MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining

 

Seventy-First Session

April 16, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, April 16, 2001.  Chairman Marcia de Braga presided in Room 3161 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:

 

Mrs.  Marcia de Braga, Chairman

Mr.    Douglas Bache

Mr.    David Brown

Mr.    John Carpenter

Mr.    Jerry Claborn

Mr.    David Humke

Mr.    John Marvel

Mr.    Roy Neighbors

Ms.   Genie Ohrenschall

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr.    Tom Collins, Vice Chairman

Mr.    John J. Lee

Mr.    Harry Mortenson

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Speaker Richard Perkins, District 23

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

June Rigsby, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Russell Fields, President, Nevada Mining Association

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties

Stephanie Licht, Legislative Consultant, Nevada Wool Growers’ Association

Yvonne Sylva, M.P.A., Administrator, Nevada Health Division

Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

 

With only three members in attendance, Chairman de Braga declared the meeting would convene as a subcommittee, pending the arrival of additional assemblymen. The hearing on A.J.R. 7 was opened.

 

Assembly Joint Resolution 7:  Expresses support of Nevada Legislature for overturn of new federal regulations on surface mining. (BDR R-1287)

 

Speaker Richard Perkins, representing District 23, commenced testimony in support of A.J.R. 7. He explained there was currently a stay on the new federal regulations on surface mining; however, the stay was in danger of expiring. The impact to Nevada’s mining industry was outlined in considerable detail in A.J.R. 7. The intent of the resolution was to have one voice speak for Nevada in our nation’s capitol.

 

Russell Fields, President of the Nevada Mining Association, distributed a handout (Exhibit C) and spoke in support of A.J.R. 7.  Mr. Fields testified in support of the resolution to overturn the new federal regulations, also known as the 3809 rules. As finalized on November 21, 2000, and implemented on January 20, 2001, the law would seriously impact Nevada. Mr. Fields explained there was a proposal on March 23 to postpone and suspend the 3809 rules by the new administration. A 45-day period for receiving comments was in progress. Mr. Fields emphasized the new regulations had not been thrown out, and environmental regulation of mining, in fact, continued as it had for the last few years.

 

Mr. Fields summarized by saying, although the potential was in place for administrative action on the 3809 rules, the committee’s continued support of the lawsuit filed on behalf of Nevada was essential. That legal action was embodied in A.J.R. 7.

 

Assemblyman Claborn asked if President Bush had abolished the restrictions when he took office in January 2001.  Mr. Fields explained, since the rules went into effect 12 hours before his inauguration, President Bush was not legally able to stop the implementation through executive order. Instead, the Secretary of Interior had requested additional scrutiny before full implementation. As such, Mr. Fields stated the rules were still in effect during the 45-day comment period. On July 1, 2001, final rules would be issued. Options included everything from adoption of the 3809 rules as written to discarding of the rules completely.

 

Assemblyman Claborn voiced his wholehearted support of the latter.

 

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director of the Nevada Association of Counties, strongly urged the passage of A.J.R. 7. He had met with the Department of Interior in Washington and assured the committee the issue was important not just to Nevada but to the entire western United States.

 

Stephanie Licht, on behalf of Elko County and the Nevada Wool Growers’ Association, offered a one-line statement in total support of A.J.R. 7.

 

The hearing on A.J.R. 7 was suspended until a quorum was present for voting. Chairman de Braga opened the work session on A.B. 630.

 

Assembly Bill 630:  Makes various changes relating to testing for environmental contamination. (BDR 40-1456)

 

Chairman de Braga called the committee’s attention to page 2 of the work session document (Exhibit D). Following the Congressional hearings in Fallon, the need to revisit recommendations to deal with the leukemia cluster became apparent. Chairman de Braga stated three issues required discussion. The first was the reluctance to have required reporting of environmental contamination. The second was the fact the Nevada Cancer Registry was not certified. The third issue was the requirement of hospitals to pay to supply the Health Division with data for the registry. Chairman de Braga requested the Nevada Division of Health respond to those three points,

 

Yvonne Sylva, M.P.A., Administrator of the Nevada Division of Health, addressed the reporting of water contamination. There were two distinct water sources, community/public systems and private wells. Reports on domestic well water were not received in the Health Division nor in the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Ms. Sylva agreed it would be meaningful information to have; however, she was not convinced amassing that data would be necessary.

 

Chairman de Braga reminded the witness the discussion had focused on any entity that was certified to perform environmental testing and a requirement for reporting any significant findings of contamination.

 

Allen Biaggi, Administrator of NDEP, offered to respond. Reporting on domestic wells was a complicated matter due to issues of confidentiality. The testing laboratories would be placed in a compromising position. Additionally, processing waters from industrial plants would be impacted by changing the law. Mr. Biaggi acknowledged the need for a homeowner to be aware of environmental contaminants in his domestic well; however, an educational approach would be effective for increasing that awareness and a good first step.

 

Chairman de Braga countered by saying it was a simple request to mail a copy of the water report to a responsible state agency. Mr. Biaggi explained information on soil and water contamination (e.g., benzene) was already covered by reporting laws in Nevada. If it involved the sale of property, a certified environmental manager had an obligation to inform the property owner to report to the Nevada Health Division or to Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). As such, the laws were on the books for certain elements of the issue.

 

Yvonne Sylva added the Health Division, under NRS 439, had the authority to actually perform testing of any water source, including domestic wells, if a threat was perceived. That included testing the water supplies of the case families in Fallon. Chairman de Braga asked if that was done.  Ms. Sylva replied it was not the rule and was done on an occasional basis.

 

Chairman de Braga was not convinced there was enough protection in place. In her judgment, the idea of working collaboratively, without the benefit of law, was risky. Ms. Sylva clarified the collaboration referred to the development of a standardized database for use by both NDEP and the Health Division. That project was in progress.

 

Using the example of the Soda Lake area of Fallon, Chairman de Braga illustrated her concern by stating many of the homeowners there were still unaware of the exorbitantly high arsenic levels. Notification had not been made to all of the well users. Ms. Sylva admitted she was not familiar with that case. Chairman de Braga declared that was exactly her point. The Anderson Family in the Soda Lake area had been treated for arsenic poisoning, clearly a public health issue. Ms. Sylva admitted she was actually aware of the Anderson case, but not aware of other remedial action in the area.

 

Allen Biaggi offered to comment on the issues surrounding the serial parceling of land in Nevada. It was the subject of an upcoming interim study, and he suggested the matter under discussion be rolled into that study.  Chairman de Braga agreed; however, she was still unclear as to who would be responsible to notify the residents of Soda Lake.  Ms. Sylva responded by saying she presumed it would the State Board of Health and the Health Division; however, there may be no specific statute to do so. It would constitute a normal public health activity. 

 

Chairman de Braga reiterated that was her point. There was no statutory requirement in place to notify unsuspecting residents. Ms. Sylva responded it would be essential to make the bill more specific to cover situations that were out of the ordinary. She recommended a structured approach that established routine reporting; however, she added it should be done when, in fact, the public’s health was threatened.

 

Chairman de Braga explained the original bill contained that point. The Health Division and the NDEP would have to be notified and, if a significant health risk existed in the area, the public would be notified. Ms. Sylva was of the opinion the bill did more than just requiring a public notice. Given reasonable concerns, testing and sampling would be ordered.

 

Chairman de Braga reviewed the intention of the bill and stated, if a certified testing entity discovered a significant level of contamination, that entity would be required to report it to the appropriate agency. Disclosure followed a judgment of potential health risk.

 

Allen Biaggi attempted to clarify and stated there was a fundamental shift in policy direction for the state of Nevada with regard to domestic wells. Historically, the focus at NDEP had been on municipal water systems through the Nevada Drinking Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. In Nevada, it had been “let the buyer beware” with regard to domestic well and small water systems. Mr. Biaggi reiterated that education would be a good first step in increasing public awareness of health issues associated with those drinking water sources.

 

Chairman de Braga stated $500,000 had been appropriated, part of which could be used for that purpose; however, she voiced concern with that as a total solution. It would be unlikely a brief notice about a contaminated area would be seen by the right people. Chairman de Braga questioned the ability of NDEP and the Health Division to protect the public health with that amount of effort. People were not educated about those matters, and that was her point. Despite her pessimism, she expressed hope it would achieve some action.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter made reference to the interim study on land parceling and viewed that option with favor. He agreed with the education approach; however, he believed a new subdivision with wells should be tested. Chairman de Braga clarified by saying, if land was parceled and wells were drilled, there was no requirement for water testing or reporting, unless it was a specific condition of the sale. She voiced concern about the possibility of the interim study failing to receive legislative approval. In that event, Allen Biaggi stated the issue would be revisited in the 2003 session. Ms. Sylva concurred and recommended the committee ask the Health Division for support of that renewed effort during the next session.

 

Chairman de Braga acknowledged the offer and stated a request would be made of the Health Division to present an update to the Committee. She asked for clarification on the reasons for the lack of certification of the Nevada Cancer Registry.

 

Ms. Sylva explained that each state had to request federal certification, and Nevada had not placed that request. In 1989, the Communicable Disease Registry had been first established. Since that time, efforts were devoted to building the capacity of the registry program; however, the registry was merely a repository for information and seldom utilized or analyzed. Ms. Sylva stated that four years ago, with the award of federal grant money, it allowed the Health Division to charge less to the hospitals for entering the data. Today, there were epidemiologists who analyzed the data; however, until sufficient capacity was built, certification would not be requested. A multi-million dollar grant from the Department of Energy (DOE) was just received, which, in part, would be used for building the cancer registry.

 

Chairman de Braga asked if the Health Division now had sufficient funds so that hospitals would not be charged to contribute data to the registry. Ms. Sylva stated they did not. Approximately $100,000 in fees was generated for support of the registry. Chairman de Braga referred back to the DOE grant and asked if that would relieve the obligation of the hospitals. Ms. Sylva stated the intent of the grant was not to offset the hospital fee obligation. The funds would be used to streamline the system and improve the timeliness of reporting the data.

 

Chairman de Braga asked what it would cost the state to completely absolve the hospitals of any financial obligation. Ms. Sylva reiterated it was $100,000 per year, and that amount was sufficient to cover costs.

 

Because a quorum was lacking, Chairman de Braga announced A.B. 630 was on hold. A recess was called pending the arrival of two additional committee members.

 

Following a seven-minute recess, Chairman de Braga called the committee to order. Roll was called, and a quorum was present. Chairman de Braga called for a motion on A.J.R. 7. She informed the committee the bill was heard as a subcommittee. Seeing no discussion, Chairman de Braga called for a motion.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 7.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

 

Chairman de Braga resumed the hearing on A.B. 630. A summary of discussion points was offered to the committee. Changes proposed to the bill would still address the requirement to report contamination. With the exception of private wells, that was already the case for municipal water supplies. The lack of certification of the Nevada Cancer Registry was discussed, and the reason given was the lack of funds to get the reports. Chairman de Braga explained to make A.B. 630 a money bill would require a fiscal note for $100,000 per year. That would absolve hospitals from the obligation to pay for reporting to the state. As such, the bill would go to the Committee on Ways and Means.

 

A motion was made to amend using the amendment removing all the existing language and asking for an annual $100,000 appropriation to cover the fees charged to hospitals. That would help expedite reporting.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 630.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

 

Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on A.B. 463 and announced the sponsor of the bill, Assemblyman Collins, was not present. She called for testimony.

 

 

 

Assembly Bill 463:  Revises provisions governing treatment and use of certain          animals. (BDR 15-809)

 

Captain Jim Nadeau, representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, called the committee’s attention to an amendment (no handout). The first amendment on page 2 would delete lines 38 through 45. On page 3, lines 37 through 45 would be deleted. Chairman de Braga noted there were three references on Section 9 as to when it would become effective. Captain Nadeau clarified the date of implementation would be upon approval of the bill.

 

Chairman de Braga summarized for understanding and stated if someone was involved in an accident with a horse-mounted patrol, it would not be the fault of the officer on the horse. Captain Nadeau responded “yes.” He clarified the bill would do two things. The first provided for the use of a police horse on the roadway during special events and would be exempt from provisions of the law. The second point related to covering situations where reserve deputy sheriffs were on horseback in the line of duty, albeit as volunteers. They would be protected, even though the horse was not owned by the police department.

 

Chairman de Braga voiced confusion over the location of the language that provided that protection. Captain Nadeau replied it was on page 3, line 11. Chairman de Braga clarified there would be no reference to animal drawn vehicles or to herding animals. Captain Nadeau said there would be no reference.

 

Seeing no questions on A.B. 463, Chairman de Braga asked the committee for a motion. The amendment would be the deletion of items 1 and 2 under Section 4 and item 3 under Section 6 and changing the effective date to be upon passage and approval.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 463.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 2:43 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                               

June Rigsby

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

 

 

DATE: