MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining

 

Seventy-First Session

April 23, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, April 23, 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.    Tom Collins, Vice Chairman

Mr.    Douglas Bache

Mr.    David Brown

Mr.    John Carpenter

Mr.    Jerry Claborn

Mr.    David Humke

Mr.    John J. Lee

Mr.    John Marvel

Mr.    Harry Mortenson

Mr.    Roy Neighbors

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Ms.   Genie Ohrenschall

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

June Rigsby, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Hugh Ricci, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources

Frank Lewis, Citizen, Reno, Nevada

Alan Coyner, Administrator, Nevada Division of Minerals

Frank Daykin, Citizen

Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum

Richard Davis, Citizen

Stephanie Licht, Elko County and Nevada Wool Growers’ Association

Phillip Bender, Citizen

 

 

Chairman de Braga declared the meeting would begin as a subcommittee pending the arrival of committee members. The hearing on S.B. 161 was opened.

 

Senate Bill 161:  Requires applicant for permit to operate certain water systems to provide documentation that applicant possesses sufficient water rights to operate system. (BDR 40-308)

 

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst, distributed a memo with bill summaries (Exhibit C) and a report entitled Domestic and Municipal Water Wells (Exhibit D). Ms. Eissmann formally introduced S.B. 161 and explained her role in the recent subcommittee interim study on domestic and municipal wells. One of the outcomes of that study was embodied in S.B. 161.

 

The interim study had been authorized under A.B. 408 of the Seventieth Session. It had been recommended that the Nevada Health Division and the State Engineer confirm there would be sufficient water rights before a public water system could be expanded. Ms. Eissmann defined a public water system as one that served 25 people or 15 connections. The current statute had authorized the Heath Division to expand a public water system by only ensuring the engineering was complete and the water quality was adequate.

 

In summary, Ms. Eissmann stated the applicant for expansion of a water system, under S.B. 161, would have to confirm with the State Engineer there was an adequate volume. The state engineer, in turn, would provide documentation to the Nevada Health Division. Ms. Eissmann stated, that although that had long been a practice, it needed to be safeguarded by statute.

 

Chairman de Braga requested clarification on the application process for expansion of service. Ms. Eissmann replied, as more users came onto the system, the applicant would have to return to the State Engineer for confirmation. The trigger event for that reconfirmation was unknown to the witness, and she deferred to the State Engineer.

 

Hugh Ricci, State Engineer for the Nevada Division of Water Resources, offered an historical perspective. Heretofore, there had been an informal process for handling applications for public water systems. The Water Resources staff would research the original permit to determine where, when, and for how much the permit was issued. Expansion outside the specifications of that permit required a change application procedure.

 

Chairman de Braga summarized for clarification and stated Water Resources issued a permit for a certain amount of water usage, and an increase would require a reapplication. Mr. Ricci concurred and explained it was often the case where the amount of water and the number of units were capped, based on estimates of per unit consumption of water. Reduction of consumption per unit served, at times, allowed an increase in allowable units.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked if and how the Water Resources Department was informed of a water system expansion. Mr. Ricci replied it was informal and could be a telephone call or a copy of letter from the Health Division to the prospective applicant. It was his understanding it had been the Health Division that had requested the formal structuring as provided by S.B. 161.

 

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on S.B. 161 and opened the hearing on S.J.R. 1.

 

 Senate Joint Resolution 1:  Expresses support of Nevada Legislature for amendment to Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to require identification, mapping and recognition of certain rights of way across land administered by Federal Government. (BDR R-1039)

 

Frank Lewis, a citizen with an interest in mining, distributed a 3-page handout (Exhibit E) and commenced testimony in support of S.J.R. 1.  He had traveled many back roads on federally owned lands in Nevada, and many of those roads existed prior to 1976. They had been built pursuant to an 1866 land law that granted those who built the roads a permanent easement across those roads. Today, Mr. Lewis stated the federal government was closing some of those roads. The law allowing the construction of new roads was terminated in 1976; however, protection of existing roads remained unchanged. Property owners needed to have access to their property, and he urged the committee to pass S.J.R. 1.

 

Frank Daykin explained the proposed amendment in Congress was a brief statement of a bill he had drafted at the request of Congressman Jim Gibbons. He described S.J.R. 1 as supporting that effort. Mapping of the roads would ensure effective preservation of the roads under discussion.

 

Alan Coyner, Administrator of the Nevada Division of Minerals, distributed a 1‑ page prepared statement (Exhibit F) and testified in support of S.J.R. 1. He stated the intent of the bill was to amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to require the identification, mapping, and recognition of certain rights-of-way across land administered by the Federal Government. Those rights-of-way were labeled R.S. 2477 and had been the subject of much discussion in recent years. He declared the situation was at an impasse.

 

Mr. Coyner voiced optimism that S.J.R. 1, nearly identical in scope and intent to S.J.R. 2 of the Seventieth Session, would help break the R.S. 2477 impasse. Those resolutions would seek to have the federal land management provide funding to each state to identify and map the R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. He called the committee’s attention to S.B. 106 which he described as a trailing bill to S.J.R. 1. That bill called for a $50,000 appropriation to the Division of Minerals to begin the effort of mapping the roads in Nevada.

 

Chairman de Braga clarified that appropriation was separate from S.J.R. 1. She asked if the original version did not include U.S. Forestry. Mr. Coyner replied the bill should have been amended to add it. Chairman de Braga acknowledged it had been added, but questioned why it had been omitted originally. The witness dismissed it as an oversight.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked if Congressman Gibbons had introduced a bill at the federal level. Mr. Coyner replied he was not aware of any introduction. Mr. Daykin offered to clarify and stated Congressman Gibbons was still working on an effective means in the states to finance and implement the activity. He added that S.B. 106 was directed at that effort.

 

Assemblyman Collins asked if the Division of Minerals had been tracking other states’ efforts to handle the road issues under discussion. He illustrated his question with the example of Utah that had joined a lawsuit seeking use of roads. He asked if Nevada would be adequately funded to take care of the problem through the passage of S.J.R. 1 and S.B. 106.

 

Mr. Coyner reiterated the funding was covered by S.B. 106; however, $50,000 would not map the thousands of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way in Nevada. The bill was viewed as providing state-level authority with some seed money to begin a process. Regarding other geographic areas, Mr. Coyner had contacted two states, Utah and Alaska, which had begun programs. Both states, although funded with several million dollars, had met with limited success. The Utah initiative was a grant-based program in which the state awarded money to the county for mapping at the local level.  He cautioned the committee to be aware that the limited success of those programs and that it coincided with the Clinton administration that had taken a less than favorable position on the efforts.

 

With the arrival of committee members, Chairman de Braga declared they would convene as a full committee. Roll was called, and a quorum was present. The hearing on S.J. R. 1 resumed.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter requested clarification of the BLM moratorium on the R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. Mr. Coyner called attention to his prepared statement (Exhibit F) and the reference to a 1993 memorandum that, to his knowledge, was still in effect. That memo deferred the processing of any R.S. 2477 assertions except in cases where there was demonstrated, compelling, and immediate need to make such determinations.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter admitted he was unaware of that BLM memorandum. He shared the experience of the South Canyon Road where the residents of his district were able to prove the trail and road had been present long before the Forest Service was established.

 

Janine Hansen, President of the Nevada Eagle Forum, testified in support of S.J.R. 1. When S.B. 106 was heard in the Senate, there had been testimony from some counties that were also mapping some of the roads (e.g., Clark County, Esmeralda County, and Washoe County). The combined county and state efforts would strengthen the petition efforts against the federal government. In Ms. Hansen’s judgment, one individual citizen would be unable to afford the legal costs to challenge the federal government on right-of-way issues, and the bills under discussion would help with asserting our rights.

 

Assemblyman Collins stated the Transportation Committee had addressed the issue in the 1993 session. At that time, the state would not fund the effort and essentially told the counties to go find their own roads. Debates arose between the hunters who wanted to use the roads and the ranchers who wanted to keep the gates closed. The counties declared they had no funds to perform the mapping of the roads. Since that time, the federal government stepped up their road-closing activity, and citizens had become mobilized again. Assemblyman Collins asked if there appeared to be more cooperation between the ranchers and hunters and whether the counties had increased their participation.

 

Ms. Hansen was unable to comment on the relationship between hunters and ranchers; however, the testimony on S.B. 106 in the Senate revealed cooperation between the state and counties for purposes of avoiding duplication of efforts in mapping. 

 

Richard Davis, a resident of Carson City and Goldfield, read from a prepared statement (Exhibit G) and commenced testimony in support of S.J.R. 1. For many years, Nevada counties had made assertions of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. Esmeralda County had filed 346 assertions between 1990 and 1993. Of those cases, approximately 20 percent were authenticated by the BLM and plotted on their master maps. In 1993, that activity stopped because the federal employees had been transferred to Alaska.

 

Mr. Davis called the committee’s attention to a copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt (Exhibit G). He quoted the 1993 memorandum first cited by Mr. Coyner.  Mr. Davis emphasized it was absolutely essential to authenticate the rights-of-way through the passage of S.J.R. 1 and S.B. 106. Without access to rural roads, county agencies would be impeded in delivery of services to their residents.

 

Stephanie Licht, representing Elko County and the Nevada Wool Growers’ Association, recalled she had been responsible for adding the U.S. Forest Service’s amendment in tribute to one of the members of the Natural Resources Committee. It was to acknowledge the efforts made to maintain the R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. She declared her full support of S.J.R. 1.

 

Phillip Bender, a citizen of Reno, read from a 2-page prepared statement (Exhibit H) in support of S.J.R. 1. Since the advent of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency had been running amok in their zeal to close roads on public and private land. Mr. Bender’s research indicated a significant decrease in tungsten, chromium, and barite mining in Nevada, as well as a reduction in timber harvesting and available grazing land in Nevada. Those trends were directly attributed to federal restrictions.

 

Mr. Bender summarized by stating the continued use, abuse and bad science in support of FLPMA, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act, in order to close R.S. 2477 roads and trails, had to stop. He urged the approval of S.J.R. 1.

 

Chairman de Braga acknowledged the articulate testimony of the witness and closed the hearing on S.J.R. 1. The meeting was adjourned at 2:09 p.m. 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                       RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

                               

June Rigsby

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

 

DATE: