The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 3:07 p.m., on Friday, April 2, 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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst

Scott Corbett, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 526 and called attention to a proposed amendment (Exhibit C) that he and Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, are proposing.

Tina Nappe, Member, Advisory Board on Water Resources Planning and Development, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, stated she would have liked a resolution passed to acknowledge the effort and hard work of the staff involved in the State Water Plan. Ms. Nappe supports the proposed amendment from Chairman Rhoads to S.B. 526.

Don Henderson, Deputy Administrator, Division of Agriculture, Department of Business and Industry, distributed written comments (Exhibit D) in regards to the State Water Plan from the Division of Agriculture. Mr. Henderson commented that the proposed amendment from Chairman Rhoads is an improvement, but he still has concerns in regards to section 1, subsection 5 of Exhibit C with the proposed phrase "shall consider."

Doug Busselman, Lobbyist, Nevada Farm Bureau, suggested changing line 3, page 1 of Exhibit C to delete "conservation" because "management" includes conservation and delete "use" from line 4, page 1 of S.B. 526. Also, Mr. Busselman suggested that lines 12 through 14, page 2 of Exhibit C be deleted. Mr. Busselman recommended that part 3 of the State Water Plan be removed because Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 540.101 does not call for the State Water Plan to include recommendations.

Chairman Rhoads called forward Brenda J. Erodes, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, and called attention to the fact that the word "should" appears in the State Water Plan 70 times and line 12, page 2 has "shall consider." Chairman Rhoads stated there are people who are concerned with these words making the State Water Plan binding.

Ms. Erodes explained that "shall" means giving a duty, and only requires that the local governments consider the plan’s recommendations and does not bind them. Chairman Rhoads pointed out that the wording could lead to litigation if local governments did not consider the State Water Plan. Ms. Erodes stated her belief is if S.B. 526 does go through, the local and state government agencies need to consider it because they have a statutory duty.

Mr. Busselman reiterated that their concern is with part 3 of the plan being included with the submitted plan that the Legislature will adopt.

Michael D. Bushelman, Concerned Citizen, testified he is a state water rights surveyor and is the Chairman to the Washoe County Regional Water Planning Commission. He stated he is in favor of the proposed amendment and the State Water Plan. Mr. Bushelman also stated he thinks the plan is a good resource as well as providing guidelines for planning and other water-related issues.

Chairman Rhoads asked Mr. Bushelman if he had problems with the bill prior to the proposed amendment. Mr. Bushelman replied he did because the plan needs to be a living document and new issues are always arising.

Arnold Settlemeyer, Concerned Citizen, said he thinks the plan is municipal and industrial oriented and there is no incentive for a basin or an individual to conserve water. Mr. Settlemeyer also stated he thinks we do need a plan, but is afraid of it becoming mandatory.

James Settlemeyer, Concerned Citizen, agreed with Mr. Busselman’s proposed changes to the bill.

J. James Eidel, Consulting Geologist, Carson City, stated that he thinks the proposed amendment addresses the overall concern with the bill and reiterated that the State Water Plan is a good step forward for Nevada.

Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Douglas County, and Vidler Water Company, testified that the proposed amendment would alleviate the concerns of both parties she is representing.

John Tracy, Concerned Citizen, stated he supports the proposed amendment and believes the State Water Plan gives control over water issues to all parties concerned in a basin instead of being mandated control measures.

Tom Hoffert, Utilities Operation Manager, Carson City, spoke from prepared comments (Exhibit E) in support of S.B. 526, as amended, and believes the State Water Plan to be a very good guidance manual.

Rachel Dahl, Lobbyist, Lahontan Valley Environmental Alliance, referred to previously submitted comments to the state water planner (Exhibit F) and reiterated the point of being concerned with the plan being binding. Ms. Dahl stated that agriculture and mining should not be threatened because they are needed to diversify the economy.

Jonathan G. Price, Director and State Geologist, Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Reno, spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit G) outlining the bureau’s responsibility as it relates to water issues.

Russ Fields, Lobbyist, Nevada Mining Association, thanked the chairman for addressing their concerns in the proposed amendment and suggested section 5 be deleted or "shall consider" be modified to ensure the plan is not a mandate or directive to local governments.

Douglas N. Bierman, Lobbyist, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority, reiterated previous comments by saying the proposed amendment addresses concerns, section 5 of the bill should be deleted and the State Water Plan should not be a mandate.

Julie A. Wilcox Slay, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Water Authority, stated they are very supportive of a water plan, but do not believe it should be binding or mandated and suggested, "The plan is not mandatory or binding and the plan must not include" could be included on line 2, page 2 of the bill. Ms. Wilcox added she thinks the plan should be a resource and a guide for entities to use as they see fit.

Kelly McGowan, Concerned Citizen, expressed concern with section 5 of the bill, which makes the State Water Plan binding and commented that he thought the State Water Plan is a good useable plan.

Tony Lesperance, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Elko County, explained that Elko County has formed its own county water commission and county water plan because of their displeasure with the Division of Water Planning and the State Water Plan.

Jonathan A. Gorman, Chairman, Water Planning Commission, Elko County, spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit H) outlining why his commission thinks the State Water Plan does not solve any of Nevada’s water issues as well as not proposing any solutions to its water problems. Mr. Gorman stated the Legislature should not take any action on the State Water Plan until further data and public comment is carried out.

Scott R. Brown, Director of Planning and Zoning, Division of Planning and Public Works, Elko County, testified from prepared comments (Exhibit I) recommending the Legislature to not accept the State Water Plan because it does not meet the requirements outlined in NRS 540.101. Mr. Brown commented if the plan is passed it would, " . . . give the plan teeth in creating law." Mr. Brown recommended that the plan be returned to the Nevada Division of Water Planning until the requirements are met that have been outlined by the Legislature.

Mr. Lesperance submitted written testimony (Exhibit J) and acknowledged the state water planner and her staff for their work developing the plan, but stated Elko County does not support the direction the plan has gone. Mr. Lesperance also submitted comments from Elko County (Exhibit K) summarizing their complaints and concerns regarding the State Water Plan. Mr. Lesperance also

claimed that the State Water Plan should offer options in correcting or preventing future problems, but it does little more than focus on the problems of which Elko County is already aware. Mr. Lesperance concluded by saying, "It is our desire to protect the waters of Elko County with every ounce of effort that the water commission and the Board of Commissioners has."

Chairman Rhoads suggested that maybe they change the name of the "water plan" to the "water guide."

C. Joseph Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, stated he does not think the name of the plan should be changed and commended the state water planner and her staff for their effort in compiling the State Water Plan. Mr. Guild stated his main concern with the plan is the protection of existing water rights and pointed out there is no mention of this protection in the guiding principles. Mr. Guild claimed that the proposed amendment would alleviate most of his concerns and echoed the comment about deleting section 1, subsection 5 of Exhibit C.

Richie D. Haddock, Lobbyist, Barrick Goldstrike Mines Incorporated, commented that the language in S.B. 526 section 1, subsection 5, lines 13-15 makes the plan less important and suggested the following language, "That implementation of a policy or recommendation of the plan is not mandatory." Mr. Haddock also agreed that section 5 of the bill sounds like a mandate and could be interpreted to impose a duty to adopt the plan, and its language is similar to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Mr. Haddock explained that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 started off as a good idea like the State Water Plan, ". . . but has turned into a monster." Mr. Haddock proposed the following language be added, "That statements of fact contained in the plan may not be used as evidence in administrative or judicial proceedings."

Michael J. Brown, Lobbyist, Barrick Goldstrike Mines Incorporated, agreed with Mr. Busselman’s comments and brought up the recommendations in the plan which calls for extra staff, money, resources and programs even though the Governor is calling for a review of state government.

Naomi Smith Duerr, State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, clarified that the State Water Plan was never intended to be a mandate and only makes recommendations to move forward in water issues. Ms. Duerr noted that section 3 of the State Water Plan was added because the residents of Nevada, prior to the State Water Plan, said these issues need to be included in the plan. Ms. Duerr added that section 5 of the bill is very important and should be included in the bill because its purpose is to be a useful document and to have people use it.

Paul Taggert, Deputy Attorney General, Conservation and Natural Resource Section, Civil Division, Office of the Attorney General, stated that he did not know if the language of "shall consider" or "may consider" in the bill would become a legal issue and this language would not be one of the issues he would be most concerned about.

Senator Jacobsen asked if all of the divisions under the State Department of Natural Resources and Conservation have signed off on the plan.

Ms. Duerr stated that all of the agencies but the Division of Forestry were directly involved in developing the plan.

Chairman Rhoads adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Scott Corbett,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman

DATE: