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

March 28, 2001

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, March 28, 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

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Bob Price, District 17

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

June Rigsby, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Bill Bradley, Commissioner, Nevada Wildlife Commission

Terry Crawforth, Nevada Division of Wildlife

Dave Horton, National Committee to Restore the Constitution

Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum

Thomas Jefferson, Jarbidge Shovel Brigade, Elko County

Doug Bierman, Consultant, Eureka County

Ken Jones, Sheriff, Eureka County

Ryan Bundy, Las Vegas

Jonathan Hansen, Attorney, Independent American Party, Las Vegas

Mr. Church, Las Vegas citizen

Jackie Holmgren, Rawhide Ranch, Mineral County

Merritt Ike Yochum, Independent American Party

Richard Brengman, Douglas County

Cliff Gardner, Elko County Citizen

Ken Greenwell, 13 percent Citizen of Nevada

Bill Kohlmoos, Nevada Mining and Prospectors Association

Bob Abbey, Nevada State Director, Bureau of Land Management

Juanita Cox, Citizen Lobbyist, People to Protect America

Don Bowman, Citizen

John Rosenlund, Citizen

Rob Pecchenino, American Independent Party

David Holmgren, Rawhide Ranch, Mineral County

Joe Johnson, Sierra Club

The meeting was called to order. Chairman de Braga announced additional chairs would be brought into the room for the overflow of guests. Roll was called, and Assemblyman John Lee was noted as absent. Chairman de Braga recognized Assemblyman Claborn.

Assemblyman Claborn made a motion to bring A.B. 291 back before the committee in order to amend the language (Exhibit C).

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

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS MOTION ON A.B. 291 FROM MARCH 26.

ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

Chairman de Braga addressed the confusion of the language in the proposed amendment. She called the committee’s attention to lines 1 to 15 and the deletion of the words “a portion of.” Clarification was required so the Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) was authorized to expend funds and to designate funds to the Department of Agriculture for predator management programs.

Chairman de Braga stated there were two additional changes to the bill and called for testimony.

Bill Bradley, Member, Board of Wildlife Commissioners, commenced testimony in support of the proposed changes in language to A.B. 291. The elimination of the word “big” on line 1 to 4 allowed the $3 fee to be charged against all tags, including swans and turkeys. Mr. Bradley emphasized the need to fund educational programs, and asked that a portion of funds support the Operation Wild program.

Chairman de Braga asked if it would be a significant amount. Mr. Bradley stated it was not significant and would not detract from the fieldwork on predator management. In regard to adding anything new, Mr. Bradley replied that research into successful techniques for predator management and educating the public would be additions.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the funds would support existing programs and would not detract from them. Terry Crawforth, Nevada Division of Wildlife, replied existing programs would be enhanced.

Assemblyman Humke requested an estimate of dollar amounts. In response, Mr. Crawforth estimated the total annual revenue from an expected 95,000 game tag applications at $300,000. A significant portion of those funds would be transferred to the Department of Agriculture on an as-needed basis.

Bill Bradley interjected some points of clarification. A standing committee on predator management would be established by the Wildlife Commission. That group would work with Robert Beach of the Department of Agriculture to identify problem areas and projects.

Assemblyman Humke requested clarification on the permanence of the revenue source and if it was their policy to conduct the predator management program on a year-in and year-out basis. Mr. Bradley replied in the affirmative. The program would continue without end, as long as the management was based on sound scientific methodology and goal-oriented projects. In response to Assemblyman Humke, those projects would be determined by agency personnel, sportsmen, county advisory boards, Mr. Beach, and the Wildlife Commission.

Assemblyman Humke asked about the mechanism to safeguard the funds for future predator control needs in the event the Wildlife Commission deemed predator management as lower priority. Mr. Bradley believed the legislation would establish a permanent account for predator management, and, as such, it would always be available.

Chairman de Braga called attention to line 1 to 8 and asked if the phrase “educate the public” should be assigned to a separate section. Mr. Bradley agreed.

Assemblyman Claborn made a motion to pass A.B. 291 with the amendments. It was seconded by Assemblyman Collins. Assemblyman Humke interrupted the motion with a question about the original amendment and if it was still in effect. Chairman de Braga stated the amendments could not be left as they were because the committee was attempting to amend the amendment.

Discussion ensued on the parliamentary procedure for reconsideration of a previous vote. Assemblyman Humke asked if reconsideration was the equivalent of disregarding the other amendments. Chairman de Braga stated the reconsideration of action was the legal basis for taking a new action. She clarified all of the amendments from the previous meeting were still on the bill under discussion.

After conferring with the Committee Policy Analyst, Chairman de Braga announced it would be safer to rescind the action of March 26 and call for new action. The amendments would be the ones in front of the committee that added the “public education” language.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO RESCIND THE

PREVIOUS ACTION ON A.B. 291 FROM MARCH 26.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

***********

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 291.

ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

Chairman de Braga called for the work session on A.B. 200.

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

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst, distributed a work session document (Exhibit D) and commenced review of the proposed amendments. A summary of the Health Division’s explanation of the intent of A.B. 200 was attached. Changes included the removal of the word “willfully” from NRS 445A.950, substitution of the words “shall pay” on line 11 with “is liable for,” and the addition of “to be recovered by the attorney general in the name of the Health division” on line 11.

Ms. Eissmann reviewed the concerns voiced by the committee during the previous hearing. Discretion in the language regarding civil penalties was preserved with the words “not more than $5,000.” As explained, that would allow for any amount including zero dollars.

Chairman de Braga called for a motion on A.B. 200.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO

PASS A.B. 200.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE.

Assemblyman Carpenter requested to go on the record as a “no” vote. He viewed the amendment as an improvement, however he was not convinced the average citizen would have his day in court. Assemblyman Humke indicated his “yes” vote was mostly in regard to the primacy issue, and he did not give full approval to the bill.

Chairman de Braga voiced agreement with the need to protect primacy for the state of Nevada. The threats from the federal government for compliance were to be taken seriously. The reason for needing a two-thirds vote related to the civil fines mandated by the passage of the bill.

Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on A.J.R. 7 and called for the bill sponsor, Speaker Perkins. He was not present in the hearing room.

Assembly Joint Resolution 7: Expresses support of Nevada Legislature for overturn of new federal regulations on surface mining. (BDR R-1287)

A welcome was extended to the Las Vegas videoconference site and guests. After a 10-minute pause in the meeting, Chairman de Braga announced the hearing on A.J.R. 7 would be rescheduled at a later date. She noted it would not be subject to the April 16 deadline.

Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on A.B. 391.

Assembly Bill 391: Provides additional means to enforce Nevada’s claim to public lands. (BDR 26-1455)

Assemblyman Price, sponsor of the bill, commenced testimony in support of A.B. 391. Assemblyman Price explained A.B. 391 was the result of David Horton and was based on a bill from the previous session. The intent of the proposed legislation was to recover Nevada land from the federal government.

Assemblyman Neighbors asked if the bill had originally been assigned to the Committee on Constitutional Amendments. Assemblyman Price, Chairman of that committee, replied his committee authorized the drafting of the bill; however, the assignment of the bill was to the Committee on Natural Resources due to the subject matter.

David Horton, representing the National Committee to Restore the Constitution and the Nevada Freedom Coalition, distributed a voluminous handout (Exhibit E) with ten components and commenced testimony in support of A.B. 391. He explained it was built on the Nevada Public Lands Ownership Act of 1979 and incorporated in Chapter 321 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Mr. Horton stated the 1979 statute asserted Nevada’s constitutional right to the paramount title of all her land. The proposed legislation, A.B. 391, would implement that right by providing a process of the law that enforced the right.

Mr. Horton read from his prepared statement. He systematically reviewed the provisions of the bill and the topic of each of his ten exhibits (Exhibit E). He summarized his testimony and stated Nevada was continuing to lose land, and the 13 percent of state land was actually approaching 11 percent. Mr. Horton added there were several technical corrections to the bill. He cited page 4, line 8 and page 6, line 2 of the bill and suggested the words “national forest” be deleted.

Assemblyman Price resumed testimony and called the committee’s attention to a letter (Exhibit F) received from the Attorney General of Nevada. It rendered an opinion regarding the unconstitutionality of portions of A.B. 391. Chairman de Braga noted a similar letter had been received from the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

Janine Hansen commenced testimony in support of A.B. 391 and read from a publication of her organization, the Nevada Eagle Forum. Ms. Hansen voiced her concerns over the federal ownership of 87 percent of Nevada’s landmass. In Lincoln County, 98.4 percent of the land was federally owned. According to Ms. Hansen, it denied local governments sufficient tax base and created a hardship in rural areas. Destruction of industries in the rural counties was described as a $65 million loss in tax dollars each year.

Compounding the financial devastation were intimidation and harassment by the federal government and making private property ownership unprofitable. The use of public and private lands by ranchers, miners, farmers, fisherman, campers, and travelers was inhibited by federal agencies. The users of the land were becoming an endangered species, according to Ms. Hansen.

Ms. Hansen referred to S.B. 106, a bill that dealt with right-of-way, roads and maps. That bill had just been amended to include a provision allowing a county district attorney to bring action in the absence of action by the Nevada Attorney General. Ms. Hansen emphasized the importance of that enforcement capability by local governments. The intimidation and economic hardship at the hands of the federal government were described as severe.

Assemblyman Collins asked if her research had uncovered the official trail of federal ownership of Nevada and what statute had granted them the authority. Ms. Hansen stated Cliff Gardner had researched that topic thoroughly, and there were other witnesses present in the room who could better respond to that question.

Thomas Jefferson, a resident of Elko and a member of the Jarbidge Shovel Brigade, resumed testimony in support of A.B. 391. In reference to the historic trail of law, he reminded the committee the United States Constitution was a contract between the states and the federal government. The Constitution never granted the federal government the right to own and operate state land. Passage of the bill would have tremendous economic benefit to Nevada.

Mr. Jefferson, in closing, read a letter prepared by O. Q. Chris Johnson (Exhibit G). In his letter, Mr. Johnson cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1845 Pollard v. Hagen in which Alabama prevailed over the federal government. Mr. Johnson viewed that as legal precedent for Nevada’s struggle to be sovereign.

Doug Bierman, Planning Consultant, offered support of A.B. 391 on behalf of Eureka County. It was his view government was best served by the people at the local and state levels. He commended the attendance by citizens who had driven great distances to be at the hearing.

Ken Jones, Sheriff of Eureka County, Nevada, commenced testimony in support of A.B. 391. He stated emphatically the time had come for Nevada to take charge of its destiny. Egregious violations of the public trust by federal agencies were reaching a crisis point. Agriculture and mining were becoming obsolete, and Sheriff Jones’ greatest concern was there would be nothing left in the rural areas of the state. Federal agencies were accountable to nobody.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked about enforcement of violations on federal lands. Sheriff Jones declared he was ready to enforce all laws in Eureka County. If A.B. 391 was enacted, he would uphold the law as he did all laws. Assemblyman Carpenter added somebody would have to make the first arrest somewhere, sometime. It would be important to be clear that the local law enforcement officials would be empowered to handle the situation.

Chairman de Braga called for testimony from the Las Vegas videoconference site.

Ryan Bundy, Las Vegas resident, read a letter (Exhibit H) from Cliven Bundy. Cliven Bundy referenced the 1979 statute and stated 22 years had passed and, in that time, the federal government continued to take over and control more land in the state. There were two forms of government in place in Nevada. Cliven Bundy urged the committee to transform NRS 321 into a constitutional law by passing the proposed legislation.

Ryan Bundy continued testimony and voiced his personal concerns regarding the denial of constitutional rights by the federal government. Congress was allowed to purchase land within a state only with the approval of that state’s legislature. Proposed changes to NRS 321 were a good start, however more attention was needed to ensure the statute would eventually be declared null and void. By doing so, the state of Nevada would reclaim its land for its citizens.

Assemblyman Collins asked if the Bundy family ran cattle on the Arizona strip. Mr. Bundy replied he personally did not, but his extended family did. If he ran cattle there, he would deal with the state of Arizona and not the Bureau of Land Management. He added a comment about Section 5 of the A.B. 391 bill draft and recommended deletion of language.

Chairman de Braga requested clarification of the deletion of subsection 2 of section 5. Mr. Bundy replied his reference was specifically to items c, b, and e on lines 7 through 13.

Assemblyman Carpenter referred back to Dave Horton’s testimony and stated it was his understanding the Forest Service be deleted from the language. If that was the case, the two recommendations appeared to be in conflict. He added that removal of the Indian reservations would invite a lot of trouble.

Mr. Bundy agreed the removal of the reservations would be difficult. He reiterated section c should be the main point to delete.

Chairman de Braga acknowledged there was a lot of confusion regarding the wording of Section 2. She read portions of the language to which Mr. Bundy interjected “except lands which are located within congressionally authorized national parks, monuments, national forests or wildlife refuges… “ Mr. Bundy declared those lands should be taken back and given to the state. Chairman de Braga asked if those items under c, d, and e would be included in lands returned to the state under A.B. 391. Mr. Bundy replied in the affirmative and asked that no exceptions be allowed.

Jonathan Hansen, an attorney in Las Vegas, resumed testimony in support of A.B. 391. He had conducted research on the issue of where the federal government had assumed the authority to own most of Nevada. He found indications of judicial actions that attempted to unlawfully bypass the constitution.

Mr. Hansen stated the focus of his testimony related to the provisions of the constitution that allowed the Attorney General to take action. Upon examining the Nevada Constitution, the only language granting that power was Article 5, Sections 19 and 22. As such, Mr. Hansen questioned the right of the Attorney General to be on the record in opposition to A.B. 391. He stated the Attorney General had no power except what was granted to the office by the Nevada Legislature. In Mr. Hansen’s view, there would be no constitutional violation with the amendment allowing a district attorney to bring action on behalf of the state. He stated the bill had great potential to give Nevada the ability to enforce the rights of the state.

Chairman de Braga asked if the opinion he discussed was the one received by the committee or if it referred to a lawsuit. Mr. Hansen stated it was in reference to a lawsuit. Chairman de Braga clarified the opinion only referred to the unconstitutionality of A.B. 391. She read from the letter (Exhibit F). In summary, the opinion of the Nevada Attorney General was they did not object if counties wished to litigate federal ownership of public lands. If they did litigate, the county attorney must speak for the county and not for the state.

Jonathan Hansen reiterated it was his contention all of that opinion was incorrect. The Nevada Legislature defined the duties of the Attorney General, not the Nevada Constitution. As such, the legislature could state a district attorney had the power to bring an action on behalf of the state. There would no be constitutional violation that would limit a suit.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were additional witnesses in Las Vegas. Zachary Triggs resumed testimony in support of A.B. 391. He recounted a 1996 incident in which his scout troop was stopped by a federal officer on a dirt logging road in Washoe County. Their vehicle was searched, and he was cited for not having a federal use permit. The federal officer threatened to arrest a member of his scout party. Mr. Triggs viewed the entire incident as a gross denial of civil rights. He concluded by saying the county sheriff and county district attorney should be empowered to protect the citizens from the federal wolves.

Following applause for the testimony, Chairman de Braga offered a comment to Ryan Bundy. A letter had been received from Elwood Mose in Elko County urging the passage of the bill; however, he feared the passage would renew the Western Shoshone claims to a portion of northern Nevada. Chairman de Braga suggested it be considered.

In response, Ryan Bundy stated he would propose the land be returned to the Indian reservations and not be included as state lands. The Native Americans had withstood severe control by the federal government. The state of Nevada should assume ownership of all of the land and, in turn, give some back to the Indian reservations.

Chairman de Braga added it could be the entire state if that was the case. Laughter followed.

Jackie Holmgren, a Mineral County rancher, read a letter (Exhibit I) from the Mineral County Sheriff, Richard McKellip, to Daniel Jacquet, BLM, Carson District. In the letter, Sheriff McKellip referenced a report of BLM’s intention to impound cattle belonging to the Holmgrens, owners of the Rawhide Ranch. It was the contention of the BLM the Holmgrens had violated the terms of their management plan. Sheriff McKellip put the BLM on notice it would not participate in or allow the confiscation of any private property unless court-ordered.

Mrs. Holmgren described federal helicopters flying over the ranch and harassing them on the ground. In response to Chairman de Braga, Mrs. Holmgren shared some background information on the events leading up to that point.

During the first year of their ownership of the Rawhide Ranch, the Holmgrens had attempted to operate within the federal management plan. It was determined to be economically infeasible to continue. They approached the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and appealed for changes to the plan. Their requests and subsequent appeals were denied. The threats by the BLM to confiscate cattle ensued.

Chairman de Braga asked a series of questions to determine the extent to which the Holmgrens had abided by the BLM agreement regarding the number of cattle and the months of grazing. Mrs. Holmgren replied the ranch had strictly abided to the terms during the first year. The BLM had not upheld their part of the agreement and allowed an excessive number of wild horses to graze on the HMA. Annual horse counts were not conducted by the BLM according to Mrs. Holmgren.

Assemblyman Brown requested clarification of the term “HMA.” Mrs. Holmgren replied it was “horse management area.” Assemblyman Brown requested copies of both documents of the witness.

Merritt Ike Yochum, Vice Chairman of the Independent American Party, made a simple statement in total support of the bill. He stated the issue had been part of the party platform since its inception.

Richard Brengman, a resident of Douglas County, described himself as a recreational user of federal lands in Nevada. He voiced great concern over the decrease in state ownership from 13 percent down to almost 11 percent currently. Mr. Brengman stated Congress had recently appropriated more land in the Black Rock Desert. He urged the committee to pass A.B. 391 and protect Nevada for Nevadans.

Cliff Gardner, a resident of the Ruby Valley in Elko County, placed a large box with 140 documents on the table and resumed testimony. Before he would fully endorse A.B. 391, he felt it would be necessary to make revisions to the language. In that regard, he agreed with the testimony of the Bundy’s. He read from a prepared statement (no handout). He was motivated to testify because he had seen many friends put out of business through the years. Mr. Gardner alluded to the many lies told by federal agencies and stated it was the federal government that was wreaking havoc on the range lands, not the ranchers.

Chairman de Braga asked if he would be proposing an amendment. Mr. Gardner replied he would not, but he hoped to consult with others regarding amendments. He concluded by saying it was important to heed the advice and testimony of Ryan and Cliven Bundy, especially in regard to the conflicting language in the bill.

Ken Greenwall offered support of the bill with some of the proposed changes in language. He added he would like to be a whole resident and not just a 13 percent citizen of the state.

Bill Kohlmoos, representing the Nevada Miners and Prospectors Association, resumed testimony with enthusiastic support of A.B. 391. With more than 55 years in cattle ranching, he was disheartened by the demise of the mining industry in Nevada. His organization had dwindled from a high of 800 working members to fewer than 35. Mr. Kohlmoos cited several examples where he witnessed federal forest rangers with armed guards forcing the closure of dirt roads. Mr. Kohlmoos personally observed cables stretched across roads and ditches carved out of the middle of roads as methods to keep the public off the public land. He urged the passage of the bill.

Assemblyman Claborn asked for clarification on the number of working miners. The witness stated he would supply him with more accurate figures.

Robert Abbey, Nevada State Director of the Bureau of Land Management, was the first witness to speak in opposition to A.B. 391. He read from a prepared statement (Exhibit J). Building collaborative and constructive relationships with the citizens of Nevada was centermost to his work. It was his belief the BLM and the citizens shared more common goals than differences of opinion. The negative slant of testimony from previous witnesses was unexpected. Mr. Abbey gave several examples of successful programs where thousands of acres had been conveyed to local governments for schools and recreation sites.

Mr. Abbey expressed concern that the momentum of the bill could damage the spirit of volunteerism that had worked so well between citizens and the BLM. He feared hard-working dedicated federal employees would become criminals in the eyes of local jurisdictions. He also feared the reaction of decision makers in Washington, D.C. who determined the allocation of funds to manage public lands.

He summarized by stating the BLM in Nevada was doing a fine job, and improvement was always sought in their program planning. Collaborative processes with constituency groups were routine for his agency. Mr. Abbey stated it was not his place to question the events of the 1800s that created the federal oversight. It was his job to operate under the federal law of the land.

Assemblyman Collins asked if BLM had raised grazing in order to offset the additional wild horses on the open range. Mr. Abbey responded grazing had not been increased. Grazing was determined by allotment, and, where conditions and forage permitted, requests for increase were entertained. He clarified grazing allotments in Clark County had been essentially eliminated in order to protect the desert tortoise, an endangered species. That action had allowed the communities of Clark County to continue to grow.

Assemblyman Neighbors shared a positive experience with Mr. Abbey in Lincoln County. There was a problem with wild horses grazing on the open highways. Mr. Abbey was contacted for funding to erect fencing along the road. An offer of $15,000 was made immediately by the BLM. It had been his experience in Nye County that efforts to free up old mining camps had been very successful. Assemblyman Neighbors acknowledged the cooperation of Mr. Abbey and the BLM.

Chairman de Braga commented on the frustration of many rural residents and an apparent inequity regarding land use. When building on public land was proposed in southern Nevada, the endangered desert tortoise was relocated through an adoption program. In the case of competing uses of public land involving ranching, it appeared the ranching just had to go away. No special considerations were extended to ranching in the accommodation of multiple uses of land. It appeared ranchers were only tolerated and not included in the decision-making process.

Mr. Abbey countered there were two sides to the story. A mediator had been employed in the Holmgren case in order to negotiate a compromise and avoid impoundment of cattle. The key issue was the hot season grazing. The Holmgrens had proposed an excessive number of cattle for grazing, and the BLM judged the area to be too sensitive to support that overuse. Chairman de Braga acknowledged the complications of two sides of the issue.

Assemblyman Carpenter addressed Mr. Abbey and stated the BLM should look at the Holmgren issue again. Because of the expanse of land, Assemblyman Carpenter urged the BLM to control the wild horse population and allow cattle grazing.

In response to Assemblyman Carpenter’s question regarding the sage hen population, Mr. Abbey stated the BLM was a partner with many other entities on the Governor’s Sage Grouse Committee. The committee report of recommendations was due in May, 2001. Mr. Abbey added he would be happy to look at the Holmgren issue again.

Juanita Cox, citizen lobbyist, distributed a handout (Exhibit K) and commenced testimony in support of A.B. 391. She represented two organizations, People to Protect America and People Organized for the Next Generation. Ms. Cox urged the committee to return the public land to Nevada so counties could develop a property tax base for their communities. She appealed to the committee to make Nevada a 100 percent state.

Don Bowman, citizen, testified in support of A.B. 391. In his opinion, the Southern Nevada Lands Act had not been beneficial to the rural counties in Nevada. The money generated from the sale of public lands in Clark County was used to purchase sensitive lands in other areas of the state. It was his observation those tracts of land were over-grown with weeds and devoid of wildlife. Mr. Bowman reminded the committee the state legislature should renew the practice of approving the acquisition of public lands.

Chairman de Braga requested clarification if the witness was referring to the land taken for the establishment of parks. Mr. Bowman replied in the affirmative and added the Nevada Revised Statutes charged the state with the approval of land projects (e.g., Hoover Dam, Lehman Caves). The federal government had ceased asking for the approval of the state of Nevada.

John Rosenlund, a lifetime resident of White Pine County, resumed testimony in support of A.B. 391. Through the years, he observed a visible increase in the number of federal employees in the rural areas of the state. At the same time, the sheep population suffered a dramatic decrease in numbers. Mr. Rosenlund remarked there had been talk of federal planning efforts to assist ranchers, but that amounted to nothing but empty promises. The situation was worsened by massive range fires in recent years that diverted millions of taxpayer dollars. In summary, the federal government had nothing to show for their ever-growing presence in the rural areas of Nevada. Mr. Rosenlund urged the committee to establish local control of public land.

Assemblyman Collins asked the witness if he was blaming the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the decline in ranching. Mr. Rosenlund replied the federal management had made it too difficult to survive. There was a time when ranching was a thriving industry in Nevada, and that was no longer true for many reasons.

Rob Pecchenino, a sovereign citizen of Nevada and a member of the Independent American Party, commenced testimony in support of A.B. 391. He made reference to the Black Rock Desert and stated Nevada was fully capable of caring for its lands. He viewed the federal government’s management of Nevada land and its conspicuous curtailment of citizen freedom with increasing distrust. In his judgment, the government was out of control.

Cliven Bundy, a resident of Las Vegas and a supporter of A.B. 391, stated NRS 321, enacted in 1979, had done little good for the state of Nevada. As a rancher, Mr. Bundy refused to bow to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and he was proud of maintaining his independence from the BLM in his cattle operation.

David Holmgren, owner of the Rawhide Ranch in Mineral County, distributed a handout (Exhibit L) and gave testimony in favor of A.B. 391. Mr. Holmgren cited statistics from the Mineral County Assessor’s office that illustrated the dramatic decrease in assessed values during the past five years. In 1995, Mineral County had $28.25 million in assessed values in mining. Today there was only $1.7 million left and falling. Mr. Holmgren attributed the situation to the plight of the small miner on public lands.

Mr. Holmgren stated emphatically he had broken no laws. In his judgment, BLM was guilty of ignoring constitutional law and failing to adhere to their own regulations. He acknowledged the remarks of Assemblyman Carpenter and agreed Mr. Abbey should do something positive in his collaboration with the citizens.

Chairman de Braga asked if the Holmgren land allotment had been decreased since the ranch was purchased. Mr. Holmgren replied the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had not increased the allotment; however, in his opinion, his allotment under management (AUM) was set at a low level. His allotment was being overrun by wild horses, and it was worsened by the BLM’s threat to confiscate his cattle.

Additionally, Mr. Holmgren took issue with the hot-season grazing. The wild horses, deer, antelope, and rabbits had not migrated, but his cattle were required by BLM to relocate. Mr. Holmgren stated emphatically his water allotments were being unfairly diverted to support the wild horses on a year-round basis. His requests to BLM for adjustments to his AUM were ignored. In his judgment, BLM had a single interest and that was to confiscate his land.

Assemblyman Neighbors asked about his working relationship with the state water engineer. Mr. Holmgren described the state engineer as supportive. There was pressure from BLM to not use their water rights. It was his opinion his cattle had contained the wild horses and allowed the revegetation of the desert plant life. Mr. Holmgren concluded his testimony and stated he had high regard for the natural resources of the Nevada desert.

The final witness to testify on A.B. 391 was Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club. Mr. Johnson stated, for the record, his support of the federal workforce. Those individuals, in his opinion, were working to support existing federal law. He urged the committee to delete Sections 2 and 3 if action was taken on the bill. Mr. Johnson believed those sections would place individuals in jeopardy of either not performing their federal duties or being in violation of state law. Any changes to law should be made at the federal level. He concluded by stating the bill, as written, would be an attack on federal employees.

Chairman de Braga asked if a representative of the Nevada Attorney General’s Office was present, however the witness had departed.

Assemblyman Collins directed his attention to the audience and summarized his viewpoints on A.B. 391. He fully supported the concept of the bill, and if a vote were called, he would vote in the affirmative; however, he urged caution to all present. Assemblyman Collins cited the examples of Wyoming and Idaho where the state had assumed ownership of the lands. Once the lands were put out to bid, wealthy individuals succeeded in securing the land at the expense of the existing ranchers. The loss of grazing rights to state land had become serious. If a Robert Redford or Ted Turner purchased large tracts of land, it could be fenced off and lost to the public.

Assemblyman Collins reiterated the need for the Bureau of Land Management to be more neighborly with the citizens, especially in regard to grazing rights. The efforts to contain wild horses were being increased. He concluded by saying, “Be careful what you ask for.”

For the record, several exhibits were received. The first was a letter (Exhibit M) from Pam Wilcox, Nevada Division of Lands, outlining concerns with A. B. 391.

Exhibit N was a statement from Ernest Colton who supported the bill in concept, but had misgivings with the language of the bill. The third document was a 3-page letter (Exhibit O) from Elsie Dupree of the Nevada Wildlife Federation, Inc. who urged a “no” vote on A.B. 391.

Seeing no additional witnesses, the hearing was closed on A.B. 391. Chairman de Braga expressed her thanks to the witnesses for their participation. The meeting was adjourned at 4:42 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

June Rigsby

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: