The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 3:25 p.m., on Wednesday, May 19, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Bernard (Bernie) Anderson, Washoe County Assembly District
No. 31

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Amelie Welden, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 18.

Karen Kavanau, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator, testified neither the Nevada Supreme Court nor the Administrative Office of the Courts takes a position on A.J.R. 18. She noted Mark W. Gibbons, District Judge, Department 7, Eighth Judicial District; and James C. Mahan, District Judge, Department 12, Eighth Judicial District, had planned to testify against the bill, as had Chuck Short, Court Administrator, Eighth Judicial District. Ms. Kavanau indicated they were unable to get a later flight, so they asked her to convey their position to the committee.

Ms. Kavanau explained the aforementioned judges believe A.J.R. 18 is unnecessary because, to their knowledge, there is no problem the bill would resolve. She asserted A.J.R. 18 would also create salary disparity, due to its proposed staggering of terms. She elaborated current language in the state constitution provides that a judge cannot enjoy the benefits of a salary increase which modifies the salary he or she received when elected.

Ms. Kavanau distributed a handout showing the existing language in section 15, Article 6, of the Nevada Constitution (Exhibit C). She commented the aforementioned judges ask that the underlined verbiage be deleted if the committee processes A.J.R. 18.

Chairman O’Connell asked if Ms. Kavanau knows why A.J.R. 18 was introduced. Ms. Kavanau indicated she does not remember previous testimony on that issue.

Assemblyman Bernard (Bernie) Anderson, Washoe County Assembly District No. 31, stated A.J.R. 18 was put forth by Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9. He indicated Assemblywoman Giunchigliani would be unable to attend the hearing, so he would be testifying on the bill.

Assemblyman Anderson summarized A.J.R. 18 attempts to set up a system by which district judges’ terms could be staggered. He recalled testimony in the Assembly indicated A.J.R. 18 is necessary to ensure the quality of applicants seeking office. Assemblyman Anderson maintained, "Currently, in the mind of the electorate, it’s [it is] very, very difficult to … distinguish between the multitude of judges who might be running for elected office at any one particular moment in time." He noted this difficulty is especially prevalent in the Eighth Judicial District in Clark County, which has 27 judges, 8 of whom are in the family-court circuit. Assemblyman Anderson added the judicial district in Washoe County has 11 judges, 2 of whom are in the family-court circuit. He emphasized the electorate often is confused about which judge is running for which office. He concluded A.J.R. 18 would help voters understand which judges are running and would thus "equalize the opportunity."

Assemblyman Anderson continued:

Chairman O’Connell asked Ms. Kavanau if the judges from the eighth district have communicated their concerns to the sponsor of A.J.R. 18. Ms. Kavanau answered she believes the judges have discussed their concerns with the bill’s sponsor. She asserted, "Their exact words were they don’t [do not] see reason to fix something that isn’t [is not] broke [broken]."

Assemblyman Anderson commented the courts usually favor staggered terms in order to maintain a "regular turnover on the bench." He stated he does not understand why judges would not see the concept of A.J.R. 18 as providing an "equal advantage."

Assemblyman Anderson noted:

Chairman O’Connell suggested that Ms. Kavanau ask the aforementioned judges to share their concerns with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, if they have not already done so. Chairman O’Connell concluded, "We would need to hear posthaste from both sides of the issue." Ms. Kavanau agreed to Chairman O’Connell’s suggestion.

Chairman O’Connell further asked Assemblyman Anderson to share the judges’ handout (Exhibit C) with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 18 and directed the committee to consider certain Assembly amendments.

Juliann Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, testified she conferred with the policy analyst for the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs about the amendments in question. Ms. Jenson indicated Amendment No. 838 to Senate Bill (S.B.) 139 came from a bill introduced by Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, Douglas and Carson City counties Assembly District No. 39.

Ms. Jenson explained the amendment would authorize a board of county commissioners or the governing body of a city to grant money, by resolution, to a nonprofit organization created for religious, charitable, or educational purposes. She noted the money would be used to provide a substantial benefit to the inhabitants of the city or county, and she mentioned commodities, supplies, materials, and equipment could also be donated after they reached the end of their useful lives. Ms. Jenson added certain stolen and embezzled property could be donated, as well.

Ms. Jenson continued Assembly Bill (A.B.) 264 and S.B. 139 address similar subjects.

Ms. Jenson expressed the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs preferred the language and approach used in S.B. 139, so they amended A.B. 264 into that bill. She related the sponsor of S.B. 139, Bill Moell, Chief, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration, has no objection to Amendment No. 838, and representatives of local government also support the amendment.

Chairman O’Connell asked if Amendment No. 838 would allow local governments to donate land to nonprofit organizations. Ms. Jenson responded the amendment addresses only the items she listed in her testimony. Chairman O’Connell noted local governments would try to get stolen or embezzled property back to its rightful owners before donating it to a nonprofit organization.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on Amendment No. 909 to S.B. 341.

Ms. Jenson indicated Amendment No. 909 would resolve a conflict with A.B. 445.

Chairman O’Connell commented A.B. 445 was requested by Clark County.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on Amendment No. 778 to S.B. 366.

Ms. Jenson explained Washoe County requested S.B. 366, which deals with extending the county’s surcharge on telephone services. She asserted Washoe County believed the bill, as originally written, did not clearly express the county’s intentions, so it was amended in the Assembly. She mentioned S.B. 366, with Amendment No. 778, would "extend the sunset time by 2 years."

In response to a question from Senator Porter, Ms. Jenson recalled the Senate Committee on Government Affairs amended S.B. 366, but Washoe County wanted different wording. She stated the county claims Amendment No. 778 "does the same thing" as the relevant Senate amendment.

Senator Titus pointed out a 2001 date was included in the original bill, and she suggested that date had been moved to another section of the bill.

Senator Care commented several interested parties raised concern regarding the language in S.B. 366 when the bill was scheduled for second reading on the Senate Floor. He maintained the parties could not agree on appropriate language at that time, so they planned to "fix" the bill on the Assembly side.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on Amendment No. 738 and Amendment No. 889 to S.B. 369.

Chairman O’Connell pointed out neither amendment is identified as a conflict amendment.

Upon arrival of a representative from Washoe County, Chairman O’Connell returned to discussion of S.B. 366.

Lisa A. Gianoli, Lobbyist, Washoe County, stated the changes made by Amendment No. 778 to S.B. 366 clarify the provision upon which interested parties agreed. She elaborated:

Ms. Gianoli stressed the industry and the county agreed to Amendment
No. 778.

Senator O’Donnell raised concern regarding the taxpayers’ perspective on Amendment No. 778. Ms. Gianoli responded no one has complained about the system because it enhances public safety. She noted if the county exceeds a $500,000 fund balance in any year, the fees are decreased. Ms. Gianoli added:

Senator Care noted part of the concern with S.B. 366, when it passed out of the Senate, involved whether or not the term "mobile telephone service" covered cellular phones.

*****

Ms. Jenson continued the discussion on Amendment No. 738 and Amendment No. 889 to S.B. 369. She stated Amendment No. 738 would revise the language regarding confidentiality of financial records and other proprietary information submitted with an application for financing with industrial-revenue bonds. She explained Amendment No. 889 would make "a minor change in the provision regarding information available for public inspection, having to do with financial assistance from state revenue bonds for industrial development."

Ms. Jenson indicated both amendments to S.B. 369 were requested by the bill’s proponent, Steve Ghiglieri, Chief, Office of Business Finance and Planning, Department of Business and Industry. Ms. Jenson indicated Mr. Ghiglieri had consulted with John O. Swendseid, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, and Bond Counsel, Swendseid and Stern, regarding the amendments. Ms. Jenson concluded Mr. Ghiglieri, Mr. Swendseid, and the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs agreed to the amendments in question.

Senator O’Donnell asked if the amendments would allow information to be released, unless the obligor requests, in writing, that the records be kept confidential. Chairman O’Connell answered affirmatively.

Senator O’Donnell commented, "I think it would be, actually, better if it was the other way around." He elaborated he believes information should be released only if the obligor writes a letter giving his or her consent. Chairman O’Connell agreed and suggested going to conference committee in order to request such a change. Senator Titus agreed.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on Amendment No. 849 to S.B. 408.

Ms. Jenson noted Amendment No. 849 would resolve a conflict with A.B. 630, in which the committee voted to let residential-construction tax be used for amateur sports facilities.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on Amendment No. 921 to S.B. 194.

Ms. Jenson commented S.B. 194 involves extending the use of local-government stabilization funds to mitigate the effects of natural disasters. She indicated the Professional Firefighters of Nevada, the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, and the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada argued raising the stabilization-fund cap to 15 percent would allow local governments to "sweep too much money out of their accounts into a place … where it was protected from collective bargaining." Ms. Jenson continued the aforementioned entities asserted that bargaining sessions "sometimes hinge on swings of ¼ of 1 percent" and that few entities have taken advantage of stabilization funds, even with the current 10-percent cap. Ms. Jenson concluded the aforementioned groups claimed the poorest counties, which could benefit most from stabilization funds, have the least to put aside.

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, reiterated a representative from the Professional Firefighters of Nevada testified that a 15-percent cap would be too high, though the firefighters agree with the concept of the bill. Ms. Vilardo stated she discussed the issue with Senator Raymond (Ray) D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6, who sponsored S.B. 194, and Senator Rawson agreed to a 10-percent cap. Ms. Vilardo further noted only a minority of local governments in Nevada have set aside stabilization funds, and those that have done so are not "anywhere near 10 percent." Thus, she expressed, "It was felt the 10 percent would be adequate."

Chairman O’Connell pointed out Amendment No. 921 would change the figure back to what it was in the original version of S.B. 194.

Senator Titus commented, "But that 10 percent is already in place for stabilizing [the] operation of local governments, and we’re [we are] adding another function to that fund, … which is to meet … natural disaster relief." She asked if the cap needs to be raised in light of that additional function.

Ms. Vilardo replied she initially believed the cap needed to be raised, but due to subsequent information provided by local governments, she changed her mind. She noted stabilization funds are not mandatory and are governed by permissive language in statute.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 237.

Chairman O’Connell pointed out A.B. 237 is sponsored by Assemblyman Joseph (Joe) E. Dini, Jr., Lyon, Storey, and Carson City counties Assembly District No. 38. She indicated, "[The bill] asked to raise the cap. This is a fund that’s [that is] set aside for different things that pertain to water." She asked Senator Porter to discuss the background of A.B. 237.

Senator Porter stated many southern Nevada residents use wells, and the "big-picture plan for the future" is to get those residents onto the water system, as it becomes available. He noted costs for tying into the system run from $15,000 to $25,000, and the state has been considering ways to mitigate those costs.

Senator Porter continued he attended a meeting to discuss this issue on the morning of May 19, 1999. He indicated others present at that meeting included the state engineer; representatives from the Southern Nevada Water District and the Southern Nevada Water Authority; Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District; and Senator O’Connell.

Senator Porter asserted attendees of that meeting came up with some suggestions to mitigate costs to well owners who will be tying into the water system. For example, he maintained, parties suggested an immediate 2-year moratorium on all "takings" of wells, with a few exceptions. He explained a committee of legislators, well owners, county commissioners, water experts, and other interested parties would be formed to study the issue of wells, statewide, during the 2-year moratorium. Senator Porter emphasized, "This well problem is not just a Clark County issue."

Senator Porter explained:

Senator Porter noted A.B. 347, which was prepared by well users and the Southern Nevada Water Authority, was placed on the secretary’s desk in the Senate.

Senator Porter indicated A.B. 347 "could be an avenue" for generating additional monies for grants to well owners who hook into the water system.

Chairman O’Connell elaborated three bills; A.B. 237, A.B. 347, and A.B. 408; would be involved in carrying out the suggestions from the aforementioned meeting.

In response to a question from Senator Neal, Chairman O’Connell clarified the intent of these suggestions is to financially assist well owners who are going onto the water system. She expressed the assistance could be provided through grants and low-interest payments, and she asserted well owners would be putting their own money into a fund that would provide such grants.

Senator Neal asked, "Is there a prospect that A.B. 237 will be passed out with the additional $10 million in bonding capacity?" Chairman O’Connell replied, "If that’s [that is] the wish of the committee."

Senator Neal asked, "… Is this supposed to relate in some way, then, to this problem in southern Nevada?" Chairman O’Connell answered, "Yes, it relates. Right now, 237 [A.B. 237] is asking to be increased by the $10 million."

Senator Neal commented, "Right. And so we’ve [we have] got a problem with that 15-cent … state [cap]." Chairman O’Connell responded, "[Yes]. If they bond that $10 million, there is a problem that pushes us over that 15-cent [cap]. So it only gives them the authority to bond, but they can’t [cannot] do it until they would have room under the 15-cent [cap], which they currently do not."

Senator Neal asked, "Are we raising the 15-cent [cap]? Is that a part of this discussion?" Chairman O’Connell replied, "No, … 15 cents is not a part of the discussion."

Senator Porter stated:

Chairman O’Connell pointed out approximately 3500 people will be affected by this issue over the next 10 years. She added 8 well owners are currently in a "crisis situation," and 200 well owners are almost at that level.

Julie A. Wilcox Slay, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Water Authority, clarified:

Chairman O’Connell interjected, "Well, there’s [there is] a $27 rechargeable fee." Ms. Wilcox Slay clarified, "[$]17, yes."

Chairman O’Connell asserted, "This would be increasing it another $3 to go into this fund."

Ms. Wilcox Slay stated:

Senator Neal asked, "… The total cost to the water user would be what?" Ms. Wilcox Slay responded, "$30 a year or $30 per permitted water right [per year]."

In response to a question from Senator Titus, Ms. Wilcox Slay reiterated all holders of water rights would pay into the fund in question. She expressed the Las Vegas Valley Water District owns 40,000 acre-feet, so it would pay 40,000 times $30, per year.

Senator Titus commented, "So the well owners really aren’t [are not] paying all this. The well owners are paying 3 extra dollars a year, and the water district, which my water users in my district pay to, would pay the other 40,000 times [$]30?"

Ms. Wilcox Slay answered:

In response to questions from Senator Titus, Ms. Wilcox Slay indicated the water district would contribute about $1.2 million per year under the proposed program, whereas the district currently contributes about $400,000. She expressed the fund is currently used for the groundwater-management program, which includes conservation efforts, public education, the well inventory, the cost-benefit analysis for artificial recharge, and so forth. Ms. Wilcox Slay maintained those functions would continue if the fund was also used to help well owners hook onto the water system.

In response to another question from Senator Titus, Ms. Wilcox Slay explained:

Senator Titus noted the entire $1.2 million paid by the water district would not go to help well owners who hook onto the water system. Ms. Wilcox Slay agreed, pointing out part of that money would go to help such people, and the rest would fund the aforementioned groundwater-management programs.

Senator Titus asked how much money paid by the water district would go directly toward helping well owners pay for hookup costs. Ms. Wilcox Slay responded $120,000 per year from the water district would be used for that purpose.

Senator Neal asked how long the financial-assistance program would continue. Ms. Wilcox Slay answered, "… For however long we have the groundwater-management program. That would assist about, if you’re [you are] paying about 75 percent of the connections, probably 25 people to hook on a year."

Senator Titus asked how much money a well owner would receive toward hooking onto the water system. Ms. Wilcox Slay responded the criteria of the financial-assistance program have not yet been determined. She commented the amount of assistance a well owner would receive depends on "how many people paid into the system, were in good standing in the system, and that sort of thing."

Senator Porter pointed out people are currently drilling new wells. He stated, "What’s [What is] happening is that we’re [we are] creating this dog chasing its tail." He said parties at the aforementioned morning meeting discussed notifying owners of wells drilled after a certain date that they would not be able to take part in the grant program. He explained this notification would occur when the well driller applies for a permit.

Senator Titus asked why the state does not prohibit the drilling of new wells. Senator Porter replied, "A lot of people … have the right because they own the property [and] have [owned it] for years."

Senator Neal asked about the cost of the proposed program to people who are already on the water system. Ms. Wilcox Slay answered she does not anticipate a rate increase to pay for the financial-assistance program. She elaborated:

Senator Neal asserted:

Ms. Wilcox Slay mentioned the Legislature passed some legislation dealing with notification and real estate, relative to wells.

Senator Neal noted the state engineer has the authority to "terminate" wells.

R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified that in 1941, the Nevada state engineer realized the Las Vegas Basin had the potential to be overpumped. Mr. Turnipseed indicated no studies were then available regarding recharge, or the amount of groundwater that is replenished by snowmelt and rainfall. He noted, "The option, then, was to close the basin [and] not allow any more wells." He further pointed out the state was allocated water from the Colorado River, but only a small pipeline existed to bring that water into the valley. Mr. Turnipseed continued the Arizona versus California lawsuit was occurring at that time, and it was not resolved until 1968.

Mr. Turnipseed explained:

Mr. Turnipseed continued about 100 wells have been drilled in each of the past 2 years. He expressed, "Once the southern Nevada water system was built to bring Colorado River water into the valley, we began issuing these temporary permits that were first granted in 1955. And we’ve [we have] continued to revoke permits from 1955 through … [the] present day." Mr. Turnipseed stated he stopped issuing new temporary permits in 1992, when the Las Vegas Valley Water District and the cities of Henderson and North Las Vegas realized they might have committed nearly all of their Colorado River water. He asserted, "So there was no reason for me to continue issuing these temporary permits."

Mr. Turnipseed indicated the Division of Water Resources has revoked about 109,000 acre-feet of water rights, or the equivalent of water for about 109,000 families. He maintained the pumpage has been "greatly reduced" over the years, but 14,000 acre-feet of water are still under revocable permits. He added about 5700 acre-feet of water are being pumped under those permits, which involve approximately 4500 families, as well as various small commercial facilities. He clarified, "There’s [There are] about … 4500 houses either on domestic wells or on these temporary permits."

Mr. Turnipseed noted the 200 people previously mentioned by Chairman O’Connell are within a "reasonable distance" from the water system, so he could revoke their permits and cause them to hook up to the water system. He asserted A.B. 408 would waive such revocation for a certain period of time, provided the people’s wells continue to pump water. Mr. Turnipseed continued:

Mr. Turnipseed recalled eight people requested and were allowed to redrill domestic wells in 1998, and seven in 1997. He concluded, "So there’s [there is] a total of 15 over the past 2 years that we allowed to redrill. They have approximately 15 people voluntarily hook up. So those are domestic wells."

Senator Porter commented hundreds of people believe it is imminent that they will be taken off their wells, even though that perception is not accurate. Thus, he maintained, a moratorium on revoking permits is important.

Mr. Turnipseed indicated the Division of Water Resources has focused on other ways to reduce pumpage over the past few years. He stated, "I can live with a moratorium." He acknowledged people are faced with a financial burden when their wells fail, and they must choose between redrilling and hooking onto the water system at that point. Mr. Turnipseed contended more well owners would choose to hook onto the system if financial assistance was available, assuming the people were within 180 feet of the water line and were in compliance with their permits.

Mr. Turnipseed commented some well owners pump two to four times as much water as the amount to which they are entitled. He asserted those people should not be "rewarded" by receiving financial assistance to hook onto the system.

Mr. Turnipseed indicated the extra $3 charge that would be added in A.B. 347 would "take care of" all the people whose wells fail and who are within 180 feet of the water line. He pointed out A.B. 347 would allow for low-interest loans over a time period to be determined by the water district. He concluded well owners could receive a $7500 grant and a $7500 loan, and this financial package would allow 36 homes to hook up to the water system per year. Mr. Turnipseed emphasized, "That would easily take care of the domestic well failures that, at least, we’ve [we have] experienced over the last few years, and any revocable permit failures that we’ve [we have] experienced over the last few years, including the eight homes that are now in imminent [situations]." He commented the wells at those eight homes currently pump about one gallon of water per minute.

Senator Porter reiterated the financial-assistance package would be an incentive to hook onto the water system rather than redrilling.

Mr. Turnipseed responded the Division of Water Resources has always promoted the use of Colorado River water and focused on reducing the amount of groundwater pumped. However, he noted, twice as much groundwater is currently being pumped out of the basin as is being replenished. He maintained, "These people that [who] are redrilling … [are] in a race to the bottom of the valley."

Chairman O’Connell mentioned if well owners have two instances of well failure, and if they are within 180 feet of the water line, they would be told that they would not receive any public assistance if they decided to redrill. She stated, "You do that at your own expense, knowing that if it fails again, you have to go on the system."

Senator Neal asked, "What type of language would you have in the law that would address this particular fact that once the well needs to be redrilled, at what point do you notify the people … ? Do you notify them now that this is coming up?"

Chairman O’Connell answered affirmatively and added the relevant language is included in an amendment to A.B. 408.

Senator Neal asked if any information has been distributed to well owners describing the problems and dangers of overpumping the groundwater. Mr. Turnipseed replied, "Well, certainly, … for the 109,000 acre-feet of water rights that we’ve [we have] already revoked, they know full well the program. The people that [who] don’t [do not] are the 5,000 families that are left on either a community well or their own domestic well."

Mr. Turnipseed continued the 200 families mentioned by Chairman O’Connell are within 180 feet of the water line. He maintained he is willing to let those people continue to pump, unless their wells fail, during the proposed moratorium. He stated, "If their wells fail, then they have to make a decision: ‘Do I take advantage of the financial program [and] get on the municipal system?’ Or do I … revoke their permit and force them onto the system?" Mr. Turnipseed indicated, "Even if there’s [there is] not a study, I don’t [do not] think there will be a need for the Las Vegas Valley Water District or the Southern Nevada Water Authority, for instance, to begin to take out any of their recharged water in the next 5 years." He said the water table is rising in some areas of the Las Vegas Valley, while it is declining in other areas.

Senator Titus asked why well owners would get a choice about redrilling. She further asked why the Division of Water Resources could not force well owners to connect to the water system, with the help of the proposed financial package, if their wells fail and if they are within 180 feet of the water line. She contended, "If this is such a big problem that I have to tell the people in [Clark County Senatorial] District [No.] 7, ‘We’ve [We have] got to save the water in this valley,’ why can’t [cannot] those people who are out there pumping it make some sacrifice to save the water, as well?"

Mr. Turnipseed responded the Division of Water Resources could force people onto the system, as Senator Titus described. He added the division has done so in the past.

Senator Porter asserted many well users do not know about the relevant provisions regarding wells, so it is important to allow some time for proper education on the issue and on the tools that are available to help well owners.

Senator Titus responded the issue was discussed during the Sixty-ninth Legislative Session and "has been out there a lot." She maintained well owners might know about the issue, but might "just [be] resisting the movement" because they do not want to get off of their wells. She pledged her support for a financial package to help such people hook onto the water system, but she stressed they must take some responsibility for the water table, just like everyone else does. Senator Titus concluded, "If it’s [it is] that big of a problem, let’s [let us] all share in the burden, if we’re [we are] all going to share in the price to help pay for them getting off the system."

Senator Porter expressed, "I think that’s [that is] why we’re [we are] proposing the language in 347 [A.B. 347]."

Senator Titus responded, "Well, no, … I hear them say they have a choice, and they can wait 2 more years. … Let’s [Let us] look at some other options."

Senator Porter explained he has asked for the 2-year moratorium so that the issue can be considered on a statewide level. He stated well owners are going to "have to make some serious choices" after the moratorium.

Senator Neal indicated, "Well, senator, at some point in time, you’re [you are] going to be up against a proposition where you have to make a decision for the greatest good for the greatest number of people." He contended pumping water from the basin is "going to affect all of us somewhere down the line," and he asserted, "Somebody’s [Somebody is] going to have to bite the bullet somewhere."

Mr. Turnipseed explained the Division of Water Resources used to base its decisions regarding wells solely on economics. He elaborated the division allowed well owners to redrill if it was cheaper for them to do that than to hook onto the water system, and vice versa. However, he pointed out, connection charges have since increased substantially, so "it will never be cheaper to hook up than to drill the well."

Mr. Turnipseed addressed notification of well owners, noting the Division of Water Resources has implemented a notification process over the last 8 or 10 years. He explained before the division issues permits, it sends out an acknowledgement form indicating the permits are temporary and subject to revocation. He stated the form also notifies people that they will have to hook up to the water system if the water line comes within a reasonable distance. Mr. Turnipseed asserted people must sign the acknowledgement form before they receive a permit.

Mr. Turnipseed said many current homeowners claim they do not know about the provisions contained in the acknowledgment form because the developer or a previous owner signed the form. Thus, Mr. Turnipseed recognized, he has no way to ensure that current homeowners know they have temporary permits.

Ms. Wilcox Slay asserted she consulted other representatives from the Southern Nevada Water Authority after the aforementioned morning meeting. She expressed, "The $3 wasn’t [was not] gleefully agreed to, but we understand and think that that is a benefit." However, Ms. Wilcox Slay indicated, "We cannot agree to a moratorium … because we feel that that sets a precedent, in law, of permanent statute and a new type of water right for those that have temporary permits." She continued the water authority supports the idea that well users would be required to hook onto the water system only if their wells fail and they are within 180 feet of the water line.

Ms. Wilcox Slay stated, "I’m [I am] not sure how we would write language to say, ‘… This is your one shot at getting this assistance. And if you say no today, and you redrill, then forget it forever.’ Our concern there is, how do we enforce that down the road?"

Senator Porter maintained, "The problem is, when people get a domestic well, it’s [it is] the well driller that gets a permit to drill the well. There is no relationship, on a domestic well, with the state or with the water authority. There is no communication."

Mr. Turnipseed clarified no permit has been required for domestic wells since the groundwater law was enacted early in the twentieth century. Senator Porter stressed, "So they don’t [do not] know that it’s [it is] temporary."

Mr. Turnipseed agreed people on single-family domestic wells might not know they have temporary permits. He expressed the Division of Water Resources has come up with a notice provision which could be implemented on a statewide basis, though it will be "a little hard to get to the people." He elaborated the division currently receives a postcard from the driller indicating where he or she intends to drill a well. Mr. Turnipseed noted this information must be received 48 hours or 72 hours before the driller begins to drill. Mr. Turnipseed explained the division then checks to see if the proposed location can be served by a municipality, and if so, the division does not allow the well to be drilled. He noted the well can be drilled if the location cannot be served by a municipality, and in that case, the Division of Water Resources receives a well log showing details of the well and the surrounding geology.

Mr. Turnipseed concluded the intent-to-drill postcard, along with the aforementioned acknowledgement form and well log, could be recorded for the appropriate parcel number and street address at the county recorder’s office. He pointed out that information should then show up on title reports for subsequent buyers, so they would know that the domestic well can be pumped until the well fails, at which time they may be required to hook onto the municipal system. Mr. Turnipseed indicated, "We’ve [We have] drafted that, and I have copies of that, if you’d [you would] like to see them."

In response to a question from Senator Neal, Mr. Turnipseed asserted he looks at the well issue from a "simplistic view," since he is responsible for groundwater management. He maintained, "The sooner I can get those people off of wells and force the development onto Colorado River water, the longer that water supply is going to last for everybody."

In response to another question from Senator Neal, Mr. Turnipseed stated well users might not realize all the factors involved in their situation. He elaborated well users pay a high premium for fire insurance because their wells will not put out a fire. He continued well users would have a fire hydrant nearby if they were on the water system, and their fire-insurance premiums would be reduced, as a result.

Mr. Turnipseed added the health department checks well owners’ systems periodically. Chairman O’Connell mentioned well owners take samples in each month. Mr. Turnipseed contended well users have the option to do so, but they often do not take in samples for testing for chemical criteria or bacterial contamination.

Mr. Turnipseed noted most people who use single wells also have septic tanks. He commented:

Mr. Turnipseed reiterated water was previously "over-apportioned" in Las Vegas so that the basin could develop and grow. He explained people believed the area would "come back to some kind of equilibrium" once the temporary uses were served by Colorado River water. He stressed, "Ideally, from my perspective as the water manager, I would like to see all of those temporary uses [go] onto Colorado River water."

Senator Neal asked if sewage hookups would be involved in the proposed program. Ms. Wilcox Slay replied that issue is outside the jurisdiction of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. Mr. Turnipseed clarified the people within the cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas are already on the sewer system. He noted the majority of people with temporary well permits and domestic wells live "out in the county."

Senator Porter stated:

Senator Titus commented, "But we’d [we would] be paying for half of it." Senator Porter responded, "Actually, we’re [we are] having them pay themselves by having this grant program, at $3, to be able to get the money."

Senator Titus stated, "If $3 is worth half the price of putting in a well, I’d [I would] say it’s [it is] a pretty cheap investment." Chairman O’Connell agreed, "I think it’s [it is] a pretty good deal," and Senator Porter pointed out, "That’s [That is] what we’re [we are] trying to do. We’re [We are] trying to help them with that."

Senator Titus asserted people should receive financial assistance when they get off a well and hook onto the water system, and she stressed the importance of getting people off wells. However, she contended, "To let them make the choice to continue the problems makes no sense at all."

In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Turnipseed expressed he can prevent people on temporary permits from deepening their wells. He elaborated he can revoke their permits and force them onto the water system, whether their wells fail or not. However, he reiterated, he is willing to let well users on temporary permits continue to pump until their wells fail for some interim period. Chairman O’Connell asserted, "And that’s [that is] why we settled on the 2 years."

Mr. Turnipseed continued he has to let people on domestic wells continue to pump until their wells fail. In the case of domestic wells, he pointed out, "My statutory authority is to just not let them drill a new well."

Senator Titus stated, "Let me just be sure I understand this. On a domestic well, with a house that Jon [Senator Porter] was talking about, and they dig the well. If the well fails, do you have to let them … dig it deeper, or you can stop it at that point?" Mr. Turnipseed answered, "I can stop it at that point."

Senator Titus commented, "… You can stop it at that point, if they’re [they are] within 180 feet of the county [water line]. You can say, ‘You have to connect.’"

Mr. Turnipseed clarified, "Well, that’s [that is] not statutory. I can stop them no matter what the distance is, but to run the water line a quarter of a mile or a half a mile, now we’re [we are] talking some huge dollars."

Senator Titus suggested, "… Here’s [Here is] another compromise: 180 feet, if it fails, half of the price for $3. I mean, what do these people want, Jon [Senator Porter]? And I know they’re [they are] in your district, but this is reasonable."

Senator Porter claimed he requested the 2-year moratorium because he believes there could be some other options for funding a financial-assistance program. He noted a special improvement district or a local improvement district was established in the Henderson area for 33 families whose wells had a water-quality problem. Senator Porter maintained a similar option could be considered for helping other well users. He elaborated perhaps a program could be put together to help all well owners, rather than to help well owners on an individual basis.

Chairman O’Connell stated:

Senator Porter added grants have been available to water systems, statewide, since 1991. He indicated:

Senator Neal responded:

Senator Porter pointed out eight of the well users who "are in serious need" have a water-quality problem. Senator Titus asked if those eight well users are within 180 feet of the water line and if their wells have failed.

Mr. Turnipseed replied he believes the well in question pumps about one gallon of water per minute, and about one gallon of sand per minute, as well. He explained the involved houses are all on one side of a street, and the water line runs by both ends of that street. He indicated the first lots on each end of the street are within 180 feet of the water line, and some people testified, on the Assembly side, that the houses on those two lots are the only ones which should have to hook up to the water system. Mr. Turnipseed noted the well would then have to be relocated or redrilled for the other six homes. He asserted, "That doesn’t [does not] make any sense," and he pointed out the Division of Water Resources cannot revoke "parts of permits." He clarified, "We’ve [We have] either got to let them redrill or revoke the permit. And when we revoke the permit, then they share in the line extension to run it down this street."

Senator Titus asked how long a well could operate after somebody redrilled it. Mr. Turnipseed answered, "If the option was available, like you said, I either redrill, or I take half the money to hook up, I would drill that well to China to make sure that I never ran out of water again. And we don’t [do not] want that to happen; then we’d [we would] never get them off the well."

Mr. Turnipseed continued:

Senator Titus commented:

Senator Porter responded, "We’re [We are] really … trying to stop the problem with those 200 people, or whoever they were, that we just let drill new wells. That is ridiculous, without any indication that they soon may lose that." He asserted in order for potential new well owners to make a conscious choice about drilling a well, they need to be made aware that they might have to go onto the water system.

Ms. Wilcox Slay commented the geology of an area often creates problems with wells. Referring to the aforementioned street with eight homes, she indicated that area has very fine-grained sand, so if the residents redrill, they are likely to have more problems with their wells in the future.

Ms. Wilcox Slay stressed:

Senator Porter noted A.B. 347 and A.B. 408 were heard in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, where the well owners presented their arguments. Thus, he contended, "It’s [It is] difficult for us to get up to speed."

Mr. Turnipseed emphasized Nevada has "one of the best groundwater laws" in the United States. He explained Nevada is a "prior-appropriation" state, "which means first in time, first in right," and he noted revocable permits have "junior rights." Mr. Turnipseed pointed out other states, like Texas, are right-of-capture states, so landowners have the right to drill wells and capture the water under their land.

Mr. Turnipseed continued:

Chairman O’Connell stated:

Senator Porter clarified, "… It would be a subcommittee of his committee."

In response to a comment from Senator Neal, Chairman O’Connell explained the Senate Committee on Natural Resources heard A.B. 347 and A.B. 408, both of which are contingent on the funding proposed in A.B. 237.

Senator Titus asked, "Under our original bill, 237 [A.B. 237], an individual well owner would apply for one of these grants; is that how it would work?"

Chairman O’Connell answered individual well owners could apply if the statute was expanded to allow them to do so. However, she noted no money is currently available for which they could apply. She emphasized the situation is best handled at the local level, and it is important for well owners to pay into a fund they can use when they need it, instead of having everyone subsidize them.

Senator Titus questioned the need for the original amendment to A.B. 237. She commented, "There’s [There is] no money there, and also, it was set up originally for water systems, not for individuals."

Ms. Wilcox Slay agreed and noted:

Senator Titus asked, "… The water district would apply for that money to put into this matching fund? Is that how it would work?" Ms. Wilcox Slay replied, "Individuals cannot apply for that grant fund now … or even under the amendment. It would have to go to a governmental entity, [according to] the way that the structure of that grant program was set up." Senator Titus said, "So it would be like the water district would get some of that money, and then they could use it as part of their grant distribution."

Naomi Smith Duerr, State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified, "Right. … Or, alternatively, if it was in the north or some other part of the state, it could be a city, a county, [or] a public water system [that] could apply on behalf of the individual."

Senator Titus asked, "Is that also true for the Speaker’s [Assembly Speaker Dini’s] new provision about the conservation? That has to go to a water system, not to an individual?" Ms. Duerr answered, "Yes, … that’s [that is] correct. We specifically set that up that it has to be some type of public entity. It couldn’t [could not] go to an individual irrigator; it’d [it would] have to go to a city, county, irrigation district, [or] some [other] unit of government."

Chairman O’Connell distributed to the committee copies of the proposed amendment to A.B. 237 (Exhibit D).

Senator Neal stated, "The understanding … is that this would not cause the users who are already on the water system any increase in their rate. … Let me ask you this, because I know I’m [I am] going to be hit with the question, the quarter percent … that we voted upon, is that going to be used for this purpose?"

Ms. Wilcox Slay explained, "The quarter [of a] penny is [going to be used for this purpose] indirectly, in that that money would be stabilizing the costs of hooking up to the system. That money goes to the regional system, … therefore stabilizing the cost of the regional connection charge."

Senator Neal again asked, "… Would any of that money be used for this purpose?"

Ms. Wilcox Slay answered:

John M. Bonaventura, Lobbyist, Nevada Well Owners Association, asserted, "I think what she’s [she is] trying to say is that the cost for anybody to connect to the system, a new development or anything, is a certain amount, and that that … quarter percent helps to keep that cost from … skyrocketing … ."

Senator Neal indicated, "But I was just wondering … whether or not this quarter-cent was going to be used to help pay the grants." Mr. Bonaventura responded, "The answer to that is no."

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 674.

Chairman O’Connell indicated current law does not provide for fines, penalties, or prosecutions related to abuses of digital signatures. She expressed A.B. 674 would authorize such disciplinary actions.

Scott Anderson, Deputy Secretary, Commercial Recordings Division, Office of the Secretary of State, testified A.B. 674 was requested because the Legislative Counsel Bureau believed certain provisions regarding digital signatures needed to be in statutory form.

Chairman O’Connell asserted A.B. 674 would give the secretary of state’s office the ability to "go after" people who violate the confidentiality of digital-signature information. Mr. Anderson agreed and noted the bill would also provide certain definitions.

In response to a question from Senator Neal, Beau Pankiw, Information Technology Coordinator, Administrative Services Division, Office of the Secretary of State, stated cryptography is a secure system that makes information transmitted via sets of characters "virtually hacker-proof." He explained a proper key is necessary to decipher the information.

*****

Chairman O’Connell asked Senator O’Donnell if he had prepared language for amending A.B. 130. Senator O’Donnell answered he and Senator Titus have been discussing the issue.

Senator Titus explained she and Senator O’Donnell were considering how to list expenditures. She elaborated "every single check" and "every single person’s name" should not have to be listed. She suggested she and Senator O’Donnell were trying to figure out a way to simply list the amount spent, along with a general category for the expenditure.

Senator O’Donnell added privacy should be respected during political campaigns. He asserted, "A lot of people fear getting involved in campaigns, and we don’t [do not] want to chill the process by exposing names on checks and that sort of thing."

Senator Titus offered the example of a person who is hired to work on a campaign. Senator Titus maintained the candidate might not want to list that person’s salary by name, but might prefer to list the salary in a category such as "personnel costs." Senator Titus concluded, "We were trying to figure out how to write that so it’s [it is] not a list of every expenditure, but a categorization of them."

Chairman O’Connell asked the committee members if they had concerns regarding an amendment to A.B. 130, as set forth in the work session document (Exhibit E).

Senator Raggio asked, "Are you looking at version ‘A’ and ‘B’?" Chairman O’Connell responded, "’B’ is the one, Senator, that we had talked about prior to that. You want to direct us to, have we got ‘A’?" Senator O’Donnell indicated, "I think we adopted ‘B’." Senator Raggio asked, "What was the difference between ‘A’ and ‘B’? ‘A’ applied to candidates, and ‘B’ applied to what?" Chairman O’Connell answered, "All public officers, I believe."

Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, clarified:

Senator O’Donnell asked, "Didn’t ‘B’ [Did ‘B’ not] also have some extra language in there, … ‘form designed by and provided by the secretary of state for the reporting of contributions,’ … designed to be used to record the form?"

Ms. Guinasso distributed copies of proposed language to further amend A.B. 130 (Exhibit F).

Senator Raggio asked, "Doesn’t this [Does this not] still have the problem of the categories that you were trying to not have to categorize, or not?" Senator O’Donnell responded, "No, it doesn’t [does not], because you don’t [do not] have to … aggregate, unless the secretary of state is going to require that. … If somebody else wants to go ahead and run the total, let them run the total."

Ms. Guinasso stated the Legal Division prepared the proposed amendment (Exhibit F) in an attempt to set forth in statute and limit the categories of expenditures. She noted the proposed amendment is based on current regulations, though the Legal Division made a few simplifications.

Senator O’Donnell asserted the proposed amendment is simpler than current regulations. He elaborated, "It still discloses everything that you’re [you are] doing now; it just doesn’t [does not] give it in that confusing [format]."

Senator Raggio commented the proposed amendment would still require a list of expenditures, by category. He asked how the proposed amendment differs from current regulations. Senator O’Donnell answered, "… The word ‘total.’ What they’re [they are] doing now is they’re [they are] requiring you to total all these categories up, so you have to go through your checkbook … ."

Senator Raggio said, "Okay, you just put the list down and the category it’s [it is] in. Does the secretary of state understand that? We’re [We are] not going to go to all that category work if we do this."

Pamela Crowell, Deputy Secretary of State for Elections, Elections Division, Office of the Secretary of State, testified, "… I understand that, but we would then amend regulations, because that is where it appears that you will do these … totals by category. It’s [It is] at NAC [Nevada Administrative Code] 294A.075."

Chairman O’Connell asked, "Do you need us to delete that, Pamela [Ms. Crowell], when we do the amendment, or are you okay to do that without?" Ms. Crowell replied, "No, we would do that as a matter of course. After a legislative session, we always have to go through amending regulations, whether it’s [it is] deleting or adding to."

Senator O’Donnell commented, "So what you’d [you would] need here in the legislation, though, is language that says, ‘The campaign report does not necessarily need to contain totals, if they’re [they are] going to list out every single expense. You don’t [do not] have to total by category.’"

Ms. Crowell requested a few minutes for legal counsel to consider the proposed amendment (Exhibit F). Ms. Crowell maintained, "… It does not say, as proposed, that there must be a total to each. You’re [You are] just listing the individual."

Senator O’Donnell stated, "The problem is, does it say you have to total the other ones?"

Ms. Guinasso asserted:

Senator Titus pointed out the committee previously voted to amend and do pass A.B. 130.

Chairman O’Connell agreed and suggested, "We could just do this, for the record, as saying, ‘This is the amendment. … It would be added to proposed amendment … version ‘B,’ along with the language presented by [the] Legislative Counsel Bureau.’"

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Crowell raised concern that not all relevant groups are addressed in the proposed amendment (Exhibit F). For example, she pointed out, NAC 294A.270 deals with expenditures of "recall committees."

Chairman O’Connell responded amendment version "B" (included in work session document, Exhibit E) is "related to pretty much everybody."

Ms. Guinasso clarified the proposed language she passed out earlier in the meeting (Exhibit F) "is not by itself." She explained it would work in conjunction with amendment version "B" (included in work session document, Exhibit E). Ms. Guinasso indicated, "That list [in the proposed amendment, Exhibit F] is not exhaustive … . But you’re [you are] right. That language does need to be amended. But it’s [it is] designed to be in conjunction with … [amendment version ‘B’] ."

Senator O’Donnell asked, "Right now, does the thing say that you have to list all your expenses over $100, or is it every single expense?" Chairman O’Connell replied, "I think it’s [it is] over [$]100." Senator O’Donnell asked, "Does that stay intact?" Ms. Guinasso expressed, "The $100 limitations remain intact, although, still, of course, with regard to contributions, it’s [it is] a cumulative total of $100."

Senator O’Donnell responded:

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Amelie Welden,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: