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 11, 2001

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, April 11, 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. David Humke

Mr. John J. Lee

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Jerry Claborn

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Speaker Richard Perkins, District 23

Assemblyman Bob Beers, District 4

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

June Rigsby, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Ian Massy, Student, Foothill High School, Las Vegas

Paul Roland, Student, Foothill High School, Las Vegas

Sean Sablan, Student, Foothill High School, Las Vegas

Steve Blackistone, Director of State and Local Affairs, National Transportation and Safety Board, Washington, D.C.

Doug Bierman, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority

Joe Guild, Newmont Mining

Hugh Ricci, P.E., State Engineer, Nevada Division of Water Resources

Roll was called, and the hearing on A.B. 632 was opened.

Assembly Bill 632: Prohibits operation of certain vessels unless persons less than 16 years of age are wearing personal flotation devices while vessel is under way. (BDR 43-1487)

Speaker Richard Perkins, representing District 23, made introductory remarks in support of A.B. 632. In recent years it became apparent to Speaker Perkins the voice of the student was absent from legislative policy debates. Because of a student’s unique perspective, a contest called “Democracy in Action” was sponsored in District 23 for purposes of engendering interest in policy making. Rules required each student entry to propose public policy modification that would result in a change in law. A committee of community leaders and educators selected the winning entry, now embodied in A.B. 632. Speaker Perkins announced the winners as Thomas Humphrey, Ian Massy, Paul Roland, Sean Sablan, and Brittany Murphy.

Ian Massy, a student at Foothill High School in Las Vegas, commenced testimony in support of A.B. 632. As a participant in the Boy Scout Safe Boating Program, Mr. Massy saw a clear need for requiring the use of flotation devices in boaters under the age of 16. He distributed several handouts (Exhibit C, Exhibit D, and Exhibit E) that highlighted national and state statistics for boating accidents.

Mr. Massy called the committee’s attention to Exhibit C, NDOW Boating Fatalities. Since 1964, 169 people had died in boating accidents, and 1,050 people had been injured. Costs to Nevada taxpayers were estimated at $7.5 million. Eighty percent of the deaths were in children under the age of 16 years. Ill-fitting life jackets and no life jackets were directly linked to 80 percent of those drownings.

Mr. Massy explained the bill would require law enforcement officers to cite boaters with children under the age of 16 who were not wearing a Coast Guard- approved personal flotation device (PFD). Nationwide, 28 states had mandatory child PFD laws. In Nevada, the second leading cause of death in children under the age of 14 years was drowning. On a positive note, streamlined design of PFDs had greatly facilitated their use by all boaters.

Paul Roland, a student at Foothill High School in Las Vegas, resumed testimony in support of A.B. 632. Mr. Roland cited statistics from Exhibit D, a report issued by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators. The single biggest cause of death in boating accidents was drowning, followed by hypothermia, traumatic injury, and loss of blood. The most prominent of all statistics was 90 percent of drowning victims were not wearing personal flotation devices.

Sean Sablan, a student at Foothill High School in Las Vegas, addressed statistics on the lack of correlation between water conditions and boating accidents. He reiterated the failure to used personal flotation devices remained the most conspicuous of factors. As such, the ability to prevent deaths through a change in the law was feasible.

Ian Massy offered to add testimony regarding the two fiscal notes attached to A.B. 632. One would impact the local governments, and the second would impact the state; however, Mr. Massy was unsure of the specific dollar impact in each case. In closing, he stated support for A.B. 632 had been received from the Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the National Park Service (NPS).

In response to Assemblyman Marvel, Mr. Massy stated the cost of a personal flotation device was approximately $20. At the Lake Mead Recreation Area parents were able to borrow flotation devices for their children.

Assemblyman Brown commended the PFD loaner program at Lake Mead and asked if it was well utilized. Mr. Massy explained there were PFDs available at the marinas; however, NDOW and NPS were unable to fund the expansion of the program to reach more boats on the lake. Of interest, approximately half of parents that were offered flotation devices for their children declined the offer. In those cases, the parents were confident of their child’s ability to swim or of their ability to rescue their children if necessary.

In response to Assemblyman Collins, Mr. Massy clarified his volunteer work had been done with the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, NDOW, and the Las Vegas Power Squadron. Assemblyman Collins commended the witness on his involvement and excellent testimony.

Chairman de Braga asked what the penalty would be for a violation. Mr. Massy explained under Nevada statute there was a fine for the first offense; however, if A.B. 632 passed, the National Park Service would be authorized to issue an additional fine for failure to utilize PFDs on the vessel. Mr. Massy was unsure of the monetary fine amount.

Chairman de Braga advised the committee there was no fiscal note to the state. Any additional costs for law enforcement activity would be borne by the local governments. Chairman de Braga commended the students on their research and skill at presenting testimony.

Assemblyman Mortenson added his admiration of the students’ quality work and the delivery of their testimony. Applause followed.

Steve Blackistone, Director of State and Local Affairs for the National Transportation and Safety Board in Washington, D.C., distributed a report on personal flotation devices (Exhibit F) and commenced testimony. He joined the committee in their praise of the students’ testimony.

Mr. Blackistone explained his agency was charged with investigation of transportation accidents, including boating. Their studies revealed very high fatality rates in boating accidents, with a mortality rate similar to that of airplane accidents. In Nevada, he remarked on a surprisingly high number of boating accidents, with a high correlation between death and failure to utilize personal flotation devices. Mr. Blackistone stated approximately 85 percent of drowning victims would have survived if they had worn a PFD.

Mr. Blackistone concluded by emphasizing the need for states to mandate PFD use for all children and in high-risk activities, such as water skiing. Nevada had a conspicuous absence of legal protection for children in boats. As more children used PFDs, it was predicted adults would follow that practice.

In response to Assemblyman Marvel, Mr. Blackistone explained that 37 states currently had PFD requirements for children. He was not aware of any state that required boaters of all ages to wear flotation devices.

Assemblyman Lee requested clarification of liability in a situation where a boat was loaned to a neighbor for boating involving minor children. Mr. Blackistone judged the operator of the boat to be guilty. He explained the Coast Guard certification of personal flotation devices was identified by a tag on the PFD. Assemblyman Lee asked about the possibility of purchasing substandard equipment. Most manufacturers of personal flotation devices adhered to Coast Guard specifications, according to the witness. A certification label was visible on both the inside and outside of the PFD. He added, under current law, the operator of the boat would be cited for violations.

Assemblyman Lee commented on seeing little children outfitted in oversized, adult flotation devices and asked the witness to comment. Mr. Massy stated it was technically a misuse of the PFD and not recommended. Ill-fitting devices had been cited as a cause of death in the statistics on boating accidents. The witness reiterated the U.S. Coast Guard had a requirement that the devices on board fit the passengers.

Assemblyman Beers, on behalf of his father, former President of the Lake Mead Boat Owners Association, voiced his support of A.B. 632.

Chairman de Braga declared the hearing on A.B. 632 closed and called for a motion. Assemblyman Marvel inquired about the fiscal note. Chairman de Braga reiterated the impact would only be at the local government level, not the state.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO PASS A.B. 632.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on A.B. 469.

Assembly Bill 469: Makes various changes relating to safe use of watercraft. (BDR 43-462)

Assemblyman Beers, sponsor of A.B. 469, distributed a handout (Exhibit G) of a slide presentation he made in 1999. The bill under discussion was similar to A.B. 199 of the Seventieth Session that passed on the Assembly side but died in conference. He called the committee’s attention to a memo (Exhibit H) from Linda Eissmann that summarized the differences between the 1999 version and A.B. 469. He read the major differences to the committee. The completion of a boater safety course was the most conspicuous of changes. New language was contained in Section 6 and would require the driver and passengers of a jet ski to wear personal flotation devices. It further raised the age for operating the watercraft from 12 years to 16 years of age.

Assemblyman Marvel asked about the availability of boating safety courses. Assemblyman Beers explained courses were readily available, including Internet classes. The Nevada Department of Wildlife offered a course entitled “Navigating Nevada.”

Assemblyman Marvel requested clarification on the demise of A.B. 199 of the Seventieth Session. Assemblyman Beers summarized the difficulty on the Senate side as being related to the lack of need in many of the rural counties. The bill was amended in the Senate to include only bodies of water that Nevada shared with another state. As such, it appeared to impact Lake Tahoe, Lake Mead, and Lake Mohave. Late in the process, it was discovered Topaz Lake had been overlooked, and that realization soured the conference committee.

Assemblyman Beers suggested surface acreage of lakes could be the criterion for judging the inclusion of lakes under the bill. That would add Pyramid Lake and Walker Lake to the list. Assemblyman Marvel commented on the hazards of reservoirs such as Wild Horse. Assemblyman Beers explained that NDOW preferred the inclusion of Wild Horse Reservoir.

On the subject of the boater safety course, Assemblyman Beers described it as an 8-hour investment of time and designed to be passed by the applicants. He commented on the increasing volume of boaters on lakes, especially during weekends. Ironically, the boaters themselves voiced the strongest support of regulations, citing the need to be protected from inexperienced boat operators.

Chairman de Braga asked if federal funds were involved to support the program. Assemblyman Beers replied Congress had several members with a keen interest in boating. As such, funds had been generated from fuel tax fees, and Nevada was the recipient of funds for use in water recreational improvements. The greatest portion of money remained in the fund for the Division of Boating.

Assemblyman Carpenter commented on the success of the hunter safety program in Nevada. He asked if NDOW had plans to implement a similar boating safety course. It was Assemblyman Beers’ understanding that NDOW would not actually offer the boating safety classes because there were adequate courses available. There was an NDOW-authored home study course in place as well as Internet-based programs.

Assemblyman Carpenter voiced concern over NDOW’s apparent lack of involvement in rural areas on the issue of boating safety courses. He viewed the need to be akin to hunter safety that was available, accessible, visible, and highly successful in the rural towns. Assemblyman Beers acknowledged the concern, but felt confident of NDOW’s awareness of that issue. Availability of boater safety classes would be a high priority for NDOW, and he reminded the committee it was NDOW that had pushed for the increase in legal age from 12 to 16 years. On the subject of legal age, Assemblyman Beers declared a flexible stance on the subject of amending the language setting the legal age.

Assemblyman Beers cited a 1999 NDOW survey which revealed 68 percent of Nevada boaters had not taken a boater safety course. Ironically, 64 percent supported a boater education requirement. Of those who did complete a safety course, the overwhelming majority completed a live, in-person class. In response to Assemblyman Marvel, Assemblyman Beers described the class as a hands-on class that could be easily offered in a school setting.

Assemblyman Collins reflected on a federal law that recommended boater safety education upon the purchase of a boat. Assemblyman Beers clarified that approximately 38 states had a law similar to A.B. 469.

Assemblyman Carpenter commented the committee had just passed A.B. 632 that required the use of personal flotation devices by passengers on personal watercrafts. He asked if the language in A.B. 469 was adequate for passage. Assemblyman Beers responded in the affirmative and explained that the bill drafters were apparently unaware of the other bill.

Chairman de Braga asked if one of the Foothill High School students wanted to comment. Ian Massy asked to clarify some of the points of discussion. He identified himself as a boater safety instructor in Clark County. He reminded the committee that the second leading cause of boating accidents in Nevada was inexperienced boat operators. He defended both the hands-on course and the home-study method for boater safety. Mr. Massy stated any course would serve to educate the boat operator. Age was not a deterrent to passing the course.

Steve Blackistone, representing the National Transportation Safety Board, distributed a prepared statement (Exhibit I) and commenced testimony in support of A.B. 469. He cited an example of a tragic boating accident in California. Through the years, their investigations repeatedly revealed that boat operators failed to understand the rules of safe boating practices. Ignorance was costing people their lives. Most boat operators did not have to demonstrate any knowledge of safe boating rules. Mr. Blackistone stated 13 states now had mandatory education requirements, all enacted in recent years.

Mr. Blackistone called the committee’s attention to his document (Exhibit I) in which he reviewed successful boater education programs in the states of Connecticut and Maryland. He urged the passage of A.B. 469 and expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to testify.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 469. Assemblyman Carpenter recommended amending the bill by deleting “and each passenger” on line 16, page 4 and, on line 19, amending the legal age for personal water craft to 14 years, not 16 years. Assemblyman Carpenter moved to amend and pass. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall seconded the motion.

Chairman de Braga called for discussion and reminded the committee of the $100,000 fiscal note. She asked Assemblyman Carpenter if he wished to amend the bill to refer it to Ways and Means. Assemblyman Carpenter deferred to Assemblyman Beers.

Assemblyman Beers admitted he had not seen the formal fiscal note; however, he had a fax from the Nevada Division of Wildlife that indicated a $100,000 per biennium fiscal note. It was his understanding the $107,000 was for the first biennium, and the $100,000 was for the second. The reserve in the account was approximately $500,000.

Chairman de Braga understood his testimony to mean there would be no fiscal impact. Assemblyman Beers clarified there would be no impact to the General Fund because it would be taken from an NDOW reserve account.

Chairman de Braga summarized by stating the committee could return to the original motion and not rerefer it. As such, the committee would have to be prepared on the floor of the Assembly. After brief comment, Chairman de Braga announced it was the original motion and not to rerefer. Assemblyman Collins asked what the effect would be of the removal of the words “other passengers” and changing the age to 14 years.

Assemblyman Beers replied that passengers were covered by A.B. 632 that had been passed by the committee. He could see no fiscal impact as a result of the deletion of the words or the lowering of the age requirement.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS

A.B. 469.

ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

Chairman de Braga asked Assemblyman Beers to handle the bill on the floor of the Assembly. A three-minute recess was called.

Following a 16-minute recess, the meeting was called to order. Chairman de Braga called for discussion of committee business items.

Assemblyman Bache called attention to a potential problem that could face other committee members. A bill in the Committee on Government Affairs had been voted and passed; however, after the vote, a conflict notice was received. He was advised to return the bill to committee, rescind their action, and make a motion to “amend and do pass.” Due to time constraints, Assemblyman Bache met with Kim Morgan of the Legal Division. She recommended, in future situations, if there was only a conflict notice for a conflict amendment, the committee should authorize the chairperson to automatically request conflict amendments.

Assemblyman Brown requested clarification of a conflict amendment. Assemblyman Bache explained it occurred in situations in which two proposed pieces of legislation attempted to amend the same section of statute. If one of those bills was passed and signed by the Governor, that changed language had to be amended into any other bills amending that section of the statute.

Chairman de Braga stated there had been one conflict; however, it involved one of their bills that would not be heard and a Senate bill that was heard.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO AUTOMATICALLY REQUEST AMENDMENT FOR CONFLICT AMENDMENTS.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

Chairman de Braga called the committee’s attention to a letter authored by Dr. Vera Byers and Dr. Al Levin, witnesses who testified at the February 12 Leukemia Hearings. It was Chairman de Braga’s concern the witnesses were promoting services for monetary profit and using our office as a reference. The authors had encouraged readers to call 684-8574, the telephone line for the Committee Secretary for Natural Resources. It appeared to be an inappropriate use of the committee and had the appearance of endorsement of their work. Chairman de Braga asked the committee if a response would be appropriate.

Assemblyman Brown, an attorney, responded he had occasion to ask a member of his law firm to testify on a Senate bill. He declared it would be inappropriate for that witness to solicit work for the law firm, and he could see no difference between that example and the case cited by Chairman de Braga.

Chairman de Braga asked the committee to endorse a letter to Dr. Levin and Dr. Byers asking them not to reference our phone number in solicitation of work. Assemblyman Mortenson questioned whether the authors were merely exercising their rights to communicate with their congressman. Chairman de Braga reiterated her concern the authors were motivated to sell their services and had used our telephone number inappropriately.

Assemblyman Carpenter viewed it as a tough call, however he agreed the use of our telephone number was questionable. He recommended the drafting of a letter pointing out the conflicts of promoting personal gain using committee office numbers.

Assemblyman Brown requested clarification on the upcoming Congressional hearing in Fallon. Chairman de Braga explained it was a public meeting, but not open to public testimony.

The decision was made to draft a letter stating the concerns of the committee. Assemblyman Brown recommended using the phrase “cannot be deemed an endorsement.” The letter would be drafted by Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MADE A MOTION TO DRAFT A LETTER TO DR. AL LEVIN AND DR. VERA BYERS.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

Chairman de Braga opened the work session on A.B. 198.

Assembly Bill 198: Revises provisions relating to expenditures for air quality. (BDR 40-176)

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst, distributed a work session document (Exhibit J) and commenced review of amendments to A.B. 198. First heard on March 21, Ms. Eissmann stated the bill had been sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources on behalf of Clark County. The bill inserted local governments (Washoe and Clark Counties) into the list of agencies eligible for funds from an Air Pollution Control Account. A point of contention had been the prioritization of those agencies.

The A.B. 198 Subcommittee met on April 10, 2001, to evaluate the priority of the five agencies. An amendment was submitted by Clark County and was supported by most in attendance. That amendment (Exhibit J) would move local governments (e.g., Clark County) down to fourth position after the Nevada Department of Agriculture, but before the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

Chairman de Braga clarified that the term “local government” could refer to any entity in a nonattainment area. She added the only dissenting voice during the subcommittee was Washoe County that expressed concern over financing their air quality management programs in the area where the money was generated.

Assemblyman Carpenter offered to make a motion on A.B. 198 using the Clark County amendment (tab A on page 3 of Exhibit J).

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 198.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

Ms. Eissmann commenced discussion on A.B. 468 and referred the committee to the work session document (Exhibit J).

Assembly Bill 468: Revises provisions governing imposition of tax on certain transfers of water. (BDR 48-1273)

Ms. Eissmann reminded the committee that A.B. 468 dealt with the tax of $6 per acre-foot per year that could be charged by a county of origin on water transferred out of that county. The bill, as originally drafted, would require the water be put to beneficial use and that the state engineer approve the tax. One exception to the tax was water appropriated and used in the county of origin, which thereafter was discharged or migrated into another county or state.

Two amendments had been offered during testimony, referred to by their locations in Exhibit J as tab B and tab C. The first was from the state engineer, and the second was from the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority (HRBWA). A third amendment, tab D of Exhibit J, was received by the committee. Following review by the state engineer, he withdrew his support of the original amendment, tab B, and endorsed the new amendment, tab D.

Chairman de Braga asked if any opposition had been received to the new amendment, tab D. Ms. Eissmann responded she was unsure if the HRBWA had reviewed a copy of the amendment she sent to them.

Assemblyman Neighbors moved to amend and do pass A.B. 468 with the amendment under tab D of Exhibit J. The motion was seconded by Assemblyman Collins.

Chairman de Braga called for a discussion. She reminded the committee the original problem had been in Section 4 of the bill that would have removed the decision-making authority of the state engineer. That had been restored in the language.

Assemblyman Brown asked how the agreement had been reached. Chairman de Braga stated everybody had received a copy and an opportunity to comment. A guest asked to be recognized for purposes of rebuttal.

Doug Bierman, representing the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority (HRBWA) in Eureka County, indicated there was opposition to the amendment under vote. Chairman de Braga explained no input had been received during the review time. Mr. Bierman declared an e-mail had been dispatched to Chairman de Braga the previous day. She acknowledged her review of e-mail had fallen behind.

Mr. Bierman explained, after the last hearing, many of the stakeholders had met in the hallway, and all appeared to be moving in a direction of agreement. Mr. Bierman’s legal counsel had been assured by the other parties that the HRBWA would be involved in the final draft of the amendment. According to Mr. Bierman, that did not happen. As such, their concerns were not addressed in the final amendment, tab D.

Chairman de Braga asked for clarification from the witness. Mr. Bierman was not convinced the bill, as amended, would solve the problems of groundwater moving from one basin to another. Section 4 was of particular concern.

Chairman de Braga explained she had talked to Mr. Goicoechea (i.e., Pete Goicoechea, Eureka County Commissioner) who stated if the state engineer retained the authority to determine the assessment of the tax, he would be in agreement. Mr. Bierman acknowledged that was correct; however, in his judgment, Mr. Goicoechea perceived it as Section 2 of the bill. Section 4 carried that taxing authority process, and it repeated language of preceding sections, according to Mr. Bierman. The exemption of the ground water issue was his principal point of concern.

Chairman de Braga summarized the testimony for understanding, and stated “the only thing acceptable is the complete removal of Section 4.” Mr. Bierman responded in the affirmative. He added the other point suggested in the earlier committee hearing was a readjustment of the $6 rate established in 1991. The other parties did not indicate a problem with that recommendation; however, the final draft had no reference to allowing the tax to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Chairman de Braga commented that would be a second point of disagreement, to which Mr. Bierman replied it had been part of their original amendment. Chairman de Braga corrected the witness and declared the original amendment was meant to be replaced by the most recently drafted language agreed to by the parties. She cautioned the witness communication by e-mail was uncertain. Mr. Bierman reiterated his legal counsel had been assured of contact by the other parties, and that promise was not kept.

Assemblyman Neighbors commented he had not received any e-mail communication regarding that issue, and he requested his motion stand. Assemblyman Lee asked Mr. Guild to come to the witness table.

Assemblyman Lee stated it was his understanding, following a conversation with Mr. Guild, the amendment had been appropriately crafted. Joe Guild, representing Newmont Mining, declared emphatically his words had been mischaracterized by Mr. Bierman. Mr. Guild stated the amendment before the committee was presented to the committee Monday morning, April 9, and it was reviewed and approved by the state engineer.

Assemblyman Lee agreed the amendment under motion was that amendment; however, he added he was under the impression all parties had been involved and satisfied. Mr. Guild explained he never made a commitment to present language to anybody else. He recalled telling them (i.e., HRBWA) they could contribute to the process; however, they apparently were not involved. Mr. Guild had been out of town during the review process and was not aware of Mr. Bierman’s activities.

Chairman de Braga recalled the instructions to all parties had been to talk and work it out. She admitted she did not read all of her e-mail due to time constraints. Mr. Goicoechea, the only dissenter, had told her that if the state engineer was still involved, he was okay with the new amendment. Chairman de Braga stated no other amendment was received by the committee.

Mr. Guild recalled he had discussions with Mr. Goicoechea on the phone that morning and had talked to Karen Peterson, legal counsel. He was told that morning they were opposed to the latest amendment. Mr. Guild voiced his confusion over what he was supposed to do with that declaration, just hours before the committee hearing. Chairman de Braga concurred and stated the work to be done by the opposition did not happen.

Assemblyman Carpenter emphasized the need for an amendment that had the agreement and support of the state engineer. He considered the language “beneficial use” to be the foundation of water law.

Hugh Ricci, P.E., State Engineer, Nevada Department of Water Resources, offered to clarify. When the bill was heard previously, he had submitted some amendments he judged to be more readable. He reminded all present the bill was not a state engineer’s bill. It was his recollection of the hallway conversations following the last hearing that there was a focus on the ability of the state engineer to review and approve the imposition of the $6 tax. The bill amendment, tab D, (Exhibit J) covered that ability, and, as such, Mr. Ricci had no disagreement with the bill.

Seeing no further discussion, Chairman de Braga reviewed the motion to amend (tab D) and do pass A.B. 468.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 468.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

June Rigsby

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: