MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining

 

Seventy-First Session

March 26, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, March 26, 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:

 

Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, District 25

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

June Rigsby, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Paul Brown, Citizen

Jolaine Johnson, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

Steve Bremer, Chief, Administrative Services, Nevada Division of Wildlife

Patty Wagner, Program Officer, Nevada Division of Wildlife

Gerald Lent, Nevada Hunters Association

Peter Krueger, Nevada Petroleum Marketers

Daryl Capurro, Manager, Nevada Motor Transport Association

Joe Johnson, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club

Tim Crowley, Nevada Mining Association

 

Roll was called, and the work session on A.B. 230 commenced.

 

Assembly Bill 230:  Makes various changes relating to protection of cultural resources. (BDR 33-600)

 

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst, distributed a handout (Exhibit C) and systematically reviewed the proposed amendments to A.B. 230.  In its original form, a five-member advisory committee had been proposed. During testimony, it had been suggested the advisory committee be expanded to include representation from the mining and ranching industries, as well as from the Native American tribes. Additionally, it had been recommended the Native American representative be a member of the Washoe, Shoshone, or Paiute tribe.

 

The third suggested amendment was the redefinition of the phrase “traditional significance” on page 4, line 15. It was recommended it be changed to read “the moral values that support cultural importance central to a tribe’s ability to practice its customs and beliefs.”

 

In response to Chairman de Braga, Ms. Eissmann explained no formal amendments had been submitted by the Native American tribes; however, she called attention to an amendment proposed by Assemblyman Mortenson. It would replace all references to “Indian tribes” with “Native American tribe.” It would revise line 2-35 to specify “Native American tribes from the state of Nevada.” Finally, it added two members to the advisory committee, one from mining and one from ranching.

 

Chairman de Braga asked if the term “moral value” was appropriate language and if it could be defined. Assemblyman Mortenson defended the phrase and stated it captured how he felt. The Native Americans had suggested the long and complicated definition. Although the language was cumbersome, Assemblyman Mortenson felt the Indian tribes should be able to choose. 

 

Chairman de Braga called for a motion. Assemblyman Mortenson made a motion to “amend and do pass.” Chairman de Braga requested clarification on the specific amendments to be included. Assemblyman Mortenson explained the amendment would be exactly as stated in Section A of Exhibit C.  Chairman de Braga cited a conflict in terminology, specifically regarding the names of tribes that would be allowed.

 

Ms. Eissmann reiterated the testimony from the Native Americans in which they specifically stated Washoe, Shoshone, or Paiute nations. Those were major tribes, and Assemblyman Mortenson preferred general language so that other minor tribes could be included. Ms. Eissmann directed the committee to the wording found on page 2 of Exhibit C.

 

Chairman de Braga called for a motion on A.B. 230.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 230 AND REREFER.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

 

Chairman de Braga asked if there was a fiscal note attached to A.B. 230. Ms. Eissmann replied in the affirmative and stated it should be rereferred to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee.

 

Chairman de Braga continued the work session and opened the hearing on A.B. 291.

 

Assembly Bill 291:  Imposes additional fee for game tags for support of programs to control predators and protect wildlife habitat. (BDR 45-160)

 

Ms. Eissmann directed the committee to Exhibit C and reviewed the suggested changes to the bill. During testimony, Assemblyman Claborn had suggested his bill be amended to reflect five major changes. The first change was to revise the $3 fee by making it apply to all big game tag applications. The second part of the amendment specified the fund and related programs that supported the control of “injurious” predatory wildlife. The third section of the amendment dealt with modifications to the programs and the priorities of those programs. The fourth revision related to the expenditure of money and required the Nevada Division of Wildlife to expend all, not just a portion, of the money collected for the Department of Agriculture. The final recommendation specified any balance remaining from the fee-based funds not revert to the State General fund at the end of the fiscal year.

 

Ms. Eissmann directed the committee to Attachment C of Exhibit C, the amendment proposed by the Sierra Club. The proposal required documentation of each project and evaluation of program outcomes by the Nevada Division of Wildlife. It also called for the addition of a sunset provision of June 30, 2003. The final suggestion related to the inclusion of educational programs.

 

Assemblyman Claborn voiced strong objection to the proposed amendments of the Sierra Club. He asked the committee to make a motion on the bill without the Sierra Club amendments.

 

Chairman de Braga asked Assemblyman Claborn, the sponsor of the bill, if he had any assurance from the Governor it would not be vetoed. Assemblyman Claborn replied he had no assurances.

 

Chairman de Braga asked if Assemblyman Claborn had made a motion on A.B. 291. He replied in the affirmative and reiterated his request to delete the Sierra Club amendment. The motion was made on the bill with his amendments only.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 291.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

 

Chairman de Braga opened the discussion on A.B. 258.

 

Assembly Bill 258:  Authorizes certain authorized inspection stations to perform certain work on certain motor vehicles. (BDR 40-278)

 

Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, sponsor of the bill, commenced testimony on A.B. 258.  The intent of the legislation was to address complaints from constituents regarding smog inspection stations. She related an incident where a customer had been unable to have a spark plug wire reattached by the smog inspectors. Under A.B. 258, Class-1 (i.e., inspection only) smog inspection stations would be authorized to do simple adjustments and repairs to vehicles. Assemblywoman Gibbons introduced a representative of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to explain the specifics of the bill.

 

Russ Benzler, Administrator of the Compliance Enforcement Division, DMV, testified in support of A.B. 258. He reiterated that simple tune-up work (e.g., spark plugs, wires, distributor caps) would be authorized; however, adjustments in conjunction with a failed smog certificate would not be allowed. Temporary regulations were being drafted by DMV, and a copy of the documentation was distributed to the committee (Exhibit E).

 

In response to Chairman de Braga, Mr. Benzler stated the smog inspectors did not presently have the ability to adjust emission related components. A standard tune-up would be permitted. He concurred with Chairman de Braga if a shop had been divided in half by a wall and used two distinct addresses, it had been allowed in the past to do repair work. Mr. Benzler assured Chairman de Braga the inequity of that situation was remedied by the proposed legislation. 

 

Assemblyman Collins requested clarification on the situation in which his vehicle would have to exit the smog inspection station before simple repair work was done. Mr. Benzler replied in the affirmative and added the bill would not authorize the station to diagnose emission-related problems nor repair emission components.

 

Paul Brown, owner of an automotive repair shop in Reno, resumed testimony. After reviewing the modifications to the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) made by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), he commended the DMV and Mr. Kirkland for fixing the problem. The wording by DMV was perfect and, in his view, still protected the consumer, the small businessman, and the air quality of Nevada.

 

Assemblywoman Gibbons interjected, since Mr. Brown was comfortable with the wording and the changes made by the DMV to the NAC, she was willing to withdraw A.B. 258. Chairman de Braga called for additional witnesses before entertaining a motion.

 

Jolaine Johnson, Deputy Administrator for the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, approached the committee to ask a point of order. Ms. Johnson supported the proposed change in regulations made by DMV; however, she voiced serious concerns with A.B. 258 and stated it would place them in serious violations with federal programs. Ms. Johnson wanted to go on record as stating that concern.

 

Chairman de Braga declared action had to be taken on the bill rather than have the sponsor withdraw it. She called for a motion to indefinitely postpone discussion. As such, further testimony would not be required.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 258.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

 

Chairman de Braga announced the continuation of the hearing on A.B. 199.

 

Assembly Bill 199:  Revises provisions governing certain accounts, licenses and stamps administered by division of wildlife of state department of conservation and natural resources. (BDR 45-529)

 

Steve Bremer, Chief of Administrative Services for the Nevada Division of Wildlife, distributed a handout (Exhibit D) and commenced testimony in support of A.B. 199.  He reviewed each of five amendments that would modify NRS Chapters 501 (Administration and Accounts) and 502 (Licenses, Tags, and Permits).

 

Mr. Bremer described A.B. 199 as multi-faceted. It increased the petty cash and change funds. It allowed the Board of Wildlife Commissioners to establish regulations to issue duplicate licenses and to determine the fee for the trout stamp. It established the trout management account for interest and income earned. It directed the agency on how the funds of the trout management account would be spent.

 

Chairman de Braga commended the witness on the quality of his work and testimony. Because of the proposed increase in fees, she voiced concern that the bill was at risk for veto by the Governor. Chairman de Braga also requested clarification of the trout stamp money.

 

Mr. Bremer explained there was no change. The trout stamp money would continue to be used for the protection, propagation, and management of trout in Nevada and for bonded indebtedness. He added the fee had been set at $5 since 1985. In response to Chairman de Braga’s question on a fee cap, Mr. Bremer stated the trout stamp fee was set at whatever level needed to cover administrative costs and hatchery refurbishment programs. The Wildlife Commission would make a decision followed by a public hearing.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter inquired about the revenue raised from the sale of trout stamps. Mr. Bremer estimated revenues at $450,000 per year, and the funds were utilized for trout management projects. With the help of the State Public Works Board, the Division of Wildlife hoped to rebuild the state fish hatcheries. An extensive hatchery analysis revealed a serious need for refurbishment. In response to Assemblyman Carpenter, Mr. Bremer said a copy of that proposal would be forwarded. A copy of the maintenance history for each fish hatchery would be included as requested by Assemblyman Humke.

 

In response to Assemblyman Claborn, who asked about computer-generated fishing licenses, Mr. Bremer stated the license, the list of privileges, a confirmation number, and a receipt would resemble a computer printout. Law enforcement personnel were being trained to recognize the documents. An out-of-state sportsman would have to show a smart identification number to the warden.

 

Gerald Lent, representing the Nevada Hunters Association, commenced testimony in opposition of A.B. 199. His first objection was to the portion that dealt with Chapter 502, Section 6 and the fee established by the Wildlife   Commission. Mr. Lent believed the establishment of fees should be retained by the elected members of the legislature, and not be placed in the hands of the appointed members of the Wildlife Commission.  It was Mr. Lent’s contention the Wildlife Commission did not listen to sportsmen. Further, the Commission had raised fees without cause and, in Mr. Lent’s judgment, squandered surplus money.

 

On the subject of the trout stamp fee increase, Mr. Lent described it as an embarrassment to sportsmen and to the agency. Mr. Lent agreed the facilities were falling apart; however, he attributed it to administrative mismanagement. Mr. Lent encouraged the committee to first scrutinize the repair and maintenance records for the hatcheries. In summary, he voiced great concern over granting additional authority and funding to the Nevada Division of Wildlife.  He cited A.B. 47 of the Sixty-ninth Session (1997) in which the Wildlife Commission had proposed having the authority to establish all fees. It was rejected then, and Mr. Lent urged the committee to reject it again.

 

Chairman de Braga explained to the witness that Wildlife had not budgeted for the increases because of the Governor’s mandate to state agencies not to request additional budget funds.

 

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 199 and declared no action would be taken until the requested information was received. It would be rescheduled as a work session at a later date.

 

Chairman de Braga opened the continuation of the hearing on A.B. 284.

 

 Assembly Bill 284:  Revises provisions governing emissions from certain heavy-duty motor vehicles and construction equipment. (BDR 40-390)

 

Peter Krueger, representing the Nevada Petroleum Marketers Association, commenced testimony in opposition to A.B. 284. His concerns centered on the broad wording of the bill. In his judgment, the bill discriminated against diesel fuel. He reminded the committee that no state or federal standards existed for construction vehicle maintenance or emissions. Mr. Krueger expected the costs would be extremely high, and the burden would be placed on the vehicles registered in Clark County. He predicted members of his association would very likely attempt to register their vehicles outside Clark County in order to avoid enforcement action.

 

Daryl Capurro, Manager of the Nevada Motor Transport Association, offered to answer questions regarding his previous testimony in opposition to A.B. 284.  Assemblyman Carpenter commented on discussions from past legislative sessions on the subject of establishing standards for diesel fuel. Mr. Capurro acknowledged the long history and stated the position of his association to be supportive of low-sulfur diesel fuel.

 

Mr. Capurro updated the committee on recent EPA actions in which rules were adopted with respect to requiring low-sulfur diesel fuel. By the year 2006, oil companies would be required to produce the new fuel for use in the newly designed low-sulfur engines.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter recalled hearing newer diesel vehicles were supposed to burn cleaner. Mr. Capurro agreed regulations for the manufacture of heavy- duty vehicles had been improved since 1998. The next milestone would be 2002 when the next class of engines would be marketed. Green-diesel applications were already advertised by diesel manufacturers. Mr. Capurro stated emphatically diesel in commercial vehicle applications would continue to prevail for the next 10 years.

Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, distributed a handout (Exhibit F) and commenced testimony in opposition to A.B. 284. He called the committee’s attention to a report from the 432 interim study committee and their recommendations for air quality programs in Clark County.  Mr. Johnson emphasized two major points of concern. The first was the issue of whether the bill impacted agricultural vehicles outside the nonattainment area. The language implied it would apply to agriculture, although it was probably not the intent of the bill drafters.

 

Mr. Johnson’s second concern was the recommendation by the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that annual emission testing of heavy-duty diesel-powered vehicles not be pursued. In Mr. Johnson’s judgment, the recommendation was based on faulty statistical data gathered by DMV during unscientifically conducted tests. In reviewing the fail rate of vehicle inspections in other states, Mr. Johnson concluded Nevada’s rate of 2.4 was erroneously low and reflected the lack of randomness in the vehicles selected for testing. He described it as an exercise in enforcement and not a scientific study.

 

In summary, Mr. Johnson made three recommendations to the committee: address the higher sulfur fuels used in off-road diesel-powered vehicles, determine if the snap and idle test was appropriate for on-road vehicles, and elevate the oversight of air quality from local health boards to regional governance. Through the years the legislature had relinquished their power and increasingly delegated authority to Clark and Washoe Counties.

 

Assemblyman Collins recalled various air quality laws had been passed during many sessions since 1971, and, in his judgment, it was in the statutes as existing law. Mr. Johnson disagreed and stated through the years the issues were driven by health and welfare. He emphasized it was an opportunity for the state of Nevada to step up and do what it politically could do. The statutes did not read to shut down, rather it said to address the issue. Environmental groups had been patient through the years on those issues.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson remarked it was a complex issue. He added there was a big problem if the state did not set standards or allow Clark County to set standards. Through the years, Clark County had been accused of not doing enough to address the air pollution problems. If EPA withdrew their federal funding in southern Nevada, Clark County would blame the state.

 

Mr. Johnson voiced his agreement that a lot had been accomplished in both Clark and Washoe Counties. Clean air was not cheap. Improvement was still needed in addressing the health and safety of our children and our community.

 

Assemblyman Claborn commented he had been shut down on several construction projects due to dust violations, but never because of diesel smoke. The state and county should clean up themselves before they approached the construction industry.

 

Tim Crowley, representing the Nevada Mining Association, stated for the record he was opposed to A.B. 284. The industrial mining companies (e.g., gravel) played a vital role in the growth and economy of Las Vegas. The lack of parameters in the bill caused the greatest concern to his membership.

 

Rose McKinney-James, lobbyist for the Clark County School District, offered a statement of opposition to A.B. 284 due to the fiscal impact to the school district.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson commented the bill had several good points and the bill author should sit down with the opponents to determine what could be salvaged from the bill.

 

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 284. Because of the wide variety of bills dealing with Clark County air quality, Chairman de Braga announced it was her intention to call a meeting between the legislative staff and officials of Clark County. The most reasonable sections of each bill would be determined and recommendations would be pooled. Action on A.B. 284 would be postponed until that work could be accomplished.

 

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

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

                               

June Rigsby

Committee Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

 

 

DATE: