MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
Seventy-First Session
May 1, 2001
The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operationswas called to order by Chairman Jon C. Porter, at 2:00 p.m., on Tuesday, May 1, 2001, in Room 2144 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Jon C. Porter, Chairman
Senator Mark A. James, Vice Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Valerie Wiener
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator William J. Raggio (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert E. Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel
Johnnie L. Willis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Merritt K. Yochum, Lobbyist
Eugene F. Weight, P.E., District 1, District Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, and Rural Alliance
Senator Porter:
We will open the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 5.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 5: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of quality and quantity of groundwater within State of Nevada. (BDR R-310)
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District:
A water well study committee was supposed to have been launched last legislative session, instead of putting it in a separate study, they gave it to the Nevada Legislature’s Committee on Public Lands.
The public lands committee found the problem is more than just in Clark County, there is a statewide problem, particularly with the quality of water. A thorough examination of the laws and policies of this state governing the use of groundwater is vital to the continued prosperity and public health of this state. It really never has been addressed. It was suggested from by subcommittee that studied the problem that the Legislature try to conduct an interim study of the quality and quantity of groundwater in the state of Nevada.
As you know even in Pahrump, some of the sewers are draining into the water wells. Elko has a problem, Dayton has a problem, and other areas have serious problems. In Clark County, there was quite an uprising on water wells in the Las Vegas area.
Senator Porter:
We have talked about the quality of groundwater regarding the Pahrump area of Nye County. In subsection 3, line 11 of the bill I want to make sure when we look at the quality of groundwater that we also look at the quantity of groundwater.
Senator Rhoads:
Seventy percent of the water in the state of Nevada is used for agricultural purposes. I assume by looking at the quantity we would be addressing these issues. Nevada is the driest state in the nation.
Senator Porter:
It was my understanding that the Pahrump area may be overdrilling.
Senator Rhoads:
Yes, very likely. This study committee was asked for prior to the problems documented in Fallon. I am sure other communities also will be looking at the quality of their groundwater.
Linda J. Eissmann, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
During this past interim, I served as staff to the subcommittee on the study of domestic and municipal water wells. The bulletin [01-18] handed out to you (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.) resulted from that subcommittee’s findings. The committee should also find tucked into the bulletin (Exhibit C) a copy of a letter received from Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Churchill, White Pine, part of Eureka, part of Lander Counties Assembly District No. 35, and Assemblywoman Ellen Marie Koivisto, Clark County Assembly District No. 14 (Exhibit D), who are in support of S.C.R. 5.
The advisory committee appointed by Senator Rhoads to undertake this study met every month for 6 months. It discussed a multitude of water well issues. All of the advisory committee meetings were open to the public and public comment was taken at each meeting. The advisory committee was specifically asked to identify current and possible future water well problems. The committee was directed to develop recommendations to address the issues and problems.
There were 31 issues raised for the advisory committee’s consideration. All the issues were discussed at some length to decide how many of the problems were worthy of further consideration. Several issues were combined under common subject matters; some were eliminated, which left 12 issues for the advisory committee to focus on.
Five recommendations were made at the end of the 6-month study. Three of the recommendations were for legislative measures. Two recommendations were to send letters to a couple of the entities involved in the study.
The legislative subcommittee that oversaw the study agreed to all five recommendations. So, S.C.R. 5 is one of the recommended measures.
The advisory committee heard considerable testimony about water quality and water quantity and how they interrelate as Nevada’s population continues to grow at such a rapid pace. The growth is often faster than municipal water and municipal sewer systems can accommodate the growth. In many areas, well problems are the result of water quality concerns, not simply water quantity concerns. Even after the study was completed, there remained concerns in Elko, Dayton, Pahrump, and Fallon, as Senator Rhoads mentioned.
Ms. Eissmann:
We also have the septic system conversion projects going on in the north valleys, north of Reno, Spanish Springs, and Cold Springs. Many examples were brought to the attention of the advisory committee and noted during testimony. The advisory committee discussed at great length the implications of growth in areas that do not provide municipal water supplies or sewer systems. Also, it discussed the proliferation of septic tank systems and domestic wells throughout the state and how those interrelate. Over the long-term, it is believed that groundwater-quality issues as well as groundwater-quantity issues will become even more prevalent.
We had testimony from the Division of Environmental Protection and the Health Division about the water quality program administered by these agencies. The agencies’ testimony indicated that there is a general lack of data on groundwater quality for individual well systems, particularly the impact of septic systems on groundwater.
It was also noted that current land division laws under Chapter 278 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) are problematic. They require review and approval by the Division of Environmental Protection, the Nevada Division of Water Resources, and the Health Division for subdivision maps. However, parcel maps do not require similar review by those agencies. The result is that under parceling practices water quality need not be verified as it is under subdivision practices. Testimony indicated that in many counties, they have adopted ordinances requiring water rights to be attached to new parcels creation, but existing parcels are exempt from this requirement.
After lengthy discussions about these concerns the advisory committee unanimously recommended an interim study that would accomplish the goals set out in S.C.R. 5.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 5 would first determine if there are sufficient controls in place to protect groundwater quality, specifically with respect to individual wastewater disposal systems.
Second S.C.R. 5 would evaluate the availability and adequacies of groundwater quality data.
Ms. Eissmann:
Third, S.C.R. 5 would examine the manner in which land division laws under chapter 270 of NRS affect the groundwater quality and quantity issues.
The interim study would be to undertake and utilize the expertise of a new advisory committee with representation from the state engineers office, Division of Environmental Protection, the Health Division, and local representatives. Their work would be overseen by a subcommittee of the Legislative Commission with members from both the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Natural Resources.
Both the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Natural Resources are supporting passage of S.C.R. 5.
Senator Porter:
We had a chance to chat prior to the meeting regarding compensation and or expenses. I know the study in the prior interim was mainly in southern Nevada and the advisory committee was from southern Nevada. I would like to suggest to the committee that travel expense reimbursements be provided since this bill covers a statewide issue.
Senator Rhoads:
I think that would an excellent idea, since we have had several people from Elko on the technical committee.
Ms. Eissmann:
We had 12 members on the advisory committee, which are listed on page 1 of Exhibit C. The advisory committee members did come from all over the state, but the people from the northern part of the state paid their own way or were representing an agency that was able to send them. There were no funds allocated to that subcommittee for travel expenses. So, by default all of the meetings were held in Las Vegas, where the citizen participants of the subcommittee were located.
Senator Porter:
Is there an amount that is typically used for study expenses or how would that be determined?
Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
I do not recall that we have ever put a travel budget in for members of an advisory committee. Typically, if it is an agency employee, the language will reflect that those costs will be borne by that agency. For people from the private sector, I do not think we have ever put in an amount, but I think we have included the option to be reimbursed for their travel and per diem expenses. I do not recall ever paying a salary for an advisory committee member.
Senator Porter:
My concern is not for those that are working for a state agency, it is for the citizen members that would not have an ability to be reimbursed.
Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
You could put a provision in that provides for travel expenses and per diem. I think that has occurred in previous studies, but as indicated, not a salary.
Senator Porter:
Senator Rhoads what would be your wish?
Senator Rhoads:
I think if we provided for travel and per diem expenses, the study would be more appealing, and could draw more top-talent types of people who could be involved with the study.
Senator Porter:
Committee, any questions?
Senator Rhoads:
There was a letter from Converse Consultants sent to you that supports the study.
Senator James:
Would there be any discussion in this committee about the method for determining the perennial yield of basins in terms of the quantity of water in Nevada?
Senator Rhoads:
I am sure there would be, Senator. Actually, the water engineers suggested the study of quality and quantity or water in Nevada is long over due. I would think, under the quantity issue, that one of the goals of the committee would be the perennial yield of basins.
Senator James:
It is just that the language seems to be drafted fairly tight. You have only three things to study. Sufficient controls regarding septic tanks, data concerning the quality of groundwater, and whether laws governing the division of land affect the quality or quantity of groundwater. Why did you draft it so tight?
Ms. Eissmann:
Senator, I did not draft the measure, but I can tell you those are the three specific recommendations that came from the advisory committee. I think there would be interest if you wish to expand on those.
I might also add, if this were to occur the way the last study did, the Nevada Legislature’s Committee of Public Lands met, then gave a list of goals to the technical advisory committee. Through its meetings, the technical advisory committee attempted to meet those goals. Perhaps, some of those details could be indicated in the goals offered to the study committee.
Senator James:
There has been a lot of study in Nevada. The way hydrographic basins are drawn is based upon geographic surface topography, and we have many basins in the state. The state engineer has always taken the position that there is no transbasin recharge. If there is no transbasin recharge, then you have one hydrographic basin, which is a separate and distinct water source from all other water sources. Water rights are only available from one source, for one use, or from one point of diversion. So, we are limited in being able to be creative in terms of getting water in the state where we want it to be, even if it flows there naturally. This is because we artificially decide that hydrographic basins do not have cross migration. This is the first issue concerning quantity that is ripe for study, because it will affect the quantity of water in the basins.
The second issue is how the state engineer determines the perennial yield of basins. There are now new ways to make those determinations. There is ion-based testing, and other things used to follow a molecule of water through a groundwater basin. Most of these models have come up with larger perennial yields, which would allow the state engineers to determine that it is safe to take more water out of the groundwater basins. These things are not small amounts they are large amounts. This could dramatically affect the water available if the state engineer could say instead of 28,000 acre-feet annually, it is 35,000 acre‑feet annually. We might want to draft this more liberally so that some of these other issues could be considered. We should be allowed statutorily to direct the state engineer to consider these more up-to-date scientific methods for determining how much water is in a groundwater basin.
Senator Rhoads:
Perhaps, Ms. Eissmann could get with you later to come up with language that could be added to address that issue.
Mr. Wasserman:
On the first page of the bill, you will see that it directs the commission to conduct an interim study of the quality and quantity of groundwater in the state without limitation. Then on page 2, it says the study must include without limitation these three items, so it could be as broad as you want to have the study. You could of course expand the list to other specific matters. But, I think you could study anything dealing with quality and quantity of groundwater as the bill reads now.
Senator Rhoads:
If we specifically added the language Senator James requested, it would guarantee those issues would be studied.
Senator Porter:
I think that is a good idea. In the makeup of the advisory committee, I notice we have someone from the Health Division of the Department of Human Resources, should we include any of the local health districts?
Senator Rhoads:
Is that possible?
Senator Porter:
Could it be someone for the county health districts? Do they all have a health district?
Senator Rhoads:
I do not believe so.
Senator Porter:
Do they use the state representative for the smaller counties?
Senator Rhoads:
I think they do use the state representative.
Senator Porter:
So, we need to clarify that the larger counties would have a county health district representative.
We will close the hearing on S.C.R. 5 and open the hearing on S.C.R. 8.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 8: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study relating to establishment, use and maintenance of certain roads in this state. (BDR R-728)
Senator Rhoads:
The resolution was proposed by the Nevada Legislature’s Committee on Public Lands in response to countless requests from local government representatives, elected officials, and citizens who want to see the Legislature and the State of Nevada take a stand concerning ongoing rural road issues. The resolution explains while many roads in Nevada are officially recognized, created, and governed by statute, there are just as many roads that are not officially recognized by government in any way. Certainly, this leaves many local governments in the uncomfortable position of questioning the responsibility for maintaining these roads. Furthermore, issues concerning liability for injury to persons who use these roads has become an increasing concern for local governments.
The resolution also highlights the need for the state of Nevada to develop policies to deal with the ongoing uncertainty of RS 2477 (Federal Revised Statute 2477) roads. The committee on public lands often receives reports and comments regarding RS 2477 rights-of-way. These rights were originally granted by the federal government in July 1866 (Revised Statutes 2477) to establish the transportation network essential to settlement of the western frontier. Generally, these rights-of-way grants were made to local governments and are held in trust by them for the public. When RS 2477 was repealed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, highways established before 1976 were protected as valid, existing rights-of-way. The majority of RS 2477 roads are located on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, which is responsible for examining claims of pre-1976 roads across these lands and either acknowledging or denying each road’s validity. Today, these roads continue to provide much of the public access to and across the hundreds of millions of acres of public lands in Alaska and the West.
Throughout the years, the Nevada Legislature’s Committee on Public Lands has received updates regarding the significant legal scrutiny surrounding claims of jurisdiction and ownership of these RS 2477 rights-of-way. Questions and debate have recently arisen, generally between local governments and the federal land management agencies, regarding the jurisdiction and ownership of these roads in many areas of Nevada. In addition, the committee learned last interim that roads on private lands have become the subject of controversy as they are considered by some to be “historically used” roads, thereby brining forth additional jurisdictional questions.
Senator Rhoads:
Following many years of ongoing debate on this matter and an apparent lack of solutions to many of these rural road issues, the committee on public lands concluded that an advantageous way to better address and develop a clear understanding of these ongoing road issues and establish suitable policy guidelines for RS 2477 rights-of-way is through the separate interim study authorized by S.C.R. 8.
I know in the many public land meetings even when Senator James was on our committee, this came up almost every meeting about the roads during the public comment period, and it is still continuing today. However, with the secretary of the interior we have now, I think we could probably cut through some of the regulatory problems we have had in the past, and we should have a much easier job concluding some reasonable solutions.
Senator James:
This truly is a burning issue in the rural areas of the state. I recall a meeting we had in Carlin and the amount of attention that it got locally. We discussed the road closure proposal by the Clinton administration.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum:
During the last few years, I have become very involved in the public land issues. I had the great opportunity to participate in the activities in Jarbidge this summer as well as attend the parade in January of last year with regards to the shovel brigade.
One of the things we noticed is that in California they are having significant problems with the lights going out. In our rural counties, we also have a problem with the lights going out, because we are losing population. For instance, the town of Gabbs was just disincorporated because rural Nevada is losing population.
One of the reason we are losing population is the incredible pressure placed on the rural counties by the federal government. One of the ways they are doing this is through the abuse of right-of-way roads, particularly RS 2477 roads.
We learned, in testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 106, the federal government actually has had since the early 1990s a moratorium on recognizing RS 2477 roads. In fact, there was testimony from Esmeralda County that they had decided to map all of the roads in their county. Esmeralda County spent the money and the time to map the roads and submitted that data to the federal government. Only 20 percent of those roads have been recognized.
SENATE BILL 106: Requires division of minerals of commission on mineral resources to identify and map certain roads. (BDR 35-1040)
Ms. Hansen:
Clark County and Washoe County have done some mapping of their roads.
Many other counties have not mapped their roads because of the high cost. Funds were asked for in S.B. 106 to cover some of the high costs of mapping roads, but because of the situation with the budget that may not be possible, and S.B. 106 may not pass. I think that makes this issue much more important than it was before.
I heard testimony from the mining association that the number of mines has gone from 800 down to around 30 and much of this is because of the closure of the roads by the federal government. This is a significant problem and is another reason why the lights are going out in rural Nevada.
We know there is a significant loss of tax money. There are about $65 million a year of tax dollars being lost in the rural counties that could come to the state and local government. These funds are being lost because the federal government’s restrictions particularly of roads and lands in Nevada. I think this also increases the importance of this particular piece of legislation. It is impossible for an individual to have the resources to sue the federal government in order to establish their right-of-way road. It is just beyond the means of an average individual that might be a rancher, miner, or some of the recreational tourist developer. These things are also jeopardized by the fact that the federal government has failed to recognize the historical and traditional roads. For instance, Jarbidge was an established road for well over 100 years, and yet they still tried to close it down. This is happening in many instances where there is no publicity, unlike Jarbidge, which had lots of publicity.
Ms. Hansen:
There are recreational developers who would like to develop in Nevada, but are unable to do so because the government will not allow them to improve the road.
There was excellent testimony about this during the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 1. That testimony has been handed out to the committee in the letter from Philip E. Bender (Exhibit E.)
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1: Expresses support of Nevada Legislature for amendment Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to require identification, mapping and recognition of certain rights of way across land administered by Federal Government. (BDR R-1039)
I would encourage you to make this study a priority. We owe it to whole state, which is now concerned about the economic shortfall, even though we are losing millions of potential tax dollars every year because of the encroachment of the federal government.
I encourage you to pass S.C.R. 8.
Merritt K. Yochum, Lobbyist:
I want to express support of S.C.R. 8. Hopefully, Nevada will some day become a 100 percent state, and this is stuff we will need to know when that happens. We need to know where we stand right now, so there will be less confusion and less controversy.
The Independent American Party of Nevada stands in full support of this measure.
Senator James:
Senator Rhoads, do you remember at the beginning of this session when U.S. Senator John Ensign came out with a report which showed that Nevada was grossly underfunded in terms of the roads on public lands. Does that have anything to do with this kind of a study? The study showed the State of Nevada was getting a few dollars per mile of road from the federal government, but other states, particularly eastern states, were getting around $20,000 a mile. Could that be something this study could look at.
Senator Rhoads:
Yes, the income was completely out of proportion. The Bureau of Land Management for the state of Nevada has the lowest budget of all the states, although, Nevada has more public lands than any other state.
Nevada has 60 percent of the wild horses and we get only 10 percent of the budget.
There is no doubt about it, the roads have been severely neglected.
Senator Porter:
We will close the hearing on S.C.R. 8 and open the hearing on S.C.R. 9.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 9: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of feasibility of constructing highway between Mesquite and Caliente. (BDR R-739)
Senator Raymond D Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6:
I drafted this bill following a trip to Mesquite to meet with the mayor and the city council. They showed me some of the development that is going on in their community, and discussed some of their community problems.
I would like you to look at the map attached to the letter from the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners to Governor Guinn (Exhibit F). The eastern side of Nevada is fairly isolated, and it is very inaccessible. Parts of eastern Nevada requires you to drive all the way around to be able to get there. Several things reflect eastern Nevada’s isolation.
When looking at the attendance of various state parks I found that Spring Mountain Ranch State Park’s attendance is about the same as Yosemite National Park’s attendance. The attendance at Spring Mountain is 275,000 people a year. But, when you look at the Great Basin National Park it only has an attendance of about 6500 people. It is a whole order of magnitude off, which is mostly caused by the isolation. The Great Basin National Park is a phenomenal park when you look at mountains, the lakes, and the Lehman Caves. It is basically an untouched area, very few people actually make it there to see it.
Another indicator of eastern Nevada’s isolation is that the counties are depressed. They have dwindling populations, and a limited tax base. It is also reflected in the bankruptcies, business failures, and the people moving out of the area. It has only been a few years ago that the largest ranch in Nevada went into bankruptcy. Most all of the mining has also left that area. We have a problem trying to get some of the human services out in that area such as mental health and education. These areas have reached the limit of their tax base. Their schools are insufficient. These things raise issues of constitutionality in the state. There are problems out along those areas that are caused partially by this isolation.
Senator Rawson:
One of the things a highway between Mesquite and Caliente will do is to open up that corridor for traffic to flow from Salt Lake City to the Great Basin National Park, and from the Great Basin National Park to the Los Angeles corridor.
The communities through that area are interested in building this highway for the tourism, but there is also significant development that can take place along that corridor. Mesquite has a landfill along the course of that road and there is also a power plant proposed. There is room for several other power plants in that area, which is a good place to put them because placement would be along the coal line from southern Utah. The Kern River goes through there, also natural gas and transmission lines.
There are many natural things going through this area that can be utilized to facilitate the development of the area if it were opened up with a highway.
S.C.R. 8 asked for a study of the route from Mesquite to Elgin as it is marked on Exhibit F.
I have spent the last few weekends since the session started driving some of the rural roads. I was trying to get a sense of what is going on with this measure and the previous one we heard today. I have spent a lot of time out on these rural roads.
Senator Rawson:
There is a nice paved highway from Caliente to Elgin. The road ends as a paved road at Elgin, but it is an existing road all the way to Mesquite. There is no right-of-way issues or the need to do an environmental impact study of the whole area. Most of that work has been done. There is only a 2- or 3-mile area that work may have to be done on. This road has existed for more that 100 years. It is time we gave some thought to opening it up to modern-day traffic.
The resolution asked for a study, but this could be handled in various ways. A Legislative Commission study could be set up with three legislators from each house and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), or this could be changed and it could be given directly to NDOT to begin to proceed with an evaluation and estimate.
Personally, I would like to see the priorities established and NDOT begin to do a more serious study. Before they can put any serious money into this we would have to either identify a source of funding or stage it so that it can fit into the priorities in 3 years, because the funds are tied up for 3 years. There are parts of the study that could be done with the funds that we would normally give to a legislative committee.
Senator Rawson:
In Exhibit F, there is a letter from Dan C. Frehner, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Lincoln County, and a resolution from the mayor of the City of Mesquite that suggest this would be very beneficial to the area.
The Mesquite representatives are currently testifying in another hearing and cannot be present, but wished the committee to know they are very interested in this measure and support it completely.
Senator Porter:
They have contacted my office to communicate their support of this resolution.
We seem to have an excess of study bills this session so it is good to know that there may be other options to pursue this issue.
Eugene F. Weight, P.E., District I, District Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation:
We did a quick and dirty estimate of the cost of the proposed route to be around $92 million. That is base on a 32-foot roadway section, with a length of about 51 miles.
Senator Porter:
That would be a standard two-lane highway that extends for 51 miles.
Mr. Weight:
That is correct, you would have two twelve-foot lanes and the remainder would be the shoulder width of the road. That would be 4½ inches of asphalt on 16 inches of gravel. There are probably several bridge structures that would need to be constructed, according to NDOT’s design people. Numerous drainage improvements would also be required.
As you go from Elgin on that route, which Senator Rawson spoke of, up toward Caliente it goes through a canyon and then follows the railroad track. That is a very scenic area and subject to a lot of flash flooding.
Senator Porter:
As far as options other than that, is there a way to improve it without spending millions of dollars?
Mr. Weight:
That would depend upon the type of roadway selection. This estimate is based on a 32-foot section, but if you went to a more minimal section of course the estimates would come down.
Senator Titus:
So, it is $92 million. I wonder if this would have been a better use of our highway dollars than the road in California to Needles.
Senator Porter:
Since we are on that topic, I could only wish that some day Lincoln County would need to protect $38 million in revenue. Maybe some day that will happen and that would be a positive thing.
Randy Robinson, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, Rural Alliance:
This resolution would do a lot on the economic development side of things. Senator Rawson has done a great job of walking through proposed routes and what it would mean in terms of tourists.
It was surprising for me to realize how much Lincoln County relies on the small amount of tourism they do get in order to fund the operation of the county. Having spent some time as the economic development specialist for the City of Mesquite, I can tell you at the Utah, Nevada border where Mesquite comes into play they average about 20,000 visitors per month. If they had a more direct route up through Caliente and the more scenic areas it would really do a lot in terms of the economic impact of tourism on that area.
Senator Rawson mentioned some of the future development that will take place.
Recently both Lincoln County and the City of Mesquite were recipients of quite large land acts that were granted by the U.S. Congress and the President. They have been working closely for the last couple of years to develop service agreements that will service those areas. We expect a population increase in that area. So, this road would also help to provide services to those future residents.
Lincoln County was also awarded recently a significant portion of funds from the federal government to help with development of an industrial park in the Caliente area. This road would provide for a more direct route for industry whether it is trucking or other kinds of industry to fill that industrial park and to expand the tax base in Caliente and in the county. This route would help Lincoln County become closer to being more self sufficient that we are now.
Having been involved with some of the issues on the school construction and appealing to the legislature many times for assistance, I can tell you anything that you could do for Lincoln County to help expand the tax base, would be greatly appreciated and would not take a whole lot.
Senator Titus:
I think the Great Basin National Park is worth more than $38 million; it is all in how you calculate value.
Senator Porter:
That is a good point, and is all the more reason to support this project.
We will close the hearing on S.C.R. 9 and open the hearing on A.B. 18.
ASSEMBLY BILL 18: Requires fiscal note for legislative measure to contain estimate of certain fiscal impacts for two biennia. (BDR 17-204)
Senator Titus:
How can you predict for two biennia what the cost of an initiative is going to be? That is the problem we have with our budget system now, you cannot predict from one biennium to the next biennium.
Mr. Erickson:
Last session Assemblywoman Jan Evans had a bill she felt very strongly about. The bill was to set up this task force for long-term financial analysis and planning. Part of the initial steps to get together a task force of state agency people to get together and come back with recommendations for the future and how we would go about this long-range financial planning. This bill is one of the pieces that came out of that study.
I think we need to have someone from that task force address this bill.
Senator Rawson:
In the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means we discussed the possibility of taking $57.5 million that the Governor has put in as a one shot for education and changing that from a one shot to a 1 percent and a 1 percent raise. That 1 percent would carry through the biennium and the second year another 1 percent would be added. If you do a fiscal note on that, it is $51 million this year. That sounds reasonable, however, the next year it would be $132 million and that would be unfunded, because it was one-shot funds. I can see the reason for us trying to project what the effect of some of the policy that we create.
These projections will not be exact and it is not important that they be precise, it is important that we be able to weigh the ideas and have an idea of how expensive it will be. If we decide the idea is worth the cost then great, but we should know what the cost will be.
Mr. Erickson:
I have the summary of the recommendation from the task force and I will read it into the record:
After reviewing the state’s current fiscal note process the task force decided that the fiscal note statutes should be amended to specifically require an agency to prepare estimates of the fiscal impact beyond the current biennium being considered by the Legislature. Current statutes require agencies to prepare fiscal notes for measures reducing revenue or increasing expenditures. The fiscal notes only require an actual estimate of the fiscal impact for the biennium for which the Legislature is developing appropriation recommendations. Agencies are not specifically required by statute to provide actual estimates of the impact beyond this biennium if the program is ongoing, but can be requested to prepare a fiscal impact beyond the current biennium.
The task force determined the state’s budget and planning process would benefit from having fiscal impacts produced for next two biennia. Requiring estimates to be prepared for the next two biennia would allow the full impact of a proposal to be examined, especially for those measures that become effective late in the second year of the biennium being budgeted.
The task force therefore recommends that the fiscal note statutes be amended to require the estimates of the reduced revenues or increased expenditures be produced for the next two biennia.
Senator James:
There is another side of this though. The law says to the extent possible there should be a projection of such changes for future biennia, so it already requires them to the extent possible to make those fiscal notes for future biennia. If it is readily available for the next biennium then they should do that under current law. This requires them to produce fiscal notes for the next two biennia whether they have it or not. I think we are going to force people to give us unreliable projections.
In Senator Rawson’s example, they know what it is going to cost to give those raises, because it is a discernible type of a fiscal impact, but in other cases, it is not. What I worry about is that sometimes we have good legislation that is killed because we have unreliable financial estimates about its impact. Also, if an agency does not want a bill it could come up with a big fiscal number that will kill the bill.
The way I read the law, they are already required to give the projections if they have them. We would be requiring it in all cases whether it is possible or not, so we will end up with a lot of unreliable estimates. I think what it will do is water down the reliability of fiscal notes.
I do not think we should be forced to get speculative information.
Senator Porter:
We have had a number of bills in the judiciary committee that have has serious fiscal note challenges. After more discussion, we were able to get it down to a more reasonable amount.
Senator Titus:
I agree with Senator James. I think the further out you project it the more likely you are to get those kind of political problems.
Chairman Porter:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 18.
We adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Johnnie L. Willis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Jon C. Porter, Chairman
DATE: