MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining

 

Seventy-First Session

March 7, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, March 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.    John Carpenter

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:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

June Rigsby, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Galen Denio, Manager, Public Health Engineering Group, Bureau of Health Protection Services

Andrew M. Belanger, Management Analyst, Las Vegas Valley Water District

Kurt Segler, Director of Utilities, City of Henderson, Nevada

Stephanie D. Licht, Legislative Consultant, Nevada Wool Growers Association

David S. Thain, State Veterinarian, Nevada Department of Agriculture

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation

Tom Blomquist, Silver Springs Spay-Neuter Project

Robert Barengo, representing the Nevada Humane Society

Nancee Goldwater, Animal Control Officer, Douglas County

Mary Walker, representing Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County

Joe Boteilho, Animal Control Manager, Clark County Animal Control

Norma Klenakis

Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities

Richard Wilkie, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson

Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Clark County District Attorney

Susan Krisko, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County

Andrew List, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO)

Warren Hardy, representing North Las Vegas and Mesquite

Peter Bachstadt

 

Assembly Bill 200:  Expands grounds for imposition of civil penalties and administrative fines to enforce certain provisions governing public water systems. (BDR 40-397)

 

Galen Denio, Bureau of Health Protection Services, read testimony (Exhibit C) on behalf of the Health Division, Department of Human Resources, in support of A.B. 200.  This legislation ensured consistency between state law and the 1996 amendments to the Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA) by having removed the word “willfully.” 

Primacy allowed a state to be flexible in administering the SWDA if the state had demonstrated that penalties were no less stringent than “new or revised national drinking water regulations promulgated by the EPA.”

 

Previous legislation, modeled after SDWA legislation, included a requirement for willfulness as a condition of penalties.  Federal law had since removed this requirement.  The passage of A.B. 200 ensured Nevada retained its primacy authority and its funding from both the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. 

 

Chairwoman de Braga questioned that this was not new law, simply an elimination of the word “willfully,” yet it expanded administrative penalties and fines, without a fiscal note.  Also, it required a two-thirds majority vote.  Fines were already in there.

 

Mr. Denio agreed they were and reiterated it simply removed the word “willfully” and made the state’s authority equal to the federal authority.

 

Ms. de Braga presumed there would be more court cases, thus there should have been a fiscal note.  It was undetermined, but the possibility existed. 

 

Mr. Denio stated the changes proposed by A.B. 200 would not alter any penalty process.  He felt it would not increase caseload work in any county.  Assemblyman Marvel asked how many violations occurred during a year.  Mr. Denio offered to provide the number as he did not know it.  There were not “hundreds” of cases.  He believed that most of the cases involved sampling problems and these were corrected when additional samples were taken.  Mr. Marvel’s concern was whether the problem was widespread.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter saw no reason why “willfully” needed to be removed.  It concerned him that a regulatory agency had “this kind of power.”  In response, Mr. Denio directed attention to Exhibit 2 of Exhibit C, a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Congress removed “willfully” from the original SDWA in 1986.  Nevada’s law was based on that original federal act and had not been changed to coincide with the 1986 changes.  Beginning in 1998, the EPA required all states to conform to the federal law.  “Willfully” had to be removed.

 

Again, Mr. Carpenter did not embrace the idea that the federal government gave authority to administer the laws and then told how to do it.   Mr. Denio once again referred Mr. Carpenter to portions of Exhibit C.  The EPA gave the states more flexibility to administer the program than if the EPA itself were to administer it for the state.  Only Wyoming did not have the primacy authority and the EPA administered from Denver.  It was a very important issue, if the state wanted to retain flexibility, to have qualified for primacy. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel agreed with Mr. Denio that it was important to have primacy rather than deal with Washington or San Francisco.

 

Regarding the March 30 letter from the EPA (Exhibit C), Assemblyman Humke noted there appeared to be a “drop dead” date of April 28, 2000.  Did Nevada request an extension?  Mr. Denio responded that there was a two-year extension, which allowed the change to be made during the Seventy-First Legislative Session.  Mr. Humke then asked, per that same letter, if the EPA fine was $1,000 per day, why did the Nevada statute impose a fine of $5,000 per day?  Mr. Denio was unable to answer the question.  When asked by Mr. Humke if he would consider an amendment to A.B. 200 to harmonize with the EPA fine, Mr. Denio replied that EPA regulations had anti-backsliding (i.e., what the state currently did) privileges.  Mr. Humke felt the amendment would be a trade-off:  “willful” at $5,000, or non-willful, negligent violators at $1,000.  Mr. Denio would check on that.

 

Andrew M. Belanger, representing the Las Vegas Valley Water District  and the Southern Nevada Water Authority testified in favor of A.B. 200 to maintain primacy status for Nevada.  For the record, he stated:

 

            This bill may have impacts on small and larger public water systems, and although we believe the bill won’t affect the Health Division’s ability to maintain compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act in the most appropriate manner, we would still ask that they continue to use their discretion in handling potential violations and work cooperatively with state water systems, particularly the small ones, to that end (Exhibit D).

 

Assemblyman Claborn asked if the smaller entities paid the same penalties.  Mr. Belanger felt that would be better addressed to the Bureau of Health.  He volunteered to get the answer. 

 

Assemblyman Brown wished to know if well users who supplied a number of homes or residents were pulled in under the “supplier of water” definition.  Mr. Belanger was uncertain and deferred the answer to Galen Denio who clarified that a public water system had 15 or more connections and served 25 or more persons.  Individual wells were not regulated unless they had more than 15 connections. 

 

Mr. Claborn mentioned another point:  if 3 to 4 houses were on a water system, then it did not become a water system unless there were 25 people using it.  Did a community well become a public water system then?  “That’s correct,” Mr. Denio answered.

 

Mr. Humke revisited the EPA letter of March 30 and pointed out the EPA standard was a strict liability standard with which Nevada was compelled to comply.  He believed there would be many enforcement actions and, therefore, he felt even more strongly that the $5,000 penalty should be harmonized with the federal regulation. 

 

Through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, Mr. Denio said Nevada set aside funds to assist public water systems and their operators.  Up to 2 percent of the funds had been used for the provision of technical assistance, up to 10 percent provided operator training and operator assistance, and up to 15 percent funded education.  This outreach program had been valuable and would be expanded in the future.

 

Mr. Humke realized that operating a water system could involve “ultra hazardous” activity and the operators must be correct for obvious public policy considerations.  A strict liability statute was a flashing red light, he said.  There had to be a good policy reason for it

 

Mr. Claborn asked Mr. Denio what entity enforced a water system that had less than 25 houses connected.  Mr. Denio replied if the system (15 connections serving 25 persons) did not qualify as a public water supply, he was unaware of any specific regulations that applied.  Mr. Denio did not know how a community well was classified. 

 

Chairwoman de Braga received an opinion that the requirement of a two-thirds majority vote was necessary because the bill intended to increase the civil penalty.  There was no fiscal note but she did want to absolutely verify that before the bill was processed in committee.

 

Mr. Marvel concurred with Mr. Humke that perhaps the penalties could be reduced to harmonize with the federal penalties.

 

Kurt Segler, Director of Utilities, city of Henderson, testified in support of A.B. 200.  He believed that primacy was very important.  Chairwoman de Braga asked if he cared to comment on the possible amendment to this legislation.  He responded that he understood “the need for significant penalties in the event of a willful violations.”  As a representative of the City of Henderson, he concluded the city did not hold a negative position on the penalty amount.

 

Mr. Mortenson asked if someone could tell him where the fine money went.  Mr. Denio, Bureau of Health Protection Services, stated that he needed to check with the Attorney General’s Office.  Some parts of the statute specified their destination.

 

Mr. Carpenter expressed concern about a person’s defense in the event his action had not been willful.  Mr. Denio pointed out that Subsection 2 of NRS 445.8950 stated that the State Board of Health may impose.  The Board heard the cases, and only they made the determination of the administrative fine.  Mr. Carpenter asked if the defendant could then go to district or federal court?  Mr. Denio said that for the administrative fine, he believed the State Board of Health was the court of last resort.  Civil or criminal penalties decided under a separate statute went through the court system.  This was a concern, Mr. Carpenter opined, when a board could levy these fines and a defendant had no right to appeal. 

 

Assemblyman Brown asked whether the civil penalty was nondiscretionary vs. the administrative fine which was discretionary.  If the word “shall” meant nondiscretionary, it was a civil penalty, Mr. Denio replied.  The administrative penalty was “may,” so the State Board of Health had the discretion.  Mr. Brown understood it that if Nevada were under federal jurisdiction, this was what they would face. 

 

Mr. Denio held that the EPA would administer and levy fines.  He needed to research their process, but in essence, Mr. Brown was correct.  Mr. Brown also asked about standards and regulations dealing with contaminants.  He was concerned about the deletion of the willful or gross negligence standard, resulting in strict liability, in regards to possible water contaminants from nuclear test sites, and foresaw a situation where the water authority might be charged for an issue beyond their control.  Mr. Denio could not speculate on that. 

 

Mr. Humke asked Mr. Denio to send a justification of why the effective date of the bill would be upon passage and approval, rather than in the normal course, since the federal deadline was to April 2002. 

 

Stephanie Licht, representing Elko County, spoke against A.B. 200.  Elko County, she said, had many very small water systems that had been pulled into the Safe Drinking Water Act, especially Montello, Tuscarora, Mountain City, Jackpot, and Midas.  It had cost Elko County hundreds of thousands of dollar to bring these into compliance.  These small systems did not willfully violate the standards but it was extremely difficult to comply.  “These were written for the burning rivers back east,” she said. Elko County preferred state supremacy rather than federal dominance.  This act was enforced on a town of 27 people so remotely located that it was a drive of several hours.  It made it difficult for these small systems in rural areas of Nevada.  Ms. Licht favored the amendment to reduce the penalties. 

 

Mr. Claborn asked if there was not a community well system in these towns.  Ms. Licht replied that each town was different and these were very small water systems.  The problem was that the towns were forced to “jump through innumerable hoops” to obtain assistance to bring the systems up to standards. 

 

Chairwoman de Braga stated that any supplier of water was obligated to meet all the federal standards and to monitor the water supply.  But, without a qualifier to cover a situation that was totally beyond the supplier’s control, she found it difficult to support the legislation.  Ms. Licht added, “One size does not fit all.”  Her observation was that the further people were removed from the land, in generations, the less common sense they exhibited in making things fit the problem. 

 

Chairwoman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 200.

 

 

Assembly Bill 208:  Revises provisions governing treatment of animals. (BDR 50-206)

 

Assemblyman Tom Collins, District 1, the sponsor of A.B. 208 (Exhibit E), explained the reason he proposed this “proactive” legislation.  The intention and model of it were laws already in the Nevada regarding tobacco and gun laws.  Mr. Collins read the following for the record:

 

            The provisions of this act apply only to ordinances or regulations adopted on or after the effective date of this act.  So any local regulation, any local ordinance of any board or county or city today on their books, any regulations or rule or law that they have, this will not alter, change or supercede those in any way at all.

 

Not until 1961 did Nevada adopt a law “to promote the efficient, orderly and economical conduct of the various activities for the encouragement, advancement and protection of the livestock and agricultural industries of the State of Nevada.”  This was proactive, state-level legislation to help Nevada protect the industries that were vital to the state. 

 

In 2001, the state population was almost 2 million, with many people moving in from other areas of the country and world.  Laws introduced and/or passed in other parts of the country attempted to: outlaw circuses; ban the exhibition of most animals; ban the use of elephants in entertainment; and, ban the “wrestling” of animals, which banned rodeos.  In many cases, the people who passed such laws had no knowledge of animal husbandry and spent too much time doing something which should have been done by experts. 

 

Mr. Collins said this bill would not permit lions in the backyard, nor would it repeal existing ordinances.  There was currently a vicious dog act in Nevada.  Mr. Collins presented in Exhibit E the Code of Federal Regulations definitions for animal, livestock, exotic animal, farm animal, pet animal and wild animals.  He proposed this legislation “to protect folks from quick reactions that might need a little more time to reason out and think out before they take them on a local issue, or to be persuaded by a minority faction to restrict your freedoms and my freedoms, and [those of] my children and grandchildren.”  He wished to pass this law forbidding the prohibition of circuses, rodeos and zoos, etc.  It was his belief that if a circus were not profitable in a community, it would stop going there. The animal cruelty laws in Nevada were adequate.  Exhibit D contained correspondence from a variety of sources in support of A.B. 208. 

 

In summary, the intent of the legislation was to: 1) protect animal shows, exhibitions, contests, etc; 2) allow a private person to keep an animal without spaying or neutering; 3) require any changes to the above two items to come before the state legislature.  Regarding spaying and neutering, Mr. Collins was willing to correct the language to satisfy people who wished to continue to spay and neuter.  This bill would not change the prohibitions of the NRS against owning certain animals such as skunks, coyote, etc.  It would not change the requirement for permits to own certain animals.  Mr. Collins firmly believed that responsible animal owners cared for the animals very well in order to be successful in their businesses.

 

Upon the conclusion of the presentation, Chair de Braga asked if everyone had been supplied with a copy of the amendments (Exhibit F).  In Subsection 1 (c)(1), she asked if the reference to NRS 441A.120, a regulation of the State Board of Health, was correct.  Mr. Collins affirmed it was correct, to cover outbreaks of diseases coming from animals.  When Ms. de Braga asked if the reference to “domestic animal” was removed, Mr. Collins replied it was so the definition of “animal” applied.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson questioned the reason for Section 1, 1 (b) “require an animal to be spayed or neutered.”  Mr. Collins conveyed that there were some cities in which all animals had to be spayed or neutered, virtually eliminating any breeders.  This bill prohibited that restriction.  Support continued for the spay/neuter programs in animal shelters, etc., but the owner retained the right to have an unsterilized animal; the community could not outright ban an animal that was not spayed or neutered. 

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall requested an explanation of the elimination of “domestic animal” from the bill.  Mr. Collins felt the use of the word “animal” retained the authority of local agencies.  Ms. Ohrenschall mentioned a story of a local entertainer and an animal rights group controversy and asked if this law would have affected the ability of the animal rights group to go to court.  Mr. Collins replied that it would have made no difference.

 

Assemblyman Claborn wished to have Mr. Collins clarify the three things this bill intended to do.  These were:  allowed horse shows, dog shows, 4-H events, rodeos, circuses, etc.; prohibited forcing the private owner of an animal to spay or neuter it; did not change any existing law, ordinance or local regulation. 

 

Ms. Ohrenschall asked if the law would prevent a locality from enacting a pooper-scooper law?  “Yes,” Mr. Collins replied, if there was not already one in existence.  This definitely allowed the state to maintain a consistent regulation just like for gun and tobacco laws in the state. 

 

Mr. Brown wished to know if it required a city or local government to come to the state if it wanted to restrict more than what this permitted.  Once again, Mr. Collins answered “yes.” 

 

Dr. David Thain, Nevada State Veterinarian, believed some of the issues of concern to him had been addressed.  Stephanie Licht, representing the Nevada Wool Growers’ Association (NWGA), testified in support of the amended A.B. 208. She appreciated that Mr. Collins was ahead of the extremists who did not understand livestock exhibitions.  Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of the Nevada Farm Bureau (NFB), read from a statement (Exhibit G) in favor of A.B. 208. The basis for NFB support was an organizational policy developed and adopted by the farmer/rancher members, which covered activities such as junior livestock shows, fairs, harvest festivals and similar pro-agricultural activities. 

 

Tom Blomquist, Silver Springs Spay-Neuter Project, read a statement (Exhibit H) urging the committee to not pass A.B. 208, which his organization felt interfered with the citizens’ ability to act locally.  Mr. Blomquist considered local control part of the democratic process.  Robert Barengo, representing the Nevada Humane Society, observed that usually legislation addressed a problem.  This bill addressed problems Mr. Barengo did not see or foresee in Nevada.  The fix would make the Nevada Legislature the “town board” for the pound.  These things usually rested with the local jurisdictions.  This bill took the minimum standards previously set by the state and made them the maximum standards. 

 

Nancee Goldwater, Animal Control Officer, Douglas County, expressed a concern about Section 1, 1 (c), which stated that a governing body shall not prohibit the ownership or possession of an animal, except as provided by NRS 441A.120.  She stated that anyone who had been involved with animal neglect or abuse cases knew that a wise judge would prohibit the ownership of an animal.  An additional concern was that Gardnerville had considered incorporation as a city and if this were accomplished, they would have to come to the state to ask for animal regulations.  She distributed a memo (Exhibit I) upholding Douglas County’s opposition to the proposed bill.

 

Assemblyman Claborn asked if Lyon County had a pound.  Mr. Blomquist affirmed that Lyon County did have a pound but not for cats.  The county was re-writing Lyon County Code 7, which intended to include cats.  Also, animals were not spayed or neutered.  If they were not claimed within three days, they were euthanized.  If the law was passed, the county would not be permitted to address the cat issue.  Mr. Claborn suggested it would be good idea to put a bill draft together for “something like that for the county.”  Mr. Blomquist responded that it could and was being done locally.  Why would they have to come to the state to ask permission to regulate cats? 

 

Assemblyman Carpenter asked the panel (Mr. Blomquist, Ms. Goldwater, Mr. Barengo) whether they had any problem with the state control of rodeos, livestock shows, circuses, exhibition, etc., as proposed by the legislation.  Mr. Barengo felt no one was attempting to stop livestock shows and the like in the state.  He would have no problem if the state controlled these events.  However, if the state established horse racing, extensive legislation would be required just to regulate the care of the horses.

 

Nancee Goldwater confirmed that Douglas County Animal Control rarely dealt with livestock or rodeo animals and believed it was regulated by the State Brand Inspector.  Tom Blomquist felt the rodeo was a statewide issue but would not want to stop the counties from making relevant decisions. 

 

Speaking in opposition to the bill, Mary Walker, representing Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County, believed that it eliminated the right to resolve problems at the local level, particularly in rural communities.  Citizen input was sought at open, publicized meetings.  Animal experts were hired by local jurisdictions.  Local veterinarians served on the committees and boards.  If this bill was passed, Fernley, which will be incorporated July 1, 2001, would be unable to enact local animal control laws without prior approval of the Nevada State Legislature.  The counties, she said, had no problem with the rodeo and livestock proposal. 

 

Joe Boteilho, Clark County Animal Control, was concerned that the language of the bill did not permit local regulations to change in the future, for instance, privately owned exotic animals.  Mr. Boteilho answered Mr. Claborn’s question about the current regulation of exotic animals.  He stated that exotic pets were not regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture but, in Clark County, by Land Use [codes] through a zoning variance.  But, Mr. Claborn asked, a person needed to petition a board for an exotic pet.  “Yes,” Mr. Boteilho agreed.  Often the pets were brought here without prior approval.  Mr. Claborn understood the bill would not affect the existing ordinance or law at all.  Mr. Boteilho replied that, if this was enacted, Clark County laws could not be made that addressed new situations. 

 

Norma Klenakis, representing a nonprofit organization opposed to A.B. 208, felt that state statutes already in place protected the continuation of the livestock and agriculture industry.  The bill removed the power of local jurisdictions and their citizens and granted extraordinary power to the state.  The group was very concerned about the introduction of exotic animals into the rural ranching environment.  

 

Committee Chairwoman de Braga asked who had jurisdiction over the wild animal farm in Churchill County.  Ms. Klenakis was uncertain but felt there was a special use permit that some of the animals had been rescued.  One person, who had had a lion in his garage, moved from Fallon to the county to avoid the restrictions.  In the county, he acquired more exotic cats and animals for the purpose of exhibiting to the public.  The Planning Commission and County Board of Commissioners both denied permits.  Because there were no ordinances preventing the type of facility he proposed and was denied, he threatened to sue.  The animals were eventually abandoned in the Stillwater area.  Ms. Klenakis stated there were no regulations regarding how the animals were cared for or how they were housed.  There were no inspections.  Concerned residents had no recourse except to call the sheriff, who could do nothing.

 

Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities (NLC), stated that all 18 cities in Nevada were “vehemently opposed” to A.B. 208, especially in two areas:  1) the stringent restrictions and, 2) the phrase “economically infeasible.” During the previous legislative session, the cities and counties were limited in the number of bills they could introduce.  This bill asked 17 counties and 19 cities (including the new city of Fernley) to initiate bills to change a local ordinance.  This was unacceptable; session occurred only biennially, too long to wait to resolve a local problem.  In regards to the “economically infeasible” clause, NLC wished to know who would make that determination.  A definition was needed.  NLC would work with Mr. Collins, but they remained very concerned. 

 

Richard Wilkie, representing the city of Henderson, echoed the previously voiced concerns.  The city wished to clarify with Assemblyman Collins its issues and get to the intent of the bill, the protection of rodeos as an historic event in Nevada. 

 

Mr. Claborn inquired whether Henderson had an animal pound separate from Las Vegas.  Joe Boteilho replied that each of the incorporated entities in Clark County operated their own animal shelters, except in North Las Vegas, which had combined with Clark County to run a common shelter.  Mrs. Ohrenschall inquired how this would impact private shelters.  Some had a “no kill” policy and kept the animals indefinitely.

 

Ben Graham spoke on behalf of the Clark County District Attorney in opposition to A.B. 208.  Animal control, he said, did not rise to a constitutional issue.  These were local issues; 500 pigeons in downtown Las Vegas was not the same problem as 500 pigeons in a rural feedlot.  Local entities needed to deal with the issues as they arose daily.  Susan Krisko, Clark County Deputy District Attorney, expressed a concern about the wording of the bill.  She had prosecuted crimes that involved animals.  Occasionally, in negotiating a case, it was ruled a person could not possess an animal upon conviction for animal cruelty or violation of ordinances, or perhaps the person must have the animal spayed or neutered.  This bill removed the courts’ ability to rule in that manner.  Ms. Krisko also expressed a concern for the phrase “economically infeasible.”  She read it to be a blanket defense to any person she attempted to prosecute.

 

Maddy Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, with Katie Stevens, Washoe County Animal Control, testified together.  Washoe County passed new ordinances as new subdivisions opened.  Nevada was an urbanizing state with continued growth.  Additions and amendments to existing animal control codes were regular occurrences.  The [Washoe County] development code used for land use regulations limited the areas where livestock was permitted.  Ms. Shipman also voiced concern for the wording of the “economically infeasible” clause of the bill, uncertain of the intent.  Katie Stevens revealed that Washoe County did not have an ordinance for exotic animals, except for some specific species.  This bill forced the county to come before the legislature to implement one.

 

Andrew List, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), on behalf of Nevada’s counties, opposed this bill.  It appeared this bill came from a desire to prohibit county commissioners from banning circuses, rodeos, 4-H shows, and others, and, if so, its focus should be narrowed.  NACO was particularly opposed to Section 1 1(a), which prohibited the counties from imposing more stringent regulations on all animal issues.  This usurped the counties power to deal with these issues expediently. 

 

Warren Hardy, representing North Las Vegas and Mesquite, associated his clients with some of the concerns previously expressed by local governments. 

 

Peter Bachstadt objected to the bill primarily on the constitutional grounds because it prevented amending existing laws.  Mr. Bachstadt had no problem with rodeos etc., but he felt if a particular region did not want these, they should have the right to prohibit them.  Also, in the worst possibility, if S.B. 173 prohibiting bestiality failed, the passage of this bill, A.B. 208, created an adverse effect in animal protection (Exhibit J). 

 

Assemblyman Collins presented his rebuttals.  He felt that since this legislature voted for the salaries of the county commissioners, and they appreciated that authority, they also appreciated the involvement with their animal welfare efforts.  Mr. Collins agreed that some language needed correcting and reaffirmed it was not his intent to interfere with the spay/neutering efforts.  There were statutes in Nevada that covered animal cruelty.  Animals brought from a foreign country must be licensed by a U.S.D.A. dealer and the Nevada Department of Wildlife.  Fernley could not become a city until the legislature gave them a charter.  Mr. Collins suggested that it would be very appropriate at that time if they included their animal control ordinances.  The zoning issue brought up in Washoe County was a “definite stretch.” 

 

Mr. Boteilho responded to Mr. Collins statement on animals being brought into the state from a foreign country.  He said that often these animals are born here and the Nevada Division of Wildlife did not inspect exotic animals.  The state did not have the authority to fully address the substandard conditions the animals might be subjected to. 

 

Tom Grady, NLC, addressing Mr. Collins, said that Fernley incorporated under Chapter 266 of the Nevada Revised Statutes and did not come before the legislature to obtain the charter.  Fernley was a general law city not a charter city.  Charters did not address ordinances. 

 

Chairwoman de Braga concluded the hearing by thanking everyone for the conduct at the hearing.  Some of the mail received prior to the meeting had been insulting.  Many people signed on this legislation not necessarily because they supported all parts of it, but because they thought it deserved a hearing.  Ms. de Braga appointed a subcommittee chaired by Assemblyman Lee, with Mr. Collins and Mr. Brown.  She stated there was reason to be concerned that people involved in rodeos and horse shows, and those events that use animals, have been on occasion harassed for what they did.  She expected from this bill a protection of those interests and recognition of the rights of reputable organizations and clubs, such as 4-H, FFA, rodeo contractors, producers, high school rodeos, horse racing organizations, etc., to produce their events without threats or harassment.  Another expectation was the protection of the authority of local officials and governments.  They must retain the right to enact the ordinances they deem necessary. 

 

There being no further business or discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:54 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                               

June Rigsby,

Committee Secretary

 

______________________________

Linda Lee Nary,

Transcribing Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

 

 

DATE: