proposed legislation and proposed amendment (Exhibit J). She explained the proposed amendment to S.B. 396 changed the language of the measure in the following ways:

• Language from S.B. 211, heard previously by the committee, and which pertained to crimes against dogs shown in dog shows, was incorporated into S.B. 396, which pertained to crimes committed against guide dogs and police dogs. The committee preferred listing crimes against all types of dogs into one measure. It was also necessary to ensure all penalties were appropriate and comparable.

• The amendment assigned specific penalties for offenses against all three groups of dogs. It became a misdemeanor violation if an individual was convicted of interfering with show dogs, guide dogs, or police dogs if such interference did not result in abuse or injury to an animal. If abuse or injury occurred due to interference with any of the three types of dogs listed, a conviction would result in a gross misdemeanor violation. Conviction of killing a guide dog or show dog would result in a category E felony offense. The committee agreed killing a police dog was a greater offense than killing a guide dog or show dog; therefore killing or totally injuring a police dog was a category C felony offense.

Amy Hill, representing the Nevada Humane Society, was the next to testify in support of the proposed legislation. She presented the committee with a proposed amendment that addressed accidental injuries that might occur during rodeos or livestock shows (Exhibit K). The new language would further amend the measure in the following way:

• The amendment added a subsection to section 8, which stated this section does not apply to accidental injury that occurs in the normal course of the production of a rodeo or livestock show or the operation of a ranch.

• All other penalties for offenses against animals in general or against wild horses, estrays, and livestock remained unchanged.

Ms. Parnell said she understood S.B. 211 used the category E felony conviction for a person who willfully or maliciously killed an exhibition dog or guide dog. A category C felony would be given to a person who willfully or maliciously killed a wild horse. Ms. Eissmann concurred Ms. Parnell’s conclusion was correct.

Mr. Carpenter said he did not understand why a guide dog or a service dog was treated differently than a police dog. Chairman de Braga said she understood that determination was the result of the committee’s intention to bring the language from S.B. 211 into compliance with the punishment described in S.B. 396. Ms. Eissmann agreed with the Chairman’s evaluation. Ms. Hill clarified the question by explaining the language pertaining to show dogs as described in S. B. 211 would be incorporated into S.B. 396.

Mr. Carpenter said he preferred to place show dogs and cow dogs, which were essentially show dogs, in the same category as guide dogs, hearing-dogs, seeing-eye dogs, helping dogs, and all other service dogs. He suggested keeping police dogs separate as described in S.B. 396.

Ms. Parnell said in S.B. 211 section 3 the phrase willfully and unjustifiably killed an animal could correctly be considered a gross misdemeanor. Ms. Eissmann suggested placing the crimes of injuring, harassing, or interfering with show dogs, guide dogs, or any kind of service dogs into the category E felony classification.

Tom Skancke, Representing the Las Vegas Convention and Visitor’s Center, said he concurred with the testimony and proposed amendment of Ms. Hill of the Nevada Humane Society.

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

There being no further business before the committee, the hearing was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: