The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 2:33 p.m., on Monday, April 26, 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:

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko County Assembly District No. 33

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst

Scott Corbett, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko County Assembly District No. 33, testified that A.B. 198 prevents the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from reducing a grazing permit that is attached to a base property when that property is sold, leased or transferred. Assemblyman Carpenter commented that currently the BLM is taking reduction just because these permits are being transferred and they should not be able to do this.

Chairman Rhoads asked Assemblyman Carpenter if A.B. 198 was passed and became law, would it force the federal government (BLM) to abide by Nevada State law. Assemblyman Carpenter responded that he did not know, but if passed it would send a message that the Nevada Legislature is trying to protect the ranchers. Assemblyman Carpenter referred to the second half of the bill that addresses terrorism on the range and passed out an article (Exhibit C) that outlined many of the problems on the West’s open range. Assemblyman Carpenter added that A.B. 198 would also make it a misdemeanor to commit any type of vandalism or other damage to rangeland or rangeland property.

C. Joseph Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, spoke in support of A.B. 198 because of the reasons Assemblyman Carpenter outlined, and added that many of the tenets of the Taylor Grazing Act are embodied in this bill. Mr. Guild commented that there have been attacks on the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act that relate to base-property and grazing-preference rights.

Mike L. Baughman, Lobbyist, Eureka County, testified in support A.B. 198. Mr. Baughman used a handout (Exhibit D) which outlined the reductions in permits when a base property is transferred in Eureka County.

Senator James asked for an explanation of what the BLM does when they reevaluate a property when it is transferred and on what do they base their reduction. Mr. Baughman responded that in most cases the BLM goes to the property to evaluate it, but sometimes they do not go to the property and still give a reduction.

Senator James asked if the BLM is basing these reductions on a federal statute or regulation because if that is the case the language in A.B. 198 will allow the BLM to continue with this practice. Mr. Baughman stated, "This is largely discretionary power as far as we can tell, it’s [it is] a discretionary action." Mr. Baughman concluded by saying Eureka County supports this bill and suggested a possible amendment (Exhibit E) to A.B. 198.

Robert E. Stewart, Public Information Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior, spoke from prepared comments (Exhibit F) in opposition to A.B. 198. Mr. Stewart testified that A.B. 198 could cause confusion with the ranching community by creating a definition of "grazing preference" that is different than the definition embodied in the Taylor Grazing Act. Mr. Stewart added that language included in this bill might show BLM responsible for compensation to a transferee after a reduction in permitted use below that previously authorized by BLM. Mr. Stewart concluded by suggesting adding language making willful or negligent interference with lawful herding or grazing a misdemeanor with specific acts that are to be criminalized.

Senator James questioned Mr. Stewart on a case that was cited in Mr. Stewart’s testimony regarding the Taylor Grazing Act. Mr. Stewart responded that he does not know what was decided in that case. Mr. Guild commented that he knew and the case is being appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Senator James asked Mr. Guild for his opinion on what could be done to A.B. 198 to fix the problem of grazing-permit reductions. Mr. Guild stated that as a state we could not tell an agency of the federal government what we think they should do, and he does not think anything could be done.

Senator James commented that the only thing this bill is going to mean is, "as a matter of state law this is an impertinence." Senator James added that he agrees with the bill and understands the importance, but does not understand why it should be passed because language in the bill states, "except as otherwise provided in the Taylor Grazing Act," which allows the BLM to do what they are doing.

Mr. Guild agreed with Senator James and stated A.B. 198, if passed, would only answer questions in the state courts pertaining to alienation, but it is also the responsibility of the Legislature to express the views of the people of the state if they disagree with what the federal government is doing.

Senator Coffin noted that maybe this bill could create debate and cause some public recognition to be brought to this subject through a court case. Senator James responded by saying that could be done, but the language "except as otherwise provided in the Taylor Grazing Act" in A.B. 198 would need to be removed.

Senator Coffin questioned if this language was removed if it would affect the meaning of the bill. Mr. Guild stated that he thought it would not affect the bill, but it could actually give the bill more meaning. Mr. Guild added the misdemeanor provision in the bill is a very important aspect and should be included in any amendments to A.B. 198.

Senator Coffin questioned the definition of an AUM (animal unit per month) as it has been defined throughout different testimony. Mr. Stewart pointed out that the federal definition of an AUM has been in total agreement with all parties.

Senator Jacobsen asked Assemblyman Carpenter to give more information on the background of this bill. Assemblyman Carpenter reiterated that this bill came about because of the problems he mentioned earlier and the language in question is included because they are not trying to take BLM’s authority.

Senator Jacobsen asked if ranchers need to sign an agreement with BLM that details what can or cannot be done as well as any AUM allotments. Assemblyman Carpenter responded that in many instances there is a 10-year permit issued which details the use and numbers of livestock, as well as the rules and regulations the BLM has.

Senator Jacobsen asked what circumstances could cause a permit to be revoked, and asserted that he does not want this bill to be the cause of any litigation. Assemblyman Carpenter commented that the ranching industry is going through tough times and they just want to work with the BLM and be treated fairly.

Senator James called attention to the fact that Mr. Stewart testified that the United States Secretary of the Interior, or the people who act for him, are responsible for the grazing-permit reduction, but Assemblyman Carpenter’s testimony reflects that the BLM arbitrarily determines who will get their grazing permit reduced.

Mr. Stewart noted that he is not a field agent and can only respond to what he has been told. Mr. Stewart stated:

Senator Shaffer referred to Exhibit D and the discrepancy between the transfer suspensions in the Battle Mountain District and the Elko District, and asked Assemblyman Carpenter his opinion if it is selective or some other reason like preference. Assemblyman Carpenter responded that the BLM seems to be more conducive to work with people in the livestock districts, like Elko, and work on the problems, and acknowledged there are more permittee problems in Battle Mountain than in Elko.

Chairman Rhoads commented that Assemblyman Carpenter is a realtor and sells quite a few ranches and asked him if he has ever seen an increase in a permit after a ranch has been sold. Assemblyman Carpenter stated that he has never seen an increase at the time of a transfer, but has seen increases in permits after the BLM has done their studies well after a sale.

Virgil Getto, Former State Senator, commented on the inequity of penalties for people who commit some form of destruction or vandalism towards a rancher or farmer, and feels these people should be punished more severely. Chairman Rhoads stated that there is currently a bill going through the Senate judiciary committee and if passed will allow for a felony conviction for someone who kills livestock.

Tebeau Piquet, State President, People for the U.S.A., stated he thought that litigation could not be legislated, in response to the aforementioned concern from Senator James. Mr. Piquet commented he does not have a problem with this bill trying to make a statement because there needs to be a partnership between the BLM and ranchers.

Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on A.B. 198 and opened the hearing on A.B. 132.

Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, commented that this bill was drafted as a housekeeping measure to codify provisions to six uncodified statutes (Exhibit G). Ms. Wilcox stated since 1985 many changes have occurred at Lake Tahoe and, "what we thought was going to be a one-shot bond program to get in and out, has turned into a major state program to protect Lake Tahoe." Ms. Wilcox iterated that the request to the bill drafter (Exhibit H) was to codify the continuing provisions without changing the intent of the original bills. Ms. Wilcox mentioned that she had conversations with a group of realtors prior to the meeting and they expressed some concern with unintended impacts on private lands. Ms. Wilcox used copies of the uncodified Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that will be affected by A.B. 132 (Exhibit I) and explained how the bill will codify them.

Senator James queried if these statutes are already enacted as law. Ms. Wilcox emphasized that these statutes are uncodified parts of bond acts. Senator James commented that section 4 of the bill gives the department very broad powers and stated:

Ms. Wilcox replied that this language is a paraphrase that the bill drafter used of language in chapter 355 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), but is much shorter because of the six statutes to be codified in A.B. 132.

Senator James expressed concern with this language dramatically increasing the power of the Division of State Lands to enforce any type of environmental regulations at Lake Tahoe. Ms. Wilcox clarified that this is not the intent of the bill, nor does the division have any regulatory authority. Senator James replied that A.B. 132 would give the division regulatory authority as well as control over environmental regulations. Ms. Wilcox reiterated the intent of this bill is to obtain the statutory authority to carry out the mitigation programs that this bill will codify, and it has never been the intent of the division to need or want regulatory authority in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Ms. Wilcox commented that the Division of State Lands and the board of realtors have agreed on an amendment to the bill that would delete the language on page 2, line 10, section 4, "without limitation;" on page 2, line 16 section 4, subsection 4, add the language after the word "acquire", "from willing sellers;" and page 3, line 6, after the word "acquired", insert, "by the state."

Chairman Rhoads asked if these proposed amendments would acknowledge the concerns that he has received in response to this bill.

Patsy S. Redmond, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Realtors, stated they were originally in opposition to A.B. 132, but these proposed amendments have alleviated their concerns. Ms. Redmond also added that they had a concern with this bill being redundant with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), but Ms. Wilcox has addressed this situation and they are satisfied with the bill.

Chairman Rhoads asked Ms. Redmond if they have concerns about A.B. 132, like Senator James, giving the state lands division a broad range of power that is similar to the TRPA regulations. Ms. Redmond stated that was their original concern and these proposed amendments take care of their concern.

Senator James questioned Ms. Redmond if she is in agreement with the language that allows the state lands division this broad range of powers. Ms. Redmond stated she would like the word "prevent" deleted from the language of the bill. Senator James asserted that deleting "prevent" would not change the bill, and stated he is concerned because this bill is creating, "An all encompassing power to create an environmental agency within the Division of State Lands governing Lake Tahoe. We better be prepared to do that because that is what we are doing."

Senator Coffin commented that he has received numerous e-mails on the subject with all being opposed to A.B. 132, and most of them state that this bill would be redundant to what the TRPA does. Senator Coffin asked how close the created powers in this bill would be to the powers already possessed by the TRPA.

Senator James pointed out that page 2, line 12, includes "development, land coverage" which is the purpose of the TRPA and is controlled by the TRPA.

Senator Coffin commented that people in southern Nevada have supported the environmental bills to help Lake Tahoe and would like to know what the problem with the language is, because it is for Lake Tahoe. Ms. Redmond noted that the realtors have supported the environmental issues and have lead many campaigns for environmental bond issues at Lake Tahoe.

Ms. Wilcox responded to Senator James’ concern with the language that would duplicate the TRPA’s responsibilities, stating they would work in cooperation with the TRPA. Ms. Wilcox added that the TRPA is a regulatory authority and the Division of State Lands is an action agency and both work closely together. She said she does not believe this bill would duplicate the powers of each agency.

Ms. Redmond submitted a letter of opposition (Exhibit J) that outlined the board of realtors’ concerns, but added these concerns have been met and just wanted to include them in the record.

Chairman Rhoads asked Ms. Wilcox what would happen if A.B. 132 did not pass. Ms. Wilcox replied this bill would give the Division of State Lands defined authority in the statutes to carry out environmental work that is not currently defined.

John Bohn, Nevada Association of Realtors, stated this legislation is overreaching, as presently worded and as amended, because of the redundancy between the TRPA and the Division of State Lands.

Dan Oyler, Nevada Association of Realtors, explained that the realtors are all for the environmental protections for Lake Tahoe, but he fears the language in the bill is too broad and could add another layer of regulations or another agency.

Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, expressed their support for A.B. 132, and believes this is a program-oriented bill.

Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on A.B. 132 and opened the hearing on A.B. 450.

Alan R. Coyner, Administrator, Division of Minerals, Department of Business and Industry, spoke from prepared comments (Exhibit K), in support of A.B. 450. Mr. Coyner explained that A.B. 450 would allow more flexibility of fee adjustments and allow for industry input and referred to a table included in his prepared comments, outlining fees.

Chairman Rhoads asked if this bill is veto proof. Mr. Coyner replied that he believes it is and has received a letter from Governor Guinn of Nevada outlining his support.

Senator Coffin asked how often these fees would be levied. Mr. Coyner replied that it is the intent of the Division of Minerals to regulate and change the fees to accommodate the division’s needs in agreement with the industry. Senator Coffin asked how this would affect the small miners. Mr. Coyner replied that the small miners are primarily affected by the per-mining claim, usually under 10 claims. Senator Coffin queried further if the federal government gives these small miners a waiver also. Mr. Coyner stated that the federal government does so the small miner is not paying very much.

Russ Fields, Lobbyist, Nevada Mining Association, stated they support A.B. 450 because it allows the fees to be adjusted as necessary.

Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on A.B. 450 and opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 19.

Cy L. Wilsey, Nevada Mining Association, spoke in support of A.J.R. 19 from prepared comments (Exhibit L) stating that the proposed revisions to the BLM surface-management regulations would duplicate the stringent and adequate state regulations already in place.

Chairman Rhoads commented that the final draft would have to be completed 60 days after the May 10, 1999 date, ending the comment period. Mr. Wilsey replied that the resolution would allow the comment period to stay open during those 60 days.

Mr. Fields added that numerous entities, including the Nevada Mining Association, will be writing letters to request the comment period be extended. Mr. Fields suggested that the committee continue with the resolution, but also suggested a letter to the Secretary of the Interior be written from the committee.

Chairman Rhoads requested that the committee act on this resolution immediately.

Chairman Rhoads asked for a motion to permit the committee to write a letter to the Secretary of the Interior regarding an extension to the comment period as outlined in A.J.R. 19.

Chairman Rhoads asked that written testimony from Alan R. Coyner, Administrator, Division of Minerals, Department of Business and Industry, be included regarding A.J.R. 19 (Exhibit M).

With no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Scott Corbett,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman

DATE: