ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining

Seventy-First Session

May 7, 2001

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, May 7, 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. Jerry Claborn

Mr. David Humke

Mr. John J. Lee

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. John Carpenter

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

June Rigsby, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

David Souten, Principal and Project Manager, Environ International Corporation

Don Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Helen Foley, Clark County Health District

Chris Robinson, Air Quality Division, Clark County Health District

David Hoch, Project Manager, Air Quality Division, Clark County Health District

Steven Hill, Associated Builders and Contractors Association and the Southern Nevada Concrete and Aggregate Association

Bryan Gresh, The Gresh Group, Las Vegas

Joe Johnson, Sierra Club

Bob Stewart, Bureau of Land Management

With only three committee members in attendance, Chairman de Braga announced the meeting would convene as a subcommittee pending the arrival of additional members. The hearing on the air quality bills, S.B. 535 and S.B. 536, was opened.

Senate Bill 535: Authorizes local air pollution control agency in certain counties to establish program to reduce and control air pollution. (BDR 40-791)

Senate Bill 536: Requires creation, by cooperative agreement, of separate entity to establish and administer program for control of air pollution in certain counties. (BDR 40-1116)

David Souten, Project Manager of the Environ International Corporation, distributed a handout (Exhibit C) and commenced testimony on the technical study that led to the drafting of S.B. 535 and S.B. 536. His consulting firm had been hired as a result of S.B. 432 of the Seventieth Session. The Environ report, issued in September of 2000, was contained within the documents distributed by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (Exhibit D and Exhibit E). The objectives of the study were multiple. The first was to determine the current state of air quality, information availability, and the overall operations of the various agencies with commitments to air quality management. The second objective of the study was to forecast the future of air quality. The third was to assess the types of controls on emissions that could serve the citizens through cleaner air quality.

Mr. Souten stated a principal focus of the study was to determine if the air quality programs were adequately funded and to make judgments as to whether the right agencies were dealing with the appropriate priorities.

Several issues were identified at the conclusion of the study. It was determined there was considerable inter-agency and intra-agency conflict, especially within the Clark County Health District and between that agency and the Clark County Comprehensive Planning Department. The second principal finding was that rules, responsibilities, and authority between those two agencies were far from optimal. The third conclusion was the Regional Transportation Commission functioned effectively in providing air pollution-related transportation information to the other regulatory agencies.

Mr. Souten reminded the committee that southern Nevada was in nonattainment for carbon monoxide and particulate matter and was expected to reach that status for ozone in the near future. The plans for those pollutants were judged to be inadequate as demonstrated by the past disapproval by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of various air quality programs in Clark County. On a positive note, significant improvement was seen in the ambient levels of carbon monoxide.

Mr. Souten summarized the recommendations issued by the Environ report. They included improved monitoring of pollutants, increased emission inventory efforts, enhanced public accessibility to air pollution data, and development of a more-timely implementation plan at the state level. He voiced concern that failure to comply with EPA mandates could jeopardize federal highway funds.

In conclusion, Mr. Souten stated it was the recommendation of the study to retain the Regional Transportation Commission in its current effective role and to consolidate the Clark County Health District with the Clark County Comprehensive Planning Department.

Chairman de Braga requested clarification of the conflicts between the two agencies in Clark County. Mr. Souten stated the conflicts had not been resolved, despite a considerable amount of inter-agency collaboration. There was conspicuous intra-agency mistrust within the Health District, as well as a lack of inter-agency communication. That atmosphere precipitated inadequate and delayed implementation of air quality programs, which, in turn, resulted in EPA disapproval.

In response to Chairman de Braga, Mr. Souten explained the recommendation was to eliminate both agencies and replace them with a new cooperative agency with a single function to control air pollution in Clark County.

Seeing the presence of a quorum, Chairman de Braga requested the roll be called.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked the witness to characterize the position of the Health District on the situation. Mr. Souten declared each agency shared in the responsibility for the problems. Ideally, information would have flowed from the Health District to Comprehensive Planning for development into written plans for the EPA. The breakdown appeared to occur in the lack of clearly defined roles between the two agencies. That was compounded by a degree of mistrust within the Health District that almost paralyzed its ability to communicate with Comprehensive Planning. It was most evident in the areas of enforcement, specifically the lack of good documentation from that area.

Assemblyman Mortenson remarked it was hard to believe that the population projections were determined to be inconsistent. If plotted on a graph, he described Clark County growth as a straight line. A monkey could have made the projection.

Assemblyman Collins commented on two incidents in which the Clark County Health District officials cited him for dumping garden trimmings on his personal property. Given his experience, he expressed surprise over the lack of enforcement described by the witness. Mr. Souten clarified the enforcement could be described as “inconsistent.” There were cases of over-enforcement for minor infractions and no enforcement on larger problems.

Chairman de Braga opened the formal hearing on S.B. 535.

Senate Bill 535: Authorizes local air pollution control agency in certain counties to establish program to reduce and control air pollution. (BDR 40-791)

Don Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, introduced the bill and read from prepared statements (Exhibit F and Exhibit G). Mr. Williams served as staff for the interim subcommittee that recommended the legislation. He stated his remarks would be made on behalf of Senator Porter and Senator Titus.

Mr. Williams explained the proposed legislation was a product of the S.B. 432 of the Seventieth Session subcommittee. The need for more stringent air quality efforts resulted from the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990. Major new sources of air pollutants in nonattainment areas, such as Clark County, were required to offset any increase by an equal or greater amount. Clark County had augmented regulations with local ordinances to offset emission increases from many source categories that were not required under the New Source Review program (NSR).

Environ International Corporation was hired to review Clark County’s “add-on programs” to reduce fugitive emissions of particulate matter or PM 10. It was determined that new or expanding sources which increased emissions of PM 10 by more than one ton per year were required to offset the emissions by utilization of emission reduction credits (ERC) at a ratio of 2 to 1.

Mr. Williams declared a principal finding of the Environ report to be the administration of the ERC program by the Clark County District Health District. The ERC program had drawn litigation and had damaged the District’s credibility with the public.

The subcommittee recommendation was “Draft and enact legislation to amend the provisions of Chapter 445B of the Nevada Revised Statutes to specifically authorize the establishment and operation of an emission reduction credit program and the assessment of any accompanying fees by a local air pollution control agency.”

Mr. Williams stated that, unfortunately, S.B. 535 as drafted and introduced went far beyond simply authorizing the establishment of such a program. The bill drafter included provisions from S.B. 247 of the Sixty-Eighth Session, a bill that was requested by the Clark County Health District, but was not approved by the legislature. Consequently, Senator Porter and Senator Titus had proposed an amendment to the bill. As amended, S.B. 535 no longer contained the details that were judged to be unworkable.

Assemblyman Mortenson made reference to the extensive criticism of the ERC program and asked if Environ had commented on that issue. Mr. Williams replied Environ had studied the program, and they recognized the credibility of the program had been seriously damaged. David Souten of Environ interjected, in his judgment, the ERC program was fatally flawed and should be replaced.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked the witness how he viewed the language of the amended bill. Mr. Souten explained the one criticism he had was the allowance of “inter-pollutant trading,” a concept that was flawed. Under that system, a company could emit a pollutant from one source by reducing a pollutant from another source. The elimination of that loophole was appropriate, in his judgment. The question of addressing “environmental justice” remained unanswered, according to Mr. Souten. Other areas of the nation that had emission trading programs often dealt with a facility buying emission offsets from one area and using them to compensate in another area with concentrations of lower income groups.

Helen Foley, representing the Clark County Health District distributed a handout of proposed amendments (Exhibit H) and commenced testimony on S.B. 535. She explained the focus of the Emission Reduction Credit program (ERC) had been stationary sources, for example road paving sites. Ms. Foley stated, since the adoption of stricter regulations on road paving activities, those would be mandates and would no longer be credits.

Ms. Foley explained that problems with the transportation systems and the school districts, precipitated by unprecedented growth in southern Nevada, caused the Health District to fall behind in air quality management. Human resources were stretched, and funding was seriously lacking.

Ms. Foley acknowledged the lack of coordination between her agency, the Health District and the Clark County Comprehensive Planning Department. Each agency was governed by a separate board, and the working relationship had been very difficult, but improving.

On the subject of additional funding, there were several reasons presented. The first was to get Clark County to honor commitments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In turn, the regulated businesses needed assurance their operations would pass inspection by the EPA. The other purpose for the funding was to create the new agency that would result from the merging of the Health District with Comprehensive Planning. Ms. Foley cited the Regional Transportation Commission and the Flood Control District as good examples of how local governments could come together into a more efficient operation.

Ms. Foley next addressed the ERC program and the specific reasons for changes. She called attention to her proposed amendments (Exhibit H). New language was in capital letters. Modified language was enclosed in brackets.

Chris Robinson, representing the Air Quality Division of the Clark County Health District, presented a line-by-line description of the amended language. A principal intent was to ensure the program was enabled under state law and that it was consistent with EPA mandates. Ms. Robinson concluded by saying the existing ERC program was in desperate need of modification. Litigation and public criticism were visible evidence of that need.

Helen Foley added a final comment about the ERC program. Dr. Kwalick, administrator of the Health District, requested the city of Las Vegas perform an audit. Two requests for investigation by the district attorney were also made. As such, any wrongdoing with the dispensing of emission reduction credits should be revealed. Dr. Kwalick recently made a third request for an investigation by the district attorney’s office. Ms. Foley attributed a portion of the problem to sloppy record keeping, making the performance of an audit very challenging.

Ms. Foley concluded by saying, with the new program, there would be sufficient safeguards. She called the committee’s attention to the LCB reports (Exhibit D and Exhibit E) and stated the Legislative Counsel Bureau had addressed the issue of local governments’ development of ERC programs. Their legal opinion was four pages in length and difficult to read. Ms. Foley encouraged the committee to place local government authority into statute.

Chairman de Braga requested clarification on the effect of removing the language in Section 2(d). How would the emission credits be established? Ms. Foley replied there could be additional pollutants in the future for which programs would have to be developed. As such, removal from the language of a list of specific contaminants would provide flexibility to their regulations.

Chairman de Braga restated her question and asked how a program would be developed for any pollutant if that language was deleted. David Hoch, Project Manager for the Air Quality Division, Clark County Health District, offered to respond. He explained the language, when referring to mobile pollutant reductions, would establish an overall emission baseline rate for the mobile fleets. In those situations, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) would be the likely pollutant of concern. Any mobile source that reduced emissions beyond the baseline would be eligible for credits. A methodology for calculating credits would have to be established. If a fleet reduced emissions by 100 tons and the baseline was 90 tons, that source would be eligible to sell 10 tons of credits to another company in need of credits.

Chairman de Braga voiced confusion and stated she understood the language of Section 2(d) to mean the number of credits would be established. Mr. Hoch explained that section would direct them to have an ERC program that awarded credits for each of the listed pollutants. With mobile emissions, reductions for particulate matter and volatile organic compounds (VOC) were small in comparison to the reductions in carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen. Mr. Hoch reiterated his agency did not want to be restricted by having to be accountable for pollutants of no consequence to that particular source category.

Chairman de Braga returned to her original concern and stated “Put (d) back in there. Stop after the word emissions. Do you need that or not?” Helen Foley offered to clarify. A method to determine the baseline was covered under (a). Under (b), she quoted “Emissions in excess of that baseline shall be eligible for the award of credits.” Under (c), a method to determine the credits was outlined. In her judgment, credits could be created through the new language of 2(b).

Chairman de Braga asked if there was testimony about events in other states. She voiced concern over the possibility that an ERC program would inadvertently award an incentive to pollute. If credits could be sold, would a significant polluter just buy emission credits and continue to operate as before?

David Hoch offered a rebuttal to that scenario and stated the programs were designed to encourage reduction of emissions. There had long been a perception that some sources were paying to pollute. With stationary sources, there were requirements under the Clean Air Act called BACT and LAERR levels of control. Through permits, they were required to reach those levels, regardless of credit purchases. In terms of baselines for mobile emissions, the source of pollution would have to purchase credits proportional to the shortage to offset that difference.

Chairman de Braga requested clarification on the incentive for a company to reduce pollutants when they could purchase credits to achieve compliance. Mr. Souten responded he was referring only to mobile emissions and the situation with the off-road diesel amendments to the bill. Stationary sources were not the focus. The purchase of credits would be market-driven in price, and they were expected to be expensive, according to the witness. The company would have to weigh the cost to purchase credits against the cost to apply controls to their equipment.

Chairman de Braga asked if there was a limit on the time a company could exceed the baseline. Mr. Souten assured the Chairman that, as the program was designed, there would definitely be a date by which the reductions would be achieved. He speculated it could be a one-year or three-year timeline during which a goal of 20 percent reduction, for example, would have to be reached.

Assemblyman Mortenson stated he could not understand why a program could not be established in which a goal for reduction was set for a pollutant source. The consequences for noncompliance within a specified deadline would be a monetary fine equivalent to the purchase of credits. If the valley was still visibly polluted, a blanket order should be issued to all violators to reduce emissions. Mr. Mortenson voiced confusion over the lack of simplicity in administering an emission reduction program.

Chris Robinson, representing the Air Quality Division of the Clark County Health District, clarified the program described by Assemblyman Mortenson was already in place, and it was called “permitting.” The permit established a threshold of acceptable emissions. Ms. Robinson stated the programs proposed under S.B .535 would implement a system of economic incentives designed to encourage a business (i.e., a stationary source) to achieve emission levels below the threshold.

David Hoch added there was an important distinction to be made between mobile and stationary sources of air emissions. When a company was issued a permit, the location, the nature of pollutants, and the specific levels of control were determined. An additional requirement could be to have mitigation credits or, in the case of major stationary sources, major offsets. Those were two distinct concepts, and it was important to understand that credits could not be purchased in lieu of controls.

Assemblyman Mortenson, with frustration in his voice, stated either you required them to trade or you allowed them to buy credits. He failed to understand the difference. Helen Foley illustrated the concept with the example of road paving. That company would receive emission reduction credits for that activity. As EPA became increasingly threatening to Clark County, an entirely new program was developed in conjunction with many stakeholders in the area. Mandates followed as a result of the PM 10 issue. With the advent of new technology, nonfinancial incentives to achieve below the baseline standards were augmented to the program.

Assemblyman Mortenson summarized her testimony and stated Clark County was no longer allowing credits for the roads that were not paved, and that was progress. He added that logic should be applied to the entire program. It served no purpose for one source to sell credits to another so that the latter could exceed the threshold.

Helen Foley voiced agreement with his viewpoint; however, the reality of business economics often overshadowed that logic. She viewed incentives as a better alternative to mandates in achieving cooperation, unless the EPA was threatening action. Ms. Foley illustrated her point with the successful carbon monoxide program, in which EPA standards were exceeded. The promotion of alternative fuels was an ongoing effort.

David Hoch concurred it would be less desirable to award credits in situations where mandates worked. A key element of the offset programs was the requirement of an offset ratio of 2 to 1. As such, twice the amount of reductions were required to offset current emissions, and the witness judged that to be a high standard.

Steven Hill, representing the Associated Builders and Contractors and the Southern Nevada Concrete and Aggregate Association, distributed a handout of a proposed amendment to S.B. 535 (Exhibit I). Mr. Hill explained he had worked closely with Senators Titus, Porter, and James to create the legislation. He described the consequences if the bill failed as being no restrictions or guidelines for diesel engines in Clark County. The intent of S.B. 535 was to initiate standards for diesel equipment. The amendment would impact Section 2(f) and would allow the program to bank credits, but would not place Nevada in violation of the Health District’s State Implementation Plan approved by the EPA. Inter-pollutant trading of emissions from diesel engines would be allowed, under his amendment.

Chairman de Braga asked if the amendment had been presented during the Senate committee hearing. Mr. Hill stated it was not. The language in Section 2(f) was added late in the hearing, and there was little opportunity for input. Mr. Hill stated a baseline survey of community emissions would serve to guide the Health District in efforts to shrink the total volume of emissions in the valley. The biggest contributors to the pollution would either be required to reduce their emissions proportionately or to purchase credits. In his judgment, the credit program would be more desirable than the imposition of monetary fines.

Assemblyman Mortenson declared the ratio of 2 to 1 was critical and made the program much more logical.

Bryan Gresh, representing the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) offered support of S.B. 535 as amended by Mr. Hill. Chairman de Braga asked the witness if he had reviewed the other proposed amendments. Mr. Gresh stated he had not looked at them closely; however, they appeared to be acceptable as described to him.

Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, voiced general opposition to the concept of pollution trading as outlined in S.B. 535. Mr. Johnson illustrated that opposition by the multitude of problems with the existing program. Ideally, economic incentives worked successfully with industry; however, the utilization of offsets was historically plagued by documentation problems. The definition of a credit and the acquisition of the best available technology for fixed sources at the outset were not required. Mobile sources had federal standards and deadlines for fuel and equipment modifications.

Mr. Johnson summarized his objections as being structural in nature. He also offered to reserve his judgment of Mr. Hill’s amendment; however, inter-pollutant trading was inherently bad. Nationwide, the implementation of emission reduction programs suffered from bad management.

Assemblyman Mortenson requested clarification on why the seemingly solid logic of a 2 to 1 ratio was not a positive part of the emission reduction program. Mr. Johnson judged the problem to be with the application of the offset program. The establishment of a reduction credit for road dust, for example, could later be traded to another location for emissions from a very distinct source such as a power plant. The issue was one of environmental justice. In theory, there were positives to a well-run offset program. Changes in management, as accomplished with the creation and funding of a new agency in Clark County, had great promise.

Assemblyman Claborn asked what substance was judged to be the most hazardous pollutant in Las Vegas. Mr. Johnson replied, in his judgment, it was volatile organic compounds, a category of pollutants not yet addressed in any air quality program. Carbon monoxide, particulates, and ozone were well- documented and receiving fair attention; however, the most dangerous pollutants had yet to be identified. In response to Assemblyman Claborn, Mr. Johnson clarified there were several bills slated for hearing in the coming days, all dealing with air quality management and funding.

David Souten, representing the Environ Corporation, cautioned the committee on the issue of inter-pollutant trading. In his view, the testimony just presented was technically and scientifically correct. Inter-pollutant trading was on thin ice. Road dust was not in the same league with diesel particulate emissions because the dust had lower levels of carcinogens than did diesel pollutants. The practice of trading non-carcinogens for carcinogens was highly questionable, and he urged the committee to be very cautious on that issue. Environmental justice would not be served if the geographic offset were not coincidental with the need for the pollution reduction.

Steven Hill offered a point of rebuttal and added his amendment did not permit particulate credits to be traded for diesel emissions. The PM 10 and PM 2.5 were not available for the inter-pollutant trading program.

Chairman de Braga, seeing no additional testimony, closed the hearing on S.B. 535 and opened the hearing on S.B. 536. A bill summary document (Exhibit J) was submitted by Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst.

Senate Bill 536: Requires creation, by cooperative agreement, of separate entity to establish and administer program for control of air pollution in certain counties. (BDR 40-1116)

Don Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, read a prepared statement from Exhibit G. His testimony was on behalf of Senator Porter. The bill originated with the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition and was based on the first recommendation of the interim study. The policies and practices of the Air Quality Division of the Clark County Health District had been under critical scrutiny. As previously reported, the Environ Corporation had determined there were serious deficiencies in management and enforcement. Their principal recommendation was to consolidate air quality functions under a single-purpose agency and governing board in Clark County. The funding would be authorized under a companion bill, S.B. 357, scheduled for hearing later in the week.

Vice Chairman Bache invited Helen Foley and Chris Robinson to testify. Ms. Foley declared they had no amendment to S.B. 536. Under the bill, the local governments would be authorized to create a new streamlined agency. She stated a recent telephone survey in Clark County revealed that air quality was the second most important public issue. Survey respondents also indicated a willingness to fund air quality programs.

Ms. Foley reviewed a change made to the bill in the Senate. Specifically, the language in Section 3, line 30 was changed from “may enter” to “shall enter into a cooperative agreement.” The Senate had been outspoken on the issue of elected officials serving on the board governing the new agency. Ms. Foley reminded the committee that most boards in Las Vegas were comprised of elected officials; however, the Clark County Health District was an exception.

Looking ahead, Ms. Foley stated the Regional Planning Coalition would develop the structure of the new agency, using some of the models from the Regional Transportation and the Flood Control District. In July, the proposal would be reviewed by all of the local governments in southern Nevada. With the funding mechanism in place, implementation would commence in late summer or early fall.

On the subject of funding sources, several methods proposed by the Regional Planning Coalition were revenue bonds, a 5-cent property tax increase, and general obligation bonds. The latter two were eliminated.

Assemblyman Marvel requested specific means to pay off the proposed revenue bonds. Ms. Foley explained there would be no revenue bonds until there was money in the account of the newly created agency. The source of the funding for the new agency was the $6 smog fee. Additionally, off-road diesel vehicles would be assessed $6. Chris Robinson clarified that 56 percent of their current funding was through the issuance of permits and was supplemented by the collection of fees, $1 of the $5 smog fee, and $650,000 of federal government money.

Assemblyman Marvel asked what the projected revenues would be. Ms. Robinson stated more than $4 million was expected in each of the next five years. Ms. Foley explained the projections were based on the number of vehicles subjected to smog inspections each year, estimated at 759,000 vehicles. Ms. Foley emphasized the funding legislation was “enabling,” and this was an important distinction for the committee to remember. The overall goal was to fund the new agency and to achieve compliance with the EPA.

Assemblyman Claborn called attention to paragraph 6 and observed the 5-cent property tax had been removed from the bill. Ms. Robinson voiced confusion over the version of the bill to which Assemblyman Claborn was referring. The tax language had been removed, and the intention had been to apply that tax across the board. Ms. Foley clarified the tax would have applied to areas with populations exceeding 400,000 residents within Clark County; however, that language was removed. The funding to achieve compliance and to create the new agency should be one source, according to Ms. Foley.

Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club offered a one- line statement in support of S.B. 536.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on S.B. 536 and opened the hearing on S.J.R. 12.

Senate Joint Resolution 12: Urges Congress to require Bureau of Land Management of United States Department of the Interior and United States Environmental Protection Agency to take certain actions to prevent and reduce air pollution. (BDR R-792)

Don Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, commenced testimony in support of S.J.R. 12 and read from a prepared statement (no handout). The Environ report outlined several areas for improvement between Clark County agencies and those of the federal government, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Mr. Williams stated it was noteworthy that the BLM had not always complied with local air quality regulations regarding fugitive dust on public lands.

Recognizing that the BLM needed to improve its efforts, the legislative subcommittee adopted a recommendation, now embodied in S.J.R. 12. As drafted, the BLM would be required to adhere to state and county regulations. Further, it was recommended that Congress require BLM to clearly identify the air quality impacts in the environmental impact statements concerning proposed land sales. Based on the discussion in the Senate, the bill was amended to limit its provisions to the nonattainment areas of the state of Nevada where the air quality problems were most critical.

Assemblyman Marvel asked how many areas were identified. Mr. Williams explained it was Clark County only. Chairman de Braga asked if that was specifically stated in the amended bill, to which Mr. Williams replied it was contained in the first reprint. Chairman de Braga concurred, and she directed the committee to line 32 of page 2.

In response to Assemblyman Mortenson’s question on the number of acres of disturbed soil and unpaved roads on BLM land, Mr. Williams replied the information could be researched. He added that unpaved roads were not the only source of fugitive dust, but included areas adjacent to housing developments. Assemblyman Mortenson stated there were 40,000 to 80,000 acres of disturbed soil in Las Vegas, which was called “desert landscape.” Laws were being passed to increase that amount of acreage. He asked how that compared to the BLM issue. Mr. Williams replied he would supply that information.

Assemblyman Neighbors called attention to a source of information regarding the thousands of miles of dirt roads in Nevada that were identified by county.

Bob Stewart, representing the Bureau of Land Management in Reno, offered rebuttal testimony. He clarified there were no BLM roads in the Las Vegas valley because those roads had been certified to Clark County in 1993 or 1997. Under the Small Tract Act, a large portion of Las Vegas was sold by the BLM to individual property owners, starting back in the 1950s. There was still a checkerboard of BLM land interspersed among the developed land, across which were roads for purposes of giving landowners access to their parcels. Those easements across BLM land were dedicated to the city or county. The maintenance of the roads was a constant source of discussion and, sometimes, disagreement with the local governments. Those maintained by the BLM were often referred to as the “R. S. 2477 roads.” If the BLM was out of compliance on land other than roads, Mr. Stewart assured the committee of the BLM’s willingness to work with local governments on those issues.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were any roads out of compliance. Mr. Stewart replied the road part was a non-issue since the BLM technically had no roads in the Las Vegas valley.

Assemblyman Bache stated he had served on the interim subcommittee, and he clarified the issue was a concern with PM 10 and the BLM’s role in the mitigation of dust. Roads had been included in the language as a precaution.

Seeing no additional witnesses, Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on S.J.R. 12. It was announced that future meetings would be held in the Taxation Committee Room 3142. The meeting was adjourned at 3:34 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

June Rigsby

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: