MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining

 

Seventy-First Session

February 19, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:33 p.m., on Monday, February 19, 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 EXCUSED:

Ms.   Genie Ohrenschall

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

Patty Moody, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Lee M. Lawrence, Agriculturist III, Pest Control and Licensing Regulation, State of Nevada

Paul Iverson, Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture

Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Department of Conservation, Division of Environmental Protection, State of Nevada

Doug Bierman, Senior Research Associate, Intertech Services Corporation, Carson City, Nevada,

Ted de Braga, Fallon Resident

 

 Assembly Bill 30:  Increases amount of insurance coverage required for  license to apply pesticides by aircraft. (BDR 49-372)

 

Roll was called.  All members were present except for Assemblyman Carpenter who arrived late and Assemblywoman Ohrenschall who was noted as an excused absence. Chairman de Braga called for a discussion on A.B. 30 and requested that Vice Chairman Collins preside over the meeting.

 

Assemblywoman de Braga, representing District 35, commenced testimony on A.B. 30, a bill designed to raise the liability insurance requirements for businesses engaged in aerial spraying of crops. Coverage would be increased on from the current $25,000 to $1 million. Assemblywoman de Braga cited incidents where the spray was carried by wind currents and had come in contact with people or with the wrong field of crops. The consequences of accidental contact were judged to be very costly, especially in the area of human health.  

 

In response to Assemblyman Marvel, Assemblywoman de Braga estimated the number of crop dusters to be seven in the state of Nevada.  In terms of added costs to the sprayers, it was estimated that a $1 million policy would cost up to $15,000 annually. Assemblywoman de Braga explained that she had personal knowledge of three cases of human exposure and several incidents of property damage. Because the insurance policies had a limit of $25,000, she believed that the actual costs of accidental exposure were unknown but very high.

 

Assemblyman Lee stated that he was unfamiliar with crop dusting needs in the state, and he wanted to know how they arrived at the $1 million liability limit. Because human exposure could result in a myriad of symptoms and illnesses, Assemblywoman de Braga explained that medical bills would be difficult to estimate. Crop replacement was judged to be less expensive.  The $1 million limit was described as somewhat arbitrary, but standard for many other industries.

 

Vice Chairman Collins concurred and explained that the trend to increase liability coverage to $1 million was much more commonplace across the nation. Assemblywoman de Braga concluded her testimony and returned to the dais to Chair the committee.

 

Ted de Braga, a resident of Fallon, resumed testimony in support of A.B. 30. For the record, he stated that Chairwoman de Braga was his sister-in-law.  Mr. de Braga related an incident of aerial spraying three years ago that had devastating effects on his wife’s health. While jogging, Mr. de Braga’s wife was sprayed by a crop duster plane. Within hours of this exposure, his wife began to display serious symptoms of illness that included a severe headache, cramps, vomiting, and diarrhea. 

 

Because her illness lingered, Mr. de Braga made numerous attempts to contact the aerial spraying service and the pilot over the next week. It was finally revealed to him that the chemical was suspected to be parathion. Armed with that information, Mr. de Braga brought his wife to the hospital emergency room for treatment with the antidote atropine.  Although some symptoms were lessened, breathing difficulty caused her to return to the hospital emergency room for intravenous treatment.  Mr. de Braga, upon contacting the aerial spraying firm, was informed that the chemicals used were Furdan and dimethylate and, when mixed together, were considered lethal.

 

The severity of his wife’s condition could not be understated. Symptoms included blindness for ten days, loss of memory, and severe body aches and fatigue. Exacerbating the situation was the insurance company that delayed an evaluation for almost one month. This was followed by pressure from the insurance company to settle out of court. The de Braga family resorted to hiring an attorney because of the delaying tactics of the insurance adjuster. Appeals for help to other agencies (e.g. EPA) resulted in a dead end and growing frustration for the family.

 

In summary, Mr. de Braga believed that the insurance company did not do enough, but recognized there was no amount of insurance that could compensate his wife’s sickness or the family’s grief. The $25,000 insurance coverage did not begin to cover their medical and legal expenses. He urged the committee to pass A.B. 30 so that another family would be spared the ordeal they had endured.

 

Assemblyman Lee, a cosponsor of the bill, used the example of a contractor’s “call before you dig” policy in southern Nevada.  He asked if there had been any prior notification that a crop duster would be spraying and if there were any federal laws governing these situations. Chairman de Braga replied that the responsibility for notification resided with the individual farmer. She added that the $25,000 insurance liability was set under state law, and she was unaware of any federal requirement for insurance.

 

Mr. de Braga added that the chemical container labels had clearly stated warnings to avoid human and animal contact and, further, to use only on days with no wind.  In his dealings with the Department of Agriculture, Mr. de Braga learned that their recommendation would be that all the surrounding areas be notified within 24 to 36 hours prior to spraying.  Mr. de Braga declared this to be an unworkable system, given the unpredictability of weather in Nevada. The situation was compounded by farmers who, without notice, asked to be included in a neighbor’s spraying order.

 

Assemblyman Lee requested clarification on the length of time that people should avoid contact with a sprayed field. Mr. de Braga replied that typically the bulk of the spray was deposited on the ground, however there were times when the smell of the spray could be detected from as far away as one half mile. He added that his first wife had died from an undetermined cause, but she had speculated her illness was due to pesticides.

 

Assemblyman Collins inquired if there were any local, state, or federal laws that regulated spraying and whether there was supposed to be a “fly by” as a warning. He made reference to the state of California where this issue had been prominent, and he speculated that perhaps Nevada should implement regulations similar to California. In response, Mr. de Braga stated that the pilot indicated he had flown the field in advance of spraying, and he believed the pilot did not see his wife.

 

Assemblyman Collins expressed his hope that new protective regulations would be implemented and that enough qualified personnel would be hired by the state to enforce the law.

 

Lee Lawrence, Nevada Department of Agriculture, distributed a handout (Exhibit C) and resumed testimony in support of A.B. 30.  He felt relieved to see that more attention was being paid to the insurance requirements imposed on the pest control industry.  Mr. Lawrence stated that it was his understanding that there were only three insurance providers for the aerial pest control industry, and none offered insurance coverage of one million dollars.

 

His research revealed that there was only one aerial applicator in the state of California who had been grandfathered in by the insurance provider for coverage in the amount of one million dollars. Mr. Lawrence pointed out that the applicators in Nevada only worked three to four months a year, and he did not believe they could possibly afford an increased insurance premium. 

 

Mr. Lawrence’s research revealed that there were nine licensed aerial pest control companies in Nevada, and most of those applicators had coverage of $100,000 for bodily injury. If a group of four or five people made a claim, there would be $300,000 maximum available to them.  Mr. Lawrence stated that the cost for $50,000 worth of coverage was estimated at $4,000 to $6,000 annually.

 

Mr. Lawrence directed the committee to his handout where he proposed that A.B. 30 be amended to follow California’s example and require commercial aerial sprayers to carry insurance of $100,000 for each person and $300,000 for each occurrence. His recommendations were reinforced after hearing the testimony of Mr. de Braga.

 

Chairman de Braga requested clarification on the number of insurance companies.  Mr. Lawrence reiterated that his research revealed only three providers that wrote policies for aerial applicators.

 

Assemblyman Collins asked Mr. Lawrence if his research revealed alternative liability practices in states that did not require insurance coverage (e.g., posting a bond, a cash deposit). Mr. Lawrence replied that there was no alternative liability process. Either the aerial sprayers had insurance or they did not. There were states where no restrictions were placed on aerial spraying operations.

 

Assemblyman Humke inquired if there were similar insurance requirements for ground-based applications.  Mr. Lawrence replied that the ground applicator’s insurance requirement was also $25,000 and $50,000.  Although he had not researched this aspect in depth, it was his observation that ground applicators had access to more than three insurance companies and more affordable million-dollar liability insurance.

 

In response to Mr. Humke’s question regarding the distinction in potential hazards between aerial and ground spraying, Mr. Lawrence stated that ground application work was much more common. In terms of safety, urban structural spraying was judged to be more hazardous than agricultural ground spraying.

Mr. Lawrence illustrated an additional difference in that agriculture chemicals had a worker protection clause requiring the farmer/owner of that field to place posters until that material had dissipated.

 

Mr. Humke interjected that OSHA did require safety measures on behalf of the agricultural worker. He asked if there was any protection of the innocent bystander on a public road. Mr. Lawrence admitted that he did not know, but hoped that the aerial sprayer had used common sense and performed a fly-over. On the issue of prior notification, Mr. Lawrence stated that he had researched this and concluded it was a complex issue in many other states. He reiterated that a change in weather made most of these plans unworkable. 

 

Mr. Humke expressed concern over the growing number of verbal assaults on the agriculture industry, however he emphasized that the public health was a matter of high importance.

 

In response to Chairman de Braga’s question regarding income of aerial sprayers, Mr. Lawrence stated that it varied quite a bit, and he was not familiar with exact figures. There appeared to be a prevailing attitude that the increase in premiums would present real hardship to the aerial sprayer. Mr. Lawrence agreed with that observation.

 

Chairman de Braga asked what the highest amount of liability insurance currently available. Mr. Lawrence replied that $100,000 and $300,000 were commonly available on the market, and it would be at an estimated cost of $7,000 to $8,000 per year. This was in contrast to the $4,000 - $6,000 premiums for $25,000 and $50,000 of liability coverage.

 

In response to Chairman de Braga’s question regarding the priorities of Department of Agriculture, Mr. Lawrence stated that it was his observation that their goal was to raise the insurance but in a reasonable manner.  He made reference to the increasingly common requirement in other states, such as California and Arizona, of  $100,000 and $300,000 limits.

 

Assemblyman Neighbors inquired about the cutoff point for the wind velocity.  Mr. Lawrence replied that, according to the product label, the cutoff was “do not drift” and was customarily at 8 to 10 miles per hour.  Even if regulations were in place that established a legal cutoff at 8 to 10 mph, there would still be the possibility of drift at lower velocity due to atmospheric conditions. As such, following the label instructions and using common sense were preferred to rigid thresholds.

 

Assemblyman Lee inquired about penalties for lapse of insurance and the procedure for notification of lapsed licenses of commercial aerial spraying businesses. It was Mr. Lawrence’s understanding that the Agriculture Director was notified immediately by the insurance provider.  Because it was one of the fast growing industries in Nevada, Mr. Lawrence expressed his frustration over monitoring insurance on 350 pest control companies. The Department of Agriculture maintained a vigilant attitude, and if an insurance policy lapsed, the license was immediately revoked.

 

Assemblyman Lee asked for clarification on the number of unlicensed aerial sprayers operating in Nevada.  Mr. Lawrence reported that in recent years the Agriculture Department had stepped up their enforcement efforts on unlicensed pest control applicators.  In the year 2000, they had intercepted and fined 19 illegal pest control operations. Total fines amounted to $8,000 last year.

 

Assemblyman Lee asked if it would be against the law for an individual to borrow a plane and spray his own fields in the state of Nevada.  Mr. Lawrence replied that an individual did not need a license to spray his own field in Nevada, however, if a restricted pesticide were used, he would have to be certified through their certification program.

 

Chairman de Braga asked which person held the liability – the person who owned the plane or the person who borrowed it for spraying. Mr. Lawrence stated that the pilot had to be on the insurance and had to be licensed. Chairman de Braga concurred and reiterated that the licensee was the person who did the spraying. Whether or not he owned the plane was irrelevant.  Mr. Lawrence added that whatever company the sprayer represented would be the target of any violations or legal action.

 

Assemblyman Brown raised a question about reporting requirements on claims brought against insurance companies. Mr. Lawrence confirmed that the Department of Agriculture had to be notified by the insurance company within ten days of any claim that was made against their policy.  He added that sometimes they were not notified.

 

In response to Assemblyman Brown’s question regarding the average number of claims, Mr. Lawrence stated there were few claims in aerial spraying. He attributed this to the fact that Nevada had little agricultural activity, and there were only nine licensed aerial applicators in the state. He cautioned the committee that in the mosquito abatement industry, there were more claims, especially in the Minden/Gardnerville area.

 

Assemblyman Brown posed a question about the number of acres under cultivation and the number of acres dusted in Nevada. Mr. Lawrence stated that he did not have these statistics at hand. This information was located in a monthly pesticide report issued by the Department of Agriculture.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if there were restrictions on spraying insecticides over rivers and creeks. Mr. Lawrence declared that most labels contained a specific warning not to spray in or near marsh areas or water containing aquatic life. They were encouraged to use their ground rigs to spray low to the ground. In terms of added expense, Mr. Lawrence stated that ground spraying was more expensive, and he confirmed that the restricted insecticides were dimethylate and furidane.

 

In response to Mr. Marvel’s question on the number of human exposure cases, Mr. Lawrence explained that, in his 11 years, there had been few reported incidents. Most of these came from the Minden/Gardnerville area and were related to mosquito abatement activity. In terms of property damage, Mr. Lawrence reported only occasional cases of drift and very few incidents.

 

Chairman de Braga interjected that most cases of spray exposure were handled informally among the parties involved. Mr. Lawrence concurred that this was indeed the situation, and issues were resolved along the lines of a gentlemen’s agreement. The system was in place, however, for filing an official complaint.

 

Assemblyman Collins requested clarification of the penalty assessment system. Mr. Lawrence said that he assessed $15,000 in penalties in Nevada. In terms of a shortage of agents in the field, Mr. Lawrence acknowledged that it was a difficult industry to regulate with too few staff. When he started in the field 11 years ago, there were only 150 pest control companies, and now there were almost 350. Progress was evident in educational efforts, however, enforcement was challenging, if not impossible, in many cases.

 

Assemblyman Collins summarized his concerns regarding inadequate staffing and the impact to the FHA loan approval system (i.e., termite inspections of buildings). This problem was magnified by the common practice of the gentlemen’s agreement to work out problems in the field. Bypassing the formal complaint process suggested the possibility of failing to protect the migrant field workers and the general public.

 

In response to Assemblyman Collins inquiry about the most recent citation, Mr. Lawrence acquiesced that it was probably the de Braga case.  His agency was completely overwhelmed, especially in the Las Vegas office, and unable to do adequate enforcement and monitoring.

 

Paul Iverson, Director of the Nevada Department of Agriculture, requested that he be allowed to respond. He concurred that the pest control industry did need more regulation. There were 350 applicator companies that sprayed homes, hospitals, and hotels. One of the most prominent areas of concern in Las Vegas was the process of pretreatment of new homes. The contamination of the surrounding soil ground was becoming a major issue. The good companies taxed themselves through a fee, and they increased their licensing fee from $50 a year to $250.

 

Mr. Iverson explained that approval was received through the Governor, and with that money, a new continuing education program was initiated. Every pesticide applicator had to complete at least six hours of continuing education. The phenomenal population growth in Nevada and the changes in chemicals had come together with serious consequences. 

 

Mr. Iverson contrasted his work with that of Mr. Lawrence who spent 80 percent of his time doing home investigations of human illness or cases of tree and grass damage. Their enforcement program involved crawling under houses, looking for termites and taking samples of pesticides that were sprayed around the house or playgrounds.

 

Mr. Iverson summarized their policy as one of enforcement through cooperation. Their relationship with the industry and the good producers was positive.  Their goal was to establish a budget based on a 50/50 match, where 50 percent of the budget came from the state funds and 50 percent from the industry.

 

Assemblyman Claborn asked if premiums were raised from $5,000 or $6,000 to $15,000, would there be undue hardship on some of companies, especially the small operators. Mr. Lawrence reiterated that eight of the nine already had the $100,000/$300,000 coverage. He noted that the insurance carriers had a policy of only reporting the minimum coverage, leaving the applicators unsure of their actual coverage. Revealing actual coverage was judged to be too risky for some insurance companies and would invite litigation.

 

Assemblyman Claborn inquired about the possibility of the “trickle down” theory if insurance premiums were raised. His concern was that the pest control owner would pass the increase on to the people.  Mr. Lawrence agreed that it was a possibility, however, since eight or the nine had already raised coverage and had already absorbed the expense, he felt it would be an unlikely scenario.

 

Chairman de Braga requested clarification about how to determine actual insurance coverage for an operator. Mr. Lawrence conceded that the information had not been readily available to him and that he would have to try again. Mr. Lawrence added that the rumored one million dollar coverage of an operation in Yerington was, in all likelihood, an XC policy for “excluding chemical.” It did not increase coverage for drift and the resulting damage to property and human health.

 

In response to Chairman de Braga, Mr. Lawrence explained that, if a plane crashed into a home, the liability coverage would most likely be only $25,000 or $50,000 if more than one person were injured. Chairman de Braga expressed her amazement and stated she had personally witnessed three plane crashes in nearby fields.

 

Assemblyman Neighbors interjected that some of the state agencies received no general fund money and existed solely on revenues from fees levied by their agencies. In response to Assemblyman Neighbors’ budget question, Mr. Iverson explained that his agency had not requested additional positions and that his funding was through a variety of programs, general funds, fees, grants, and gifts. Of the $8 million, he was unable to state how much was dedicated to pest control activities and how much was reserved for the other 44 programs.

 

Assemblyman Neighbors requested clarification on the percentage of the budget that was derived from fees and the percentage from the general fund. Mr. Iverson stated that the Department of Agriculture was attempting to develop a funding policy under the guidance of the State Board of Agriculture. For programs such as pest control, they were aiming for a 50/50 split.  Each program was unique in its mix of funding sources. A copy of their budget would follow.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if insurance rates could be raised to $300,000 through administrative regulation. Mr. Iverson replied that they were limited by statute.

 

In response to Assemblyman Claborn’s question regarding the spraying of noxious weeds, Mr. Iverson explained that most of their noxious weed work was ground level spraying performed by the county using trucks or individuals with backpacks.

 

Assemblyman Lee requested additional information on the Ted de Braga case, specifically, who was fined and how Mr. de Braga’s case was handled. Mr. Lawrence responded that for violations to the environment or injury to an individual, it was considered a serious offense with an immediate fine of $500 to $1,000 for first occurrence.

 

With no further testimony on A.B. 30, chairman de Braga closed the hearing and declared a recess.

 

Chairman de Braga called the meeting to order at 3:08 PM and opened the hearing on A.B. 29. 

 

Assembly Bill 29:  Requires director of state department of conservation and natural resources to conduct independent investigation before making certain determinations concerning control of water pollution under certain circumstances. (BDR 40-21)

 

Assemblyman Carpenter, representing District 33, initiated testimony on A.B. 29, with an explanation of the purpose of the bill. He cited an example of an incident in Elko where the county commenced repair work on the South Canyon Road. The workers were reported for failure to secure a permit for working in the water, and they received a cease and desist order from the Nevada Environmental Protection Agency. When a fine was assessed against Elko County, the matter was appealed to the District Court.  Judge Wagner ruled that the county did not posses the required permit, and the matter was then appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. The status of that case was unknown.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter expressed his deep disappointment that an agency of the state government would take such harsh action and issue a cease and desist order. He believed that it would have been more appropriate if Nevada Environmental Protection had issued a warning to Elko that the road was subject to inspection. The short piece of road did not warrant such a serious reaction. The issue of access was described as highly valued in Nevada and the lifeblood of rural Nevada.

 

In response to Assemblyman Marvel, Assemblyman Carpenter stated that he thought Judge Wagner’s decision had been appealed by the Nevada EPA and by the Attorney General.

 

Assemblyman Marvel stated that as a result of the cease and desist order, the bull trout were initially declared endangered and, within months, threatened.  He recounted a meeting with Terry Crawford, the Director of the Division of Wildlife (NDOW), in which Mr. Crawford declared that the bull trout was not threatened. There had been no grazing or mining in the area, therefore a recovery plan would not be appropriate. The bull trout were cold water, prehistoric fish that survived well in the tributaries of the Jarbidge River.

 

In terms of a recovery plan for the trout, NDOW was of the opinion that the trout were doing as well as expected, and it would be unknown how to improve the habitat.  Assemblyman Carpenter summarized by stating that the Elko situation had been a case of poor communications between government agencies, and he expressed his hope that this would be avoided in the future.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked if a decision had been made on RS 2477, specifically whether it had been assigned as a county road. Assemblyman Carpenter stated that no legal decision had been reached. The matter was under negotiation, and one of the conditions of the county was reportedly that the road be designated under RS 2477.

 

Assemblyman Lee asked if this stream was one designated as a scenic wildlife stream and if it involved a rolling stock permit.  Assemblyman   Carpenter explained that the agency felt that a permit would be required under the Clean Water Act. He pointed out that the county could have fixed this road within three years under their emergency powers; however, the Forest Service approached Elko County with an offer of financial support.

 

As a result, the Forest Service went ahead and conducted an environmental assessment of impact to rebuild this road.  A protest was filed by Trout Unlimited that claimed the Forest Service had not given enough consideration to the bull trout. Mr. Carpenter stated that communication continued to deteriorate, resulting in time delays and heated exchanges between the citizens of Jarbidge, the Forest Service, and the state. He felt the bill would help eliminate such a situation again.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if Trout Unlimited had conducted a private study of the environmental impact.  To his knowledge, Assemblyman Carpenter believed that only the Forest Service had conducted an environmental assessment. After the county had performed heavy equipment work in the area, the Division of Wildlife declared the trout as endangered and threatened.

 

Assemblyman Neighbors commented that he had read about an abundance of bull trout in neighboring states. If that was the case, they could replant some in Nevada. He also observed that it was his recollection that no heavy equipment was to be used in the area.  In clarification, Assemblyman Carpenter stated that it was believed at the time that much of the work could be done by hand and, as such, a permit would not be required.

 

Despite this thinking, Assemblyman Carpenter felt it was better to have a permit and, if the county manager had been there, a permit would have been sought. There were a lot of bad feelings on both sides.  To his knowledge, the bull trout were doing well. Assemblyman Carpenter thought that they could be raised in a hatchery, and, in his judgment, they would never be extinct.

 

Allen Biaggi, Administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, resumed testimony. He noted that he had worked closely with Assemblyman Carpenter during the past two years, and together they had modified the language of the bill. It was his understanding that the bill was drafted in response to a permitting controversy between the Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and Elko County. He viewed the incident as unique and unprecedented in the past 25 years. Given the fact that it had not occurred again in the past three years, it suggested that the legislation was not necessary. Mr. Biaggi added that his agency was neither in favor nor opposed to the proposed bill.

 

Chairman de Braga summarized the activity on the bill from the last session and stated that the amended version had been passed by the committee and disappeared in Ways and Means.  She added that when the bill was introduced on the floor, there was disagreement as to whether there was a fiscal note.

 

Mr. Biaggi explained that he believed the fiscal note reflected the hold over of the original language of the bill that outlined a fiscal impact of approximately $700,000. This was attributed to the work planned for the Department of Defense and Department of Energy facilities in the state of Nevada. That was handled, and he believed that there would be no fiscal impact to NDEP.

 

Mr. Carpenter called attention to Mr. Biaggi’s comment about whether the bill was necessary.  He appreciated that Mr. Biaggi had been forthright in his assessment. Although it was of questionable value today, the situation could drastically change in the future.

 

Chairman de Braga attempted to close the hearing on A.B. 29, however another witness stepped forward.

 

Doug Bierman, representing Lander, Eureka, and Lincoln Counties and the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority, testified in support of A.B. 29. It was his understanding that residents of the rural areas perceived this to be another means for improving communication between the state agencies and the rural residents. He encouraged their support of the bill.

 

Chairman de Braga, seeing no additional names on the list, closed the hearing on A.B. 29. The next order of business was committee introductions.

 

·        BDR 40-176:  Clark County – Makes changes concerning local air quality programs. (A.B. 198) 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 40-176.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

***********

 

·        BDR 40-397: Human Resources & Health Division – Expand authority for Nevada’s Safe Drinking Water Program to enforce and impose penalties for all violations. (A.B. 200)

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 40-397.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

***********

 

·        BDR 45-529: Conservation & Natural Resources – Wildlife. Makes changes concerning agency accounts, duplicate licenses and trout stamps. (A.B. 199)

             

            ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 45-529.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 3:26 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

June Rigsby

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

 

DATE: