ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

March 12, 2001

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 9:03 a.m., on Monday, March 12, 2001. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John J. Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. David Brown

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Bob Price

Ms. Debbie Smith

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Greg Brower

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Glenda Jacques, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Fred W. Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Steve Teshara, Executive Director, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, Advocate for Lake Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition

Dean Heller, Secretary of State, Nevada

Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands

Joe Johnson, representing Toiyabe Division Sierra Club

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 5: Directs Legislative Commission to appoint committee to continue review of Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. (BDR R-703)

Assemblyman Greg Brower, representing Assembly District No. 37, introduced A.C.R. 5. The resolution would create an interim subcommittee of the Legislative Commission to oversee the activities of the Tahoe Regional Planning Association (TRPA) and other activities related to the Lake Tahoe basin. The committee was formed in 1985 and required legislative review each session.

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 16 of the Seventieth Session directed the Legislative Commission to appoint a review committee of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact and to oversee the TRPA, the compact’s governing body. The legislation directed the committee to review the programs of federal and state agencies that regulated activities in the Tahoe basin.

Mr. Brower, who chaired the committee during FY1999-2000, stated the committee was a valuable tool to the Legislature. The federal government and the legislatures of California and Nevada had a responsibility to oversee and review periodically the activities of the TRPA. The previous interim committee revealed some positive, constructive activity with respect to the TRPA and Lake Tahoe.

Mr. Brower explained the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) was currently underway at Lake Tahoe. The 10-year program, a $908 million effort, would conclude in 2007. The interim committee reviewed many of the EIP projects. Because of Nevada’s financial investment in the EIP, it was imperative the Legislature maintained a close working relationship with California and the TRPA to monitor budgets and projects.

A.C.R. 5 articulated the need for the Nevada legislature to be involved with overseeing the TRPA and its activities. It further authorized the appointment of six legislators to meet during the interim to oversee those activities.

Mr. Lee questioned who was currently on the legislative interim committee. Mr. Brower answered that he chaired the committee. The other members from the Assembly were Ms. Freeman and former colleague, Mr. Thomas. The Senate members were Senator O’Donnell, Senator Schafer, and Senator Amodei.

Mr. Lee wanted to know where the meetings were held. Mr. Brower replied meetings were held in the Tahoe basin; four meetings had been held in Incline Village and one meeting had been held at Harvey’s, Stateline. The first meeting was a grounds tour of the Tahoe area and current projects.

Mr. Lee asked how many members on the committee were from California. Mr. Brower stated that although California had representatives on the TRPA board of governors, the interim committee consisted of Nevadans only. At the conclusion of FY2000 interim committee hearings, Mr. Brower and Mr. Welden went to Sacramento, California and met with many of their counterparts in the California Legislature to discuss TRPA issues and California’s strong commitment to Lake Tahoe.

Mr. Lee questioned if the trip to California was part of the resolution’s direction “to communicate with members of the Legislature of the State of California.” Mr. Brower responded affirmatively. While in California he met with the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, the chairs of the Senate and Assembly committees that had jurisdiction over Lake Tahoe, and staff from the Executive Branch that related to Lake Tahoe issues. This was the first time representatives from California and Nevada had met together to discuss Lake Tahoe issues. It was gratifying to see the strong commitment of California government towards Lake Tahoe and its ongoing projects.

Mr. Neighbors wondered if maybe there should be more representation from the rural counties in Nevada. Mr. Brower replied they would be willing to have a rural representative on the committee.

Mr. Price commented that he was pleased and happy with the work the interim committee and the TRPA had done. In previous years, the TRPA had been a very closed organization and would not allow legislators in their meetings.

Mr. Brower stated the TRPA handled sensitive issues that created strong criticism. One of the key roles of the legislative committee was to oversee the TRPA and to answer those criticisms.

Fred W. Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, noted that A.C.R. 5 would not count against the interim study quota of either legislative house.

Mr. Price questioned why the committee was not a statutory committee. Mr. Weldon responded that he did not know why. In the 1980s there was a desire for the full Legislature to review the interim committee. The committee reported to the Legislature and provided a written report. Mr. Weldon brought the TRPA report for those who wanted to review it (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.).

Mr. Brower stated the committee’s report outlined the recommendations of the past committee’s meetings and detailed their accomplishments.

Steve Teshara, Executive Director, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, stated his office represented the casino-resort properties on the south shore. He also represented the Lake Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition, a group of private sector organizations that addressed environmental issues, property rights, tourism, general business, etc., in the Lake Tahoe area.

Mr. Teshara praised Mr. Brower for his dedication and enthusiasm as chairman of the previous committee. The committee was a forum for deliberation and action for both the Legislature and the public. The committee was able to disseminate information to the public and listen to the public’s support or opposition to various programs. Because of Nevada’s ongoing investment in Lake Tahoe, the interim committee became a liaison between the TRPA, the federal government and the Legislature. Mr. Teshara’s constituents whole-heartedly supported A.C.R. 5 and encouraged its passage.

Mr. Mortenson questioned if the interim committee fell under the open-meeting laws. Mr. Brower answered in the affirmative.

Mr. Mortenson wanted to know who was on the governing board of the TRPA. Mr. Brower replied there were representatives from California and Nevada, appointed by different governing entities, and a federal Presidential appointee. The current chair of the committee was Secretary of State, Dean Heller.

Dean Heller, Secretary of State, Nevada, explained he was beginning his 2-year term as chairman of the TRPA governing board. He praised Mr. Brower for the work he had done as chairman of the interim committee. Mr. Heller agreed with the A.C.R. 5 where it stated:

“The review and oversight of the programs and activities of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the role of each federal and state agency having authority and responsibility in the Lake Tahoe Basin continue to be necessary to ensure the proper functioning of those agencies…”

Through federal, state, and local funding there would be over $1 billion spent in the Lake Tahoe basin over the next ten years. The continued review and monitoring of those matters by the committee were critical. Mr. Heller clarified that the TRPA fell under the open-meeting law and any person or legislator was welcome to attend the meeting. He reaffirmed his support of the interim committee and the important part it played between the TRPA and the Legislature.

Mr. Price commented that Nevada had been the first state to initiate the open-meeting law when the TRPA was formed.

Mr. Heller explained the Nevada representation on the TRPA included a member from Douglas County, Washoe County, and Carson City.

Mr. Neighbors replied there were 15 other counties in Nevada that were more rural than Douglas County. He suggested maybe the committee should be a standing one like public lands or distribution of taxes.

Mr. Heller agreed with Mr. Neighbors and anticipated the interim committee would be very important over the next ten years. The EIP, the continued assessment of the lake and budgets were areas the Legislature needed to be involved with.

Mr. Lee questioned how Mr. Heller became a member of the TRPA. Mr. Heller replied he was a member of the TRPA’s governing board for six years. The office of Secretary of State was a standing member of the governing board. Mr. Heller clarified his office also put him on the governing board of the Board of Examiners, Prison Board, and the Boys and Girls Club of Western Nevada.

Mr. Brower stated the TRPA was a unique bi-state agency. The TRPA idea was developed between former California Governor Reagan and Nevada Governor Laxalt and signed into law by President Nixon in 1969.

Mr. Price questioned what experts from Las Vegas were serving on the TRPA board. Mr. Heller replied the Governor had appointed Mr. Drake DeLanoy to the board and Mr. Brian Sandoval was Nevada’s member at-large. There was representation from Washoe County, Carson City, and Douglas County because they had portions of their counties in the Lake Tahoe basin area. The Secretary of State and the Governor’s appointee made up the remaining seven seats on the Nevada side of the TRPA. California’s members included two legislative appointees and representatives from the contiguous counties that bordered the Lake Tahoe basin area. The interim committee was useful because Nevada had no legislative appointees on the TRPA board.

Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, commended the interim committee for having improved the relationship between Nevada and the TRPA. In the past, TRPA bills brought in front of the legislature generally created controversy. The interim committee had given Nevada better working relationships with the TRPA.

In addition to its oversight of the TRPA, Ms. Wilcox explained the committee overlooked and worked closely with state agencies in the Tahoe basin. The Division of State Lands had many projects that included the acquisition and maintenance of sensitive lands, erosion control and stream restoration, administration of Nevada’s Tahoe license program, and the coordination of Nevada’s EIP programs. They talked frequently with the interim committee to determine the needs of the basin and what the appropriate state response should be. They also continued to oversee the programs implemented. Ms. Wilcox stated her continued support of the committee, whether as an interim or a standing committee.

Mr. Brower added the Nevada Legislature took for granted the importance of the TRPA. In California the TRPA had been a very contentious and heated political issue. The California legislators that met with Mr. Brower were firmly committed to the environmental projects in the Tahoe basin and improving attitudes toward the TRPA. The interim committee had continually overseen the TRPA activities and had been able to prevent some of the inherent contention of the organization. Hopefully, the committee would be able to keep politics out of the Lake Tahoe basin.

Mr. Humke questioned the split of funding between Nevada and California for Lake Tahoe. Mr. Brower replied the 10-year EIP project would cost Nevada $82 million, California $275 million and the federal government would cover the balance. During the 1997 Presidential Summit at Lake Tahoe, President Clinton committed the federal government to the funding of those projects. The strong, committed effort of the Nevada delegation had made the funding a reality.

Mr. Lee questioned what projects were being developed to address Lake Tahoe’s clarity. Mr. Brower summarized the next round of bonding would fund forest restoration, erosion control at the east shore access, wildlife habitat enhancement, major stream flow and water diversion surveys, shore zone and stream restoration, land coverage restoration, and the planning and design of the Spooner Lake visitor center.

Ms. Wilcox responded the Tahoe Lake problems were a result of man’s interference with the natural order. The roads were a large part of the problem because of the steep slopes that flowed into the Tahoe basin. Each road had a “cut slope” and a “fill slope” and all of those needed to be stabilized. In addition, the runoff from the pavement carried oils and other road residue into the lake. A typical project along a steep road would include soil stabilization on the “cut slope,” additional stabilization on the “fill slope,” and the capture and conveying of water runoff to settle the sediment. Other projects addressed the restoration of natural stream courses. The streams needed to be restored so they would naturally catch the sediment runoff and the erosion from developed urban areas. The original streams had meandered through meadows and naturally filtered out sediments. The streams would bottom or flatten out before they entered the lake and allowed the natural settling of contaminants. Through land development, many streams had been channeled or diverted. Restoration of the streams would restore natural filtration of the water that flowed into the lake.

Ms. Wilcox continued to explain there were many other projects, but those were the largest ones. The division had acquired many sensitive land parcels from homeowners and managed those lands. All programs had an eco-perspective taken and looked at wildlife, fishery, recreation impact, air quality, and other components that improved the environment and the health of the basin.

Mr. Brower stressed the main goal in the Tahoe area was to restore and enhance the lake’s clarity. Private property and other interests must be balanced while avoiding further deterioration of Lake Tahoe.

Mr. Neighbors stated he had read a report that Lake Tahoe had recently lost two more feet of clarity. He questioned why California had contributed three times as much as Nevada to the EIP project when they owned two-thirds of the lake.

Ms. Wilcox explained the operating budget of the TRPA was a two-third California and one-third Nevada split. The EIP costs were allocated by where the projects were that need to be done. The California side had more problems and they were required to pay more than Nevada.

Mr. Neighbors questioned if the bond issue before the Senate was a five-year project. Ms. Wilcox responded that A.B. 285 of the Seventieth Session was passed and committed Nevada’s participation in the EIP and to the $82 million budget. The bill required the committee to return to the legislature and ask for specific authorization for bills needed during the next biennium. The bond would provide for the additional $56 million that remained to be funded.

Ms. Wilcox reminded the committee that Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga had served on the interim committee and represented the rural counties of Nevada. She had done an excellent job and additional rural Nevada candidates would be welcome to the committee.

Mr. Lee questioned whether the TRPA included Marlette and Spooner. Ms. Wilcox answered her agency does monitor the backcountries of the Tahoe area and Marlette and Spooner were included.

Ms. Wilcox explained there were continuing projects in those areas. An on-going project had been the improvement of the hiking trail from Spooner to Marlette. There had been erosion along the trail and the traffic was too heavy for the trail. The traffic included hikers, horseback riders and bicyclists. A second parallel trail would be created to relieve the pressure on the soil from the heavy traffic. The two trails would also contain appropriate erosion controls. The drought had caused high tree mortality. When the forest deteriorated, the land and soil deteriorated and eroded down in the lake. Continued forestry work would prevent or slow the process.

Mr. Brower commented that maybe Mr. Lee would be interested in joining the commission. Mr. Lee responded he appreciated the bill and all the work the committee had accomplished.

Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, whole-heartedly supported the resolution and would like to recognize the effort made by the legislative committee. He felt the committee should not be made a standing committee because the review process each session was an excellent opportunity to discuss items of concern and educate members of the Legislature to the committee’s function. The efforts of the committee should be recognized by the taxpayers.

Mr. Brower added part of every interim committee hearing was devoted to public input and testimony. Topics heard ranged from private property rights to easy access to the nude beach at Tahoe. It was a good forum in the interim for people to let the Nevada Legislature know what was important.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.C.R. 5.

MR. LEE MOTIONED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION.

MR. NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Seeing no further business, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Glenda Jacques

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: