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

April 9, 2001

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, April 9, 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 Marvel

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. John J. Lee

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

June Rigsby, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Dr. Jason Geddes, Chemist, Nevada Department of Agriculture

Joe Johnson, President, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club

Paul Grace, Lobbyist, Nevada Victory Fund

Peter Krueger, Executive, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association

Blair Poulsen, Vice President, Nevada Propane Dealers’ Association

John Hengen, Nevada Utility Reform Alliance

Thelma Clark, Member, LP Gas Board

Alex Haartz, Deputy Administrator, Nevada Health Division

Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

John Kobza, Sierra Environmental Monitoring Laboratory

Don Bowman, Realtor

Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers’ Association

Bill Bradley, Nevada Trial Lawyers’ Association

R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Cathy Barcomb, Administrator, Wild Horse Commission

Dr. Mike Kirk, Wild Horse Commission

Larry Johnson, Chairman, Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife

Pat Hannigan, Citizen, Mineral County

David Holmgren, Rawhide Ranch, Mineral County

Chairman de Braga declared the committee would convene as a subcommittee pending the arrival of members. The hearing on A.B. 629 was opened.

Assembly Bill 629: Authorizes state board of agriculture to adopt standards for liquefied petroleum gas used as fuel. (BDR 51-543)

Dr. Jason Geddes, Chemist with the Nevada Department of Agriculture, distributed a handout (Exhibit C) and commenced testimony on an amendment to A.B. 629. Dr. Geddes was of the opinion the bill had been drafted with some errors. After meeting with the liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and natural gas industries, they had drafted revisions to the bill, and those revisions did not make it into the bill as drafted. Dr. Geddes stated the handout (Exhibit C) captured the original intent.

Dr. Geddes summarized the intent as a clarification of confusion of jurisdiction. The LPG Board had the authority to regulate liquefied petroleum gas, and the Department of Agriculture had the authority to deal with fuels consumed by motor vehicles. Confusion had arisen with the use of LPG in motor vehicles. Dr. Geddes read from the handout (Exhibit C). The use of LPG and natural gas for alternative fuels in motor vehicles was described as much cleaner to burn and therefore dictated a different environmental scrutiny by regulators. Additionally, Dr. Geddes made the distinction in the transmission of the fuels, with natural gas transported through large pipelines and the LPG handled in large storage tanks. The traditional restrictions placed on vehicle fuels would be cost-prohibitive and unnecessary for the cleaner burning natural gas and LPG.

Dr. Geddes made reference to ongoing difficulties in California where LPG and natural gas had been subjected to the same high standards as other fuels. Increasingly, fleets (e.g., school buses) using environmentally friendly fuels were being abandoned because of the lack of fuel supply meeting the strict California specifications.

Dr. Geddes summarized by saying they would like to keep LPG and natural gas in the exemption statement at the top of page 2 of Exhibit C. He stated there was agreement with the amendment from the LPG Board, the Propane Dealers Association, and the natural gas companies. Dr. Geddes requested a “do pass as amended.”

Chairman de Braga stated there was no reference to regulations in California, and she asked if the bill was passed, would it cause any difficulties if the regulations in California changed. Specifically, she was referring to the last paragraph, Section 2, NRS 590.070. Dr. Geddes explained the reference to California was currently in the NRS.

Chairman de Braga announced a quorum was present, and the meeting would resume as a full committee. Roll was called, and the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order. Testimony on A.B. 629 resumed.

Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, made a brief statement asking to go on record in support of A.B. 629 as amended.

After attempting to close the hearing on A.B. 629, Chairman de Braga re-opened the hearing for questions. Assemblyman Claborn asked for clarification on butane. Dr. Geddes explained that liquefied petroleum gas covered propane and butane mixes. Most gas was propane enriched with some butane for use at higher altitudes and in hotter climates.

Paul Grace, a citizen representing himself and several neighbors, distributed a handout (Exhibit D). As a new resident of Nevada, he described purchasing a house with a propane tank in the yard. The tank was the property of a propane supplier. He expressed his shock and disappointment over being unable to shop for the lowest-cost supply of fuels. Mr. Grace was forced by law to deal with the original installer of the tank in his yard.

Mr. Grace called the committee’s attention to his handout that consisted of an amended statement he proposed for addition to A.B. 629. It read “The board shall, pursuant to the provisions of NRS 590.615, allow any dealer licensed pursuant to the provisions of subsection 1 of NRS 590.575 to fill or refill any tank under the provisions of NRS 590.525, NRS 590.605 through 590.645, and NAC 590.270.” That would allow any licensed dealer to fill anybody’s tank. In his judgment, it would not affect liability or risk and, further, would promote healthy competition.

Chairman de Braga requested clarification of why the witness had not purchased his own personal tank. Mr. Grace stated he did not understand his options at the time of home purchase. He added the consequence of owning a tank could be the refusal of dealers to sell him propane, the reason being safety concerns. His personal cost for propane exceeded $2000 for the past winter season.

Assemblyman Collins asked if the propane dealers had explained the liability of filling his tank and if his homeowner’s insurance would increase. Mr. Grace stated his homeowner’s policy would cover a personally owned tank, unless it had a faulty filling apparatus. He acknowledged the potential for liability, and he viewed the amendment as providing choice for both the customer and the dealer.

In response to Assemblyman Claborn, the witness explained he did not have knowledge about the similarity in tank equipment. The propane tanks in his neighborhood appeared to be identical, and the propane purchased from four different companies appeared to be identical. In his judgment, his neighbors were as restricted in shopping for fuel.

Chairman de Braga announced she would temporarily delay closing the hearing on A.B. 629 until additional witnesses arrived. Dr. Geddes asked to be recognized to address a previous comment. He was of the opinion that anticipated testimony might best be addressed to A.B. 292 which dealt with that issue. He reiterated his bill dealt exclusively with jurisdiction regarding LPG as a motor fuel. Chairman de Braga agreed and added it would not be appropriate to amend the bill that dealt specifically with its use as fuel for vehicles.

Peter Krueger, State Executive for the Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association, apologized for his late arrival. He introduced Blair Poulsen, representing the Nevada Propane Dealers’ Association.

Blair Poulsen, Vice President of the Nevada Propane Dealers’ Association, resumed testimony in support of the amended version of A.B. 629. The intent was to clarify what was already being requested of the Department of Agriculture. Chairman de Braga asked for clarification of his support of the amended draft. He stated his support was for the version dated April 9, 2001.

John Hengen, representing the Nevada Utility Reform Alliance, offered a brief statement in support of A.B. 629, with the addition of No. 6 (Exhibit D) as submitted by Paul Grace. Chairman de Braga corrected the witness and stated, unfortunately, No. 6 did not fit the subject of A.B. 629. As such, it could not be adopted as an amendment. Mr. Hengen argued it was all under the directives of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board. Chairman de Braga clarified the bill addressed liquefied petroleum gas as a fuel, and the amendment (i.e., No. 6) did not fit A.B. 629.

Seeing no additional witnesses, Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 629. A motion was requested for passage on A.B. 629 with the amendment submitted by the Department of Agriculture. Assemblyman Collins moved to “amend and do pass” A.B. 629. The motion was seconded by Assemblyman Claborn. Chairman de Braga called for discussion before asking for a vote.

Assemblyman Humke referred to the amendment submitted by Mr. Grace and stated he felt it to be appropriate to the section of NRS under consideration. As such, Assemblyman Humke made a motion to amend the motion to include the amendment (Exhibit D).

Chairman de Braga acknowledged the amendment addressed the same chapter of NRS, however the subject was unique. Assemblyman Collins clarified A.B. 292 would more appropriately address that issue and expressed hope it would be addressed at that time. In response, Assemblyman Humke stated A.B. 292 would not be heard. Assemblyman Collins apologized and said he was not aware of that. He offered no further comment. Assemblyman Claborn added his favorable view of the amendment (Exhibit D).

Blair Poulsen, representing the Nevada Propane Dealers’ Association, resumed testimony and stated Dr. Geddes had given him an amended version of A.B. 629. It did not include the amendment (No. 6 of Exhibit D. He stated his preference to either view that amendment or withdraw his support of the bill. His position of support had not included amendment statement No. 6.

Assemblyman Collins acknowledged the amendment under vote was the 3-page version submitted by the Department of Agriculture (Exhibit C). Regarding the newly submitted No. 6 (Exhibit D), Assemblyman Collins asked the witness why he was opposed to filling propane tanks owned by other companies.

Mr. Poulsen explained there were many complex issues involving the delivery of propane. A propane dealer was required to either sell the equipment installed on the property or allow another propane vendor to deliver fuel to that tank. The problems were liability issues. He cited the example of a 40-year-old leased tank. There was no mechanism to guarantee the safety by the manufacturer. As the supplier of the propane, he would assume the responsibility for the tank in someone else’s possession. Additionally, there were varying degrees of quality in the propane product itself (e.g., contaminants, water). That variability compounded liability for the company that owned the propane tank.

Chairman de Braga made brief mention of an accident in which an employee was killed in the process of filling a propane tank. She stated, when a portable tank was transported for refilling, a waiver was required for signature that identified the owner of the tank. Chairman de Braga voiced concern over how inspections would be accomplished.

Blair Poulsen asked if the issue was how the consumer would be protected, to which Chairman de Braga replied in the affirmative. Mr. Poulsen stated Nevada was unique in that the LPG Board regulated all of the propane in the state. The Board required vendors to be licensed for delivery of products. When the tanks became the property of the homeowner, the homeowner assumed the responsibility for the safety of the tank on the property.

Chairman de Braga clarified and stated if a homeowner legally owned the tank, anybody could and would fill that tank. Mr. Poulsen agreed and added, from a vendor’s standpoint, when dealing with a customer-owned tank, a 30-minute inspection was performed prior to refilling. That was designed to protect the vendor from faulty, dangerous equipment.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if the tanks had a date specifying an expiration point. Mr. Poulsen replied it was true of DOT tanks that operated under distinct regulations. In contrast, ASME tanks in residential use could be in the field for decades without recertification. Assemblyman Mortenson commented on the apparent irony of that situation.

Paul Grace, author of the No. 6 amendment under discussion, requested time for a rebuttal statement. He voiced his confusion with comments and called attention to the wording “allows any dealer under the provisions of existing regulation to fill any tank under all the existing regulations including the safety and liability issues.” Mr. Grace added it did not require any dealer to do anything, and it could result in no dealer offering him competitively priced propane. He failed to see how passing the amendment would hurt a supplier in any way, and he was baffled. It was fully regulated already, and it added the option to compete.

John Hengen requested time for rebuttal and reminded the committee nowhere in any bill was a requirement for a vendor to fill a tank. In his view, the bill was saying a consumer would have the option to notify the dealer who owned his tank that he had an offer of a cheaper supply from another vendor. The amendment (Exhibit D) would encourage competition between the vendors, and that would be healthy and a natural course of business.

Assemblyman Collins asked if a competing vendor would fill a tank owned by another vendor without a safety inspection and added cost. Even if the law was changed with No. 6, the industry might not cooperate and give the consumer the opportunity to shop for a better price. Assemblyman Collins stated the witness was at the wrong place to request the change under discussion. The gas providers would more appropriately be solicited to support the changes in question. Mr. Hengen reiterated the amended bill would allow the industry to be competitive.

Thelma Clark, a member of the LP Gas Board, stated their opposition to having propane connected with A.B. 629. A consumer bill of rights was supplied by the board to all dealers which, in turn, was distributed to customers. That bill of rights allowed a client to change dealers (and tanks) whenever they wanted. The new propane supplier would install a new tank. She concluded by saying safety was of great concern, and routine tank inspection was essential.

Chairman de Braga declared the maker of the motion, Assemblyman Collins, did not wish to amend the amendment. The committee would vote on the amendment as submitted by the Department of Agriculture (Exhibit C). Chairman de Braga called for a vote.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS

A.B. 629.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

The hearing on A.B. 630 was opened.

Assembly Bill 630: Makes various changes relating to testing for environmental contamination. (BDR 40-1456)

Chairman de Braga reminded the members that A.B. 630 was their subcommittee bill that resulted from the leukemia hearings. An important aspect of the bill as originally drafted was to give the Nevada Health Division the ability to maintain the confidentiality of information gathered during investigations of environmental contamination, specifically individual home sites. Chairman de Braga had since been informed the Health Division did not need the bill because they already had that ability; however, there was discussion to change the bill to state if a private or public certified testing laboratory found contaminants above the federal standard, it would have to be reported to the Nevada Health Division.

Chairman de Braga voiced concern over the viewpoint of the Health Division that reporting was not needed. It would be important to require reporting in the language of the bill, according to the Chairman. Clarification was requested.

Alex Haartz, Deputy Administrator of the Nevada Health Division, acknowledged the work of the subcommittee in the drafting of A.B. 630. He distributed a prepared statement (Exhibit E). Water sampling of case families in Fallon was underway. Currently, for any water covered by the Safe Drinking Water Act, the laboratory test results would be automatically reported to the Health Division. Well water, on the other hand, did not have the requirement; however, Mr. Haartz expressed his confidence in testing laboratories and believed the Health Division would be notified of contaminants. With their existing authority under NRS 439, the requirement in A.B. 630 was not needed.

Chairman de Braga asked for clarification on the lack of requirement, by law, to report on well water. Mr. Haartz acknowledged there was no legal requirement. There had never been a situation where the clout of a law was needed to compel a lab to report. Cooperation had been effective in the past. Mr. Haartz stated a preference for collaboration rather than law.

Chairman de Braga asked about other environmental testing (e.g., soil, air). Mr. Haartz stated the Health Division had no involvement in those areas. Their jurisdiction was drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Allen Biaggi, Administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), offered to testify on soil, air, and water testing. His agency had authority to go onto private property for purposes of gathering samples during investigations of suspected contamination. That information became a matter of public record due to the likelihood of downstream migration of contaminants.

Chairman de Braga requested examples of contaminants reported to his agency. Mr. Biaggi explained there were guidelines for levels of contaminants used in concert with regulations and statutes governing operations. Chairman de Braga reiterated there appeared to be strict reporting for soil and air, however not for water. Mr. Biaggi corrected the statement and stated water contamination was reported to NDEP, but not to the Health Division.

In response to Chairman de Braga, Mr. Biaggi declared the information would be passed to the Health Division “at times.” Chairman de Braga posed a hypothetical situation in which she had well water tested through a private lab, and the results came back positive for benzene. She asked if she was required to report that result. She voiced concern over keeping that requirement for reporting out of statute.

Mr. Biaggi replied if a facility discovered benzene in their water supply, they were required under law to report to NDEP. The reluctance was related to placing the burden for reporting on the laboratories. The language of A.B. 630 was “may pose a public health risk,” and there was concern over the confidentiality of the contract between a private lab and the client.

Chairman de Braga reasserted her concern that, in cases where contamination of private well water existed, the proper agencies would be notified. Protection of the public health was the issue.

Assemblyman Claborn requested clarification if there was water testing inside homes. Mr. Haartz explained there was no routine testing of water coming out of a household tap. If a homeowner wanted testing, his agency would supply a list of laboratories and other information they would need to make decisions. He clarified the county district health department in Las Vegas would be the agency to contact for help. All municipal drinking water was routinely tested under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Joe Johnson, representing the Sierra Club, offered general support of A.B. 630 and “the public’s right to know.” He voiced concern over Section 3 and the secrecy and privilege granted. He believed there was a right to collect the samples, and he appreciated the need for the sharing of results with a responsible governmental agency. Environmental managers had an obligation to report, whereas the laboratories would be exempt.

John Kobza, representing Sierra Environmental Monitoring Laboratory in Reno, voiced concerns over A.B. 630. He stated the concept of the bill was valid; however, he predicted there would be logistic nightmares for the Nevada Health Division and the testing laboratories. He viewed the language as too vague and was concerned the references to the NRS were not all appropriate. Reporting of water testing could include discharged water. The maximum contaminant levels (MCL) were established for clean drinking water. There would be reporting problems for secondary water supplies (e.g., discharged water), and reporting could be required for supplies that had no public health consequences.

Mr. Kobza stated that human health risk was the foundation of water standards for drinking water. The language of A.B. 630 suggested the reporting of results for secondary water, regardless of having no potential health risk. That was problematic and would create a logistic nightmare. It would mandate the response of the Nevada Health Division and the laboratory, resulting in a burden for all parties. The vagueness of the language would cause complications.

Mr. Kobza addressed the problem of a consumer dealing with a non-certified laboratory and being told his water needed an expensive water treatment system. Consumer fraud would result. In conclusion, Mr. Kobza stated the costs to test water were very high, and the business was very competitive. He asked the committee to reconsider the vague wording of the bill.

Chairman de Braga asked the witness what his laboratory routinely reported on water samples. Mr. Kobza replied their reporting covered everything that was related to public water systems. If the testing represented a private contract between his lab and a client, the results would only be reported to the client. Chairman de Braga declared that was the problem with contaminated private well water. In the case of selling the property, Mr. Kobza was of the opinion the real estate contract would cover that disclosure. He speculated the lending agency would uncover that information. Chairman de Braga disagreed and continued to voice her concern about keeping the knowledge of contamination a secret.

Mr. Kobza concluded by stating laboratory results of contaminants in private well water did not get reported to a state agency; however, his laboratory did not routinely test for benzene. It would be reported to the lending agency in the case of a real estate transaction. Chairman de Braga reiterated her concern of the secrecy of lab results, and Mr. Kobza agreed. He added he was required by state law to maintain confidentiality for their clients.

Don Bowman, representing the real estate industry, offered to clarify the issue for the committee. Buyers were capable of requesting water testing prior to purchase. If a seller knew of a problem with the property and failed to disclose, the seller was committing fraud.

Ray Bacon, representing the Nevada Manufacturer’s Association, made a brief statement about the broad language of A.B. 630. He was of the opinion the bill needed work. A certified laboratory that was part of an industrial operation might have to report process levels on water never leaving the facility. In all cases, the results would have exceeded the standards for water testing. The bill should specifically apply to drinking water standards.

Assemblyman Collins asked if water was used only for processing within a manufacturing facility, would there ever be the situation where that water was inadvertently mixed with the drinking water supply. Mr. Bacon replied the maintenance of a manufacturing process included the frequent sampling from processing tanks. The aqueous-based materials were often “nasty” and clearly in excess of every standard for drinking water. Mr. Bacon urged the committee to overhaul the language of the bill.

Chairman de Braga asked how the public would ever know if there was well water contamination on land parceled for home building purposes. Mr. Bacon stated if the water had been previously tested, the original property owner would be guilty of fraud if he failed to disclose. Often the failure to know of a problem was related to the failure to request that test. The cost would be prohibitive to perform mass testing for a multitude of substances.

Bill Bradley, representing the Nevada Trial Lawyer’s Association, voiced concerns about the issue of confidentiality in A.B. 630. He was unsure if the county board had subpoena power. If consent was required and there was an unwilling property owner, any resulting problem could be solved with subpoena power. Chairman de Baraga clarified if the bill was passed, that portion would be removed because the Health Division apparently already had that ability.

Seeing no additional witnesses, Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 630 and declared a three-minute recess.

Following a 16-minute recess, Chairman de Braga called the meeting to order and opened the hearing on A.B. 662.

Assembly Bill 662: Revises provisions relating to authorization for expenditure of money in Heil trust fund for wild horses. (BDR 45-1516)

R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E. Director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, distributed a handout (Exhibit F) and commenced testimony in support of A.B. 662. Mr. Turnipseed reviewed action from the 1999 Legislative Session in which his agency was authorized to spend funds from the Heil trust fund. An amount of $15,000 was allotted to study the feasibility of creating a nonprofit, national wild horse foundation. The money was matched by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Mr. Turnipseed clarified the bill did not spend the money, but rather eliminated the language “money is needed for emergency and the.” Previously, legislative approval was required to spend the money below the $900,000 level unless there was an emergency. In the current Department of Conservation budget was $400,000 to be spent over the next two years for the creation of the foundation. It would have to be self-sustaining after that point.

Assemblyman Collins asked if BLM expenditures had improved in the area of wild horse management in recent years. Mr. Turnipseed referred the question to Cathy Barcomb.

Cathy Barcomb, Administrator of the Wild Horse Commission for the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, replied in the affirmative. She reported her confidence that BLM would fulfill its promise of matching funds in the amount of $400,000. A handout (Exhibit G) outlining the foundation plan was distributed to the committee. A copy of the 1999 report of the Nevada Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses was distributed (Exhibit K).

Chairman de Braga requested clarification on the formal request for funding with Ways & Means. Mr. Turnipseed replied it was part of their budget proposal. In response to the Chairman, Ms. Barcomb clarified the Heil trust fund had a current balance of $1.1 million, and the proposed spending would reduce it by $400,000 over two and one-half years. Grants and gifts would remain as part of the formula for spending.

Assemblyman Humke asked if A.B. 662 could be amended to remove the Wild Horse Commission from the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Following some laughter in the room, Mr. Turnipseed admitted that he had not given that issue much thought. He anticipated a decision would be required by the Committee on Natural Resources within the next ten years when the Heil trust money was inevitably depleted.

Assemblyman Humke requested clarification on whether the creation of the foundation would make the function more freestanding and self-sustaining. Mr. Turnipseed replied in the affirmative. The first duty of the commission would be to conduct marketing strategies and to solicit private grants to support the wild horse adoption program. Mr. Turnipseed predicted, several years from now, it would be a Nevada Legislature decision to determine if Nevada could withdraw state oversight of wild horse management.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the Heil trust fund would be completely depleted to zero dollars. Cathy Barcomb replied “no” and explained it would reduce the balance to approximately $700,000 at the end of two and one-half years. It would take a total of 10 to 12 years to deplete the balance to zero. Grant funds and revenue generation could play a role and keep the commission operative beyond ten years.

Assemblyman Carpenter voiced concern over the possibility of a lawsuit alleging misappropriation of funds from the Heil trust fund. Cathy Barcomb explained the Attorney General had reviewed the proposal, and she felt confident they were operating within the stated intent of the Heil trust. She added A.B. 662 simply removed the word “emergency,” and to spend down below $900,000 would still require legislative approval.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if there were private administrators of the Heil trust fund. Cathy Barcomb explained Leo Heil had died in the early 1970’s, and he left his estate to Nevada with a one-line request, “to preserve and protect wild horses.” There had been a lawsuit filed by remaining family members against the state of Nevada; however, the family did not succeed with the lawsuit. Assemblyman Mortenson voiced confusion over the complete depletion of a trust fund. Ms. Barcomb replied the Heil money had sat in the state treasury for ten years. In 1985, the legislature studied the issue and recommended the establishment of a commission.

Chairman de Braga asked if the commission would return to the committee in two years with the same request. Ms. Barcomb replied they would not. Research had revealed philanthropists were much more willing to donate money to foundations that had no government ties. As such, there was an implied goal to become independent of state funding. The initial spending would be the capital needed ($800,000) to get the foundation up and running, ultimately becoming self-sustaining after two years. Chairman de Braga commented that $800,000 was a substantial amount of start-up money. Ms. Barcomb added it would also fund the operation of the foundation.

Dr. Mike Kirk, a member of the Wild Horse Commission since 1988, resumed testimony in support of A.B. 662. He expressed optimism on the subject of the collaboration with the Bureau of Land Management.

Larry Johnson, Chairman of the Coalition for Nevada Wildlife, offered testimony in support of A.B. 662. Mr. Johnson added he was also the wildlife representative to the National Wildlife and Burro Advisory Board for the Bureau of Land Management; however, he stated his testimony would not reflect that national affiliation.

Mr. Johnson stated his involvement was inspired by his general dissatisfaction with the treatment and management of wild horses in Nevada. In his judgment, the formation of a foundation under A.B. 662 would greatly accelerate the adoption rate of the wild horses. The rate of gathering horses had always been limited by a lag in the adoption process. He called attention to the fact that Nevada had more than one-half of the entire wild horse population in North America. There was an established goal of removing 6,500 wild horses from Nevada in the coming year. Some would be handled by adoption, and others would be safely held in pasture for the duration of their lives.

Mr. Johnson stated, despite commendable efforts by the federal government, Nevada was shorted in the distribution of funds. Mr. Johnson implored the committee to lobby Nevada’s federal congressional delegation to commit to matching funds for the next three years. He concluded by saying, when the horse population reached a manageable level, the adoption process would maintain that level.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the horse program at the prisons had helped the adoption success and had added to a change in public perceptions. Mr. Johnson was in full agreement. He added the challenge to adoption was the fact the horse was wild, and the average adopters were not experienced horsemen equipped to handle a wild horse.

Pat Hannigan, a resident of Mina, Nevada, made a brief statement in opposition to A.B. 662. He declared the bill as useless and akin to the sacred cow in India.

David Holmgren, owner of the Rawhide Ranch in Mineral County, called attention to another western state that established a wild horse refuge of 200,000 acres. The program was judged to be successful, and Mr. Holmgren suggested Nevada could follow that example.

Seeing no additional witnesses, Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 662.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO PASS A.B. 662.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

The work session on A.B. 391 was opened. Chairman de Braga announced that testimony could not be volunteered by guests; however, clarification could be requested by the committee.

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst, distributed a work session document (Exhibit H) and two reports, the first entitled “State Approval of Federal Land Acquisition” and the second entitled “State Sovereignty Bill in New Mexico” (Exhibit I). Ms. Eissmann commenced discussion of A.B. 391.

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

During the testimony on March 28, two amendments were offered orally by witnesses. The first amendment, proposed by Mr. Dave Horton (Exhibit H), would remove “national forests” from Section 5 where they were currently among several exceptions to the definition of public lands. The second amendment was suggested by Mr. Ryan Bundy. It would delete language thereby expanding the applicability of the definition of public lands to include lands that were previously identified as exceptions.

Ms. Eissmann presented research findings on two specific requests made by the committee. The first was on New Mexico legislation, S.B. 1, which echoed the provisions of A.B. 391 in Nevada. The New Mexico bill declared disaster areas within certain national forests and asserted state of New Mexico sovereignty over those national forests to protect the lives and property of its citizens. Empowerment of counties would be made by invoking the state of New Mexico’s police power.

The second issue concerned the federal government’s failure to seek state consent on federal land acquisitions (Exhibit I). Ms. Eissmann summarized her findings and stated state consent was still required for land acquisitions; however, the state’s consent procedures had changed over time and no longer required specific legislative action for each acquisition.

Assemblyman Carpenter commented on Section 2 that stated a person who performed an act with respect to management or disposal of the public lands in Nevada, but was not an agent of the state, would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. He did not believe it should be placed in statute. Assemblyman Carpenter voiced additional concern over Section 3 and requested it be deleted. If the counties wanted to pass ordinances and defend those ordinances, the counties would enforce and charge the appropriate penalties. He concluded by stating his agreement with a county district attorney being empowered to defend county ordinances.

Chairman de Braga asked Assemblyman Carpenter for specific changes to A.B. 391. He verbally reviewed his specific recommendations, citing page numbers and lines from his notes.

Chairman de Braga reminded the committee of the two amendments in the work session document (Exhibit H). Those amendments recommended changes to Section 5 and Section 9 of A.B. 391.

Assemblyman Brown asked for clarification of the New Mexico legislation and whether the declaration of a disaster was part of a statutory scheme that overrode federal law. Ms. Eissmann stated when a state invoked police power, it was often the result of an emergency in which life or property was endangered.

Assemblyman Brown suggested the committee borrow the terminology of the New Mexico legislation so the state could declare control in similar situations. Ms. Eissmann replied it might be necessary to define a specific area as opposed to any land belonging to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In New Mexico, that determination was left to the county commissioners to define the disaster areas in collaboration with federal agencies.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the New Mexico statute could be described as enforceable on a “case by case” basis. Ms. Eissmann agreed in so far as each county commission could establish the disaster areas within the national forests within their jurisdiction. It appeared to remove jurisdiction from the U.S. Forest Service. In response to Assemblyman Marvel, no limits had been placed on the duration of disaster area designation in the New Mexico legislation.

In response to Assemblyman Humke, Ms. Eissmann stated New Mexico’s S.B. 1 was passed by their legislature on March 8 and was signed by the Governor of New Mexico. The effective date was unknown. Assemblyman Humke commented the bill could serve as a model for Nevada. It was future-oriented in the sense of identifying high-risk areas in advance.

Ms. Eissmann shared the contents of a note form the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Typically, a bill such as the New Mexico legislation was in response to a current emergency and not a past emergency. Assemblyman Humke reiterated his interest in looking at New Mexico’s legislative language. He added, with the appropriate preamble, the types of emergencies could be determined for Nevada.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if Assemblyman Carpenter’s recommendations for amending A.B. 391 could be drafted in writing for review. Chairman de Braga voiced some concern over the time to draft and discuss a written document. Assemblyman Carpenter explained he had kept the county commissioners in the language in order to empower them to handle emergency situations with local ordinances. The counties would know what was best for their areas.

Assemblyman Mortenson made a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 391 with Assemblyman Carpenter’s amendments. Assemblyman Marvel reiterated his request for a written copy of the amendments before voting. Chairman de Braga announced the amendment would be drafted by Linda Eissmann for review by the committee.

A letter from the Eureka County Sheriff was submitted in support of A.B. 391 (Exhibit J).

The work session was closed, and the meeting was adjourned at 3:37 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

June Rigsby

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: