The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 1:42 p.m., on Wednesday, March 17, 1999, in Room 2144 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 Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Mark A. James

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Maggie Carlton

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Bernice Mathews, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 1

Senator Alice Contandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst

Scott Corbett, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Rhoads opened the committee meeting with discussion on the subcommittee meeting of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, February 22, 1999, and asked Senator McGinness, chairman of the subcommittee, to explain the results agreed upon on Senate Bill (S.B.) 108.

Senator McGinness referred to a handout (Exhibit C) which outlines all of the amendments that were agreed upon by the subcommittee for referral to the full committee for passage.

Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on S.B. 331.

Senator Bernice Mathews, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 1, testified that she is the sponsor of S.B. 331. Senator Mathews explained this bill came about because she received some complaints from her constituents that were having to pay for an annual emissions inspection for their new cars, which are 4 years old or newer. Senator Mathews referred to figures (Exhibit D), from the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), outlining failure rates for vehicle emissions tests taken from Washoe County, Clark County and statewide. Chairman Rhoads asked if it is a federal requirement to have an emissions test on all cars. Senator Mathews did not know.

Jack Greco, Chairman, Nevada Gasoline Retailers and Garage Owners Association, spoke in opposition to S.B. 331 and referred to a handout (Exhibit E) explaining how a new car can be a gross polluter. Mr. Greco stated a vehicle emitting over twice the allowable emissions would be considered a gross polluter. Mr. Greco added even though only 0.8 percent of cars 4 years old and newer are gross polluters, they make up 10 percent of the total gross polluters in the state. Mr. Greco used an example of an emission control certificate (Exhibit F) from a 1992 vehicle to show how severe the emissions can get on a newer car with faulty emissions control equipment. Mr. Greco also pointed out that the car manufacturers, under federal law, must fix all pollution control problems under the factory warranty, and if S.B. 331 were passed most of these repairs would not be covered under the factory warranty due to time expiration.

Senator Mathews asked if the present laws allow for the exemption of an emissions inspection after the first registration of a new car purchase. Mr. Greco stated in Nevada, after the first registration, a new car is exempt for the second year from an emissions control exemption.

Senator Coffin asked Mr. Greco when the failures usually occur in the computer-controlled cars that cause the car to fail an emissions control test. Mr. Greco said from his own experience, his car failed an emissions test when it was 2 years old and was covered by the manufacturer’s warranty. Senator Coffin asked again if the failures would exhibit themselves fairly early after the purchase of a new car if it were a lemon or had a bad part to cause it to be a gross polluter. Mr. Greco said it could go either way, and reiterated that less than 1 percent of cars 4 years old and newer have these problems.

Senator Mathews restated that DMV&PS statistics show that 0.5 percent or less of cars 4 years old and newer are gross polluters not the nearly 1 percent that Mr. Greco keeps claiming. Senator Mathews asked if there were any way to get a second opinion if your car were to fail an emissions test. Mr. Greco responded by saying the required emissions analyzers are tested every day and calibrated every 3 days, and he added that DMV&PS will retest your vehicle if you feel your vehicle should have passed an emissions test.

Lou Gardella, Owner, Jiffy Smog, said he is in opposition to S.B. 331 because this bill would cause over $3 million in lost revenue to the emission test industry. Mr. Gardella stated the passage of S.B. 331 would cause businesses to close, employees to be fired and the cost of emissions tests to rise in order to offset the lost revenue of new cars being tested.

James Sohns, President, Nevada Car Owner’s Association, spoke in opposition to S.B. 331.

Jolaine Johnson, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified in opposition to S.B. 331, and spoke from prepared comments (Exhibit G). Ms. Johnson referred to a roadside emissions test conducted by the Desert Research Institute (DRI) in 1994, which identified 50 out of 2,488, 1994 and 1995 model year cars, as gross polluters. Ms. Johnson added, if S.B. 331 were passed it would impede the air-quality efforts already being made in Washoe and Clark counties. Chairman Rhoads asked if there has been a positive clean up of the air quality in Washoe County because it seems to be the same to him. Ms. Johnson explained haze is sometimes a problem, but the air-quality standards in Washoe County have leveled off just below the federal standard.

Senator Coffin said he can see some value to this bill, and if the state could give motorists a break by giving them an exemption from having to have an emissions test for 4 years, it would be a service to its residents. Ms. Johnson responded by saying the statistics show a very low probability of newer cars failing yet it is still necessary because of the air-quality standards that need to be met. Ms. Johnson reiterated that new cars are now exempt from an emissions test for the first 2 years. Ms. Johnson brought up the fact that other states including California do exempt new cars from having to have an emissions test for 4 years.

Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, said they oppose S.B. 331.

Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.B. 331 and opened the hearing on S.B. 340.

Merrit K. (Ike) Yochum, Lobbyist, testified in support of S.B. 340. Mr. Yochum used a packet of information (Exhibit H. The original is on file in the Research Library.) containing scientific studies and a copy of the Minutes of the Assembly Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining, Sixty-ninth Session, June 5, 1997, to try and show why chlorofluorocarbons should be readily available and legal to the general public. Mr. Yochum also referred to a copy of a petition (Exhibit I. The original is on file in the Research Library.) with 18,000 signatures declaring the Kyoto Global Warning Treaty findings as untrue.

John H. Detar, M.D., Concerned Citizen, used two graphs (Exhibit J) to show how Freon (a chlorofluorocarbon) does not affect global warming like some scientific communities might want all of us to believe. Dr. Detar also referred to a solicitation (Exhibit K) given to people explaining why they should sign a petition card opposing the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, spoke in support of S.B. 340 because she thinks global warming is not a condition caused by chlorofluorocarbons. Ms. Hansen added that outlawing Freon has added $300 to $500 of extra costs for cooling per family for the United States.

James Dan, Lobbyist, Libertarian Party of Nevada, testified in support of S.B. 340, and explained his concern with halon (a chlorofluorocarbon) instead of Freon being unlawful to use. Mr. Dan explained that halon is the primary choice as a fire retardant to protect mainframe computer rooms because of the damage that could be done to the computers by a water fire-suppression system.

Chairman Rhoads asked Mr. Dan if the State of Nevada or the federal government has passed these restrictions on chlorofluorocarbons. Mr. Dan said there is a federal law restricting the use of chlorofluorocarbons and S.B. 340 should override the federal law restricting this use.

Senator Coffin asked Mr. Dan why the capable scientific community would try to trick the public in believing chlorofluorocarbons are the cause of the depletion of the ozone. Mr. Dan responded by stating the scientific community will take different sides and refute each other depending on the scientific evidence present at the time. He continued by saying there is no consensus in the scientific community on what is causing the ozone depletion.

David Horton, Lobbyist, Committee to Restore the Constitution, spoke in support of S.B. 340 from prepared comments (Exhibit L). Mr. Horton read a few passages from a scientific newsletter (Exhibit M) to support his view that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to prove chlorofluorocarbons are the cause of the depletion of the ozone layer.

Mike Oliver, Concerned Citizen, spoke in support of S.B. 340, and reiterated the comments of Mr. Yochum, Mr. Dan and Mr. Horton. Mr. Oliver added, "I have never seen such horrible propaganda as I see now about what is going on with our environmental issues."

Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, testified in opposition to S.B. 340, and commented it would be good public policy to make Freon illegal to use.

Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.B. 340 and opened the hearing on S.B. 363.

Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, stated S.B. 363 would propose a "brownfield program" for Nevada which would, ". . . encourage the revitalization of vacant unproductive environmentally contaminated lands throughout the state."

Senator Alice Contandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, stated:

Senator Titus explained many companies will not relocate to urban industrial areas because of previous contamination and environmental liability, but relocate to non-contaminated suburban or rural areas called greenfields. Senator Titus brought attention to the fact that restoring the approximate 450 brownfields in Nevada is an opportunity to create jobs and tax contributions to an otherwise nonproductive piece of property. Senator Titus pointed out there are numerous federal programs addressing brownfield programs and referred to a handout (Exhibit N) outlining the pending legislation for brownfield programs as well as a handout (Exhibit O.) summarizing legislation in other states. Senator Titus used a flow chart (Exhibit P) showing the approval process for brownfield sites in Nevada. Senator Titus concluded by saying S.B. 363 would clean up contaminated areas, offer incentives to business for economic development and help alleviate the problems of industrial areas moving to suburban and rural areas.

Chairman Rhoads asked Senator Titus what would happen if a business entered into a brownfield development program and found some hazardous material on the property. Senator Titus stated, as long as hazardous material is found prior to the cleanup being completed the new owners that entered into the brownfield project would not be held liable.

Mr. Biaggi continued his testimony from prepared comments (Exhibit Q) outlining S.B. 363 and the economic, environmental and social benefits it would have on the State of Nevada.

Chairman Rhoads asked what the process would be of turning an old gas station into a brownfield. Mr. Biaggi outlined the process that included an environmental assessment of property, application for enrollment into the brownfield program, clean up of the property and finally a certificate of completion.

Senator Shaffer stated he has had property that was in need of environmental cleanup, and this bill, if enacted, at that time would have expedited the cleanup time and decreased the cost of the property in becoming developed.

Mr. Biaggi concluded by saying the Division of Environmental Protection supports S.B. 363, and suggested some changes and modifications that should make the bill protective of human health and consistent with current statutory language.

Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, said that her association supports S.B. 363 because it supports economic development.

Donna Ernst, Staff Environmentalist Scientist, SRK Consulting, stated they do support S.B. 363.

Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, supports S.B. 363, but has some concerns that will be covered in the proposed amendments from Mr. Biaggi.

Carl R. Dahlen, Rural Program Manager, Commission on Economic Development, spoke in support of S.B. 363 because of its incentive to redevelopment and reuse of industrial or commercial property.

Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.B. 363 and opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R) 14.

Tibeau Piquet, State Chairman, People For the United States of America, speaking from prepared comments (Exhibit R) said, "I am submitting S.J.R. 14 on behalf of all homeowners, agriculture industry, and the entire industrialized United States of America." Mr. Piquet stated there are currently 15 states that have passed similar resolutions, and 8 states, including Nevada, introducing a similar resolution to oppose the Kyoto Protocol.

Senator Coffin asked for a copy of the Kyoto Protocol and Chairman Rhoads asked Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, to obtain a copy for all members of the committee.

Liz Arnold, National Chairman, People for the United States of America, urged the committee to pass S.J.R. 14 because excessive or erroneous environmental regulation and land-use policy negatively affects the public. Ms. Arnold spoke from a packet of information (Exhibit S. The original is on file in the Research Library.) which included prepared comments and literature opposing the Kyoto Protocol.

Chairman Rhoads asked Ms. Arnold if she knew when a scheduled vote was going to take place in Washington, D.C., on this matter. Ms. Arnold said she did not know and there is currently no indication when this matter will be heard. Chairman Rhoads asked if Nevada’s two U.S. Senators have indicated how they will stand on this issue. Ms. Arnold said her organization has heard U.S. Senator Harry Reid was going to cosponsor a bill to ratify the Kyoto Treaty. Senator Jacobsen asked Ms. Arnold what would happen if the U.S. Congress would ignore the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. Ms. Arnold said her organization’s fear is some government agencies are already implementing some of the regulations and tenets in the Kyoto Protocol prior to its implementation and there is an executive order consistent with this practice.

Doug Busselman, Lobbyist, Nevada Farm Bureau, spoke from prepared comments (Exhibit T) strongly urging the committee to pass S.J.R. 14. Mr. Busselman stated the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty could reduce farmers and ranchers income by as much as 50 percent as well as increasing production costs.

Stephanie D. Licht, Lobbyist, Nevada Woolgrowers Association, and Elko County Commissioners, went on record to support S.J.R. 14.

C. Joseph Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, spoke in support of S.J.R. 14. Mr. Guild used examples of grocery prices in the United States and abroad to showcase the exorbitant food prices in foreign countries and how the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty could affect the inexpensive quality food Americans now enjoy.

Robert Crowell, Lobbyist, Center for Energy and Economic Development, stated he would like to echo the comments of Ms. Arnold and go on record to support S.J.R. 14.

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, spoke in support of S.J.R. 14, and referred to an article (Exhibit U) that she wrote in opposition to the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. Ms. Hansen commented that this treaty would drastically affect families by increasing fuel costs for home and automobile as well as raising food costs.

Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, spoke in opposition to S.J.R. 14 and distributed a packet of information (Exhibit V) to support their view.

Daniel F. Geary, Lobbyist, National Environmental Trust, testified from prepared comments (Exhibit W) in opposition to S.J.R. 14.

Senator James asked Mr. Geary why the U.S. should bind itself in a treaty that does not equally distribute the economic burdens. Mr. Geary used temperature and scientific statistics included in his testimony to try and imply greenhouse gasses are the sole source of global warming affecting humankind in regards to natural disasters related to weather, malnutrition, disease and extinction of certain animal species. Senator James asked Mr. Geary if he is suggesting all of the recent weather disasters are related to global warming. Mr. Geary denied he is, but said, "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration . . . has made statements that the increase in violent weather patterns . . . can be partially linked to the earth’s temperature." Senator James commented he does not think global warming is the cause of these weather problems, and there is not a consensus among the scientific community to what is causing global warming. Mr. Geary agreed and commented he does know there is conflicting scientific data and he is only representing one side.

Senator James commented he thought Mr. Geary made some unfair remarks in regards to the opponents of the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty and the scientific facts. Senator James added, the issues at hand are the inconsistent findings in the scientific community in regards to global warming as well as having the United States bound in a treaty where the economic burdens of a global cleanup are distributed unevenly.

Mr. Geary said he has spoken to U.S. Senators Reid and Bryan, and said:

Kelly T. Redmond, Deputy Director, Western Regional Climate Center, Desert Research Institute, University and Community College System of Nevada, gave a background on himself and his qualifications on the issue of greenhouse gases and global warming. Mr. Redmond spoke from a prepared presentation (Exhibit X) and said he stands neutral on the climate-change issue and lets the scientific studies speak for themselves. Mr. Redmond stated in his testimony that this is a very complex system with many variables and there are many scientific facts pointing toward a global climate change which science still cannot answer.

David Horton, Lobbyist, Committee to Restore the Constitution, brought forth graphs (Exhibit Y) showing the predicted and real temperatures that would refute the global temperature changes and greenhouse theory.

Merrit K. (Ike) Yochum, Lobbyist, went on record to support S.J.R. 14.

Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, stated he thought a lot of the complaints that the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty would cause economic, fuel and job changes are grossly exaggerated. Mr. Johnson said he would like to propose some amendments (Exhibit Z) to this resolution. Chairman Rhoads told Mr. Johnson that due to the rules the committee must follow they cannot change the resolution and his changes are not allowable.

Senator Coffin submitted data obtained from the Internet in regards to the subject (Exhibit AA).

Jan Gilbert, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada, said they are in opposition to S.J.R. 14.

Marjorie Sill, Concerned Citizen, said she is opposed to S.J.R. 14.

Chairman Rhoads adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Scott Corbett,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman

DATE: