MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
Seventy-First Session
May 8, 2001
The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operationswas called to order by Chairman Jon C. Porter, at 2:12 p.m., on Tuesday, May 8, 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
Assemblyman Greg Brower, Assembly District No. 17
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert E. Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel
Johnnie L. Willis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Bev Kling-Hesse, Disability Rights Advocate, Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living
Paul Gowns, Disability Forum
Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, EduCare, Community Living Corp
Mike Goesch, Chairman, City of Reno Access Advisory Board
Mary Christianson, Concerned Citizen
Joe Bohl, Executive Director, Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living
Vincent Triggs, Executive Director, Nevada Association for the Handicapped
C. Joseph Guild III, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association
Tony Lesperance, Concerned Citizen
Doug Busselman, Lobbyist, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau
Joe Crowley, Lobbyist, University and Community College System of Nevada
Robert Dickens, Lobbyist, University of Nevada, Reno
David Gordon Thawley, Dean, College of Agriculture Biotech and Natural Resources, and Director, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Nevada, Reno
Karen L. Hinton, Dean, Cooperative Extension, University of Nevada, Reno
Stephen C. McFarlane, Interim President, University of Nevada, Reno
Ronald S. Pardini, Associate Director, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Nevada, Reno
Sandy Green, Executive Director, Eureka County Economic Development Council
Sarah Mersereau, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Tom Baker, Former Rural Representative for U.S. Senator Richard Bryan
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Andrew A. List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
Raymond Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Dave Drew, Deputy Chief, East Fork Fire and Paramedic District
Terry Taylor, Captain, East Fork Fire and Paramedic District, and The Nevada Arson Investigator’s Association
Ronna Hubbard, Legislative Liaison, Nevada State Fire Fighter’s Association
Bryon Slobe, Acting Nevada State Fire Marshal, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Pam Drum, Public Affairs Coordinator, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Steve DuCharme, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance
Senator Porter:
We will be starting as a subcommittee, because we have members that are testifying in other committees, and will be coming and going this afternoon.
I am changing the agenda and Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 32 will be heard after Senate Bill (S.B.) 570.
We will open the hearing with S.B. 570.
SENATE BILL 570: Makes various changes relating to legislature and legislative counsel bureau. (BDR 17-1073)
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
You should have in front of you an explanation of S.B. 570 (Exhibit C), which includes a summary of the complete bill, proposed additions to the bill, and a section-by-section review.
Rather than have proposed miscellaneous changes to the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) presented in nine or ten different bills, the LCB has put all the requested changes into this bill. These changes relate only to the Legislature and the LCB. Each section is independent of the others of the bill; if you look at the sections and find you do not like one of them, you can amend that section out and it will not affect the rest of the bill. This is the most efficient way to propose the miscellaneous changes the LCB wants to implement.
The first change is one of the major changes. This change limits the amount of time the requester of a bill draft has to submit added details to a bill request that bill drafters may need to finish a bill. This is to prevent the bill drafters receiving a large number of details shortly before a deadline for drafting or introduction, which causes a “bottleneck” and causes the drafters to have to work long hours through the night.
The submitter of the bill would get at least 15 days notice that the details need to be provided, but would probably receive a lot more time.
The second change is very small. We have deadlines that say bill drafts must be submitted before September 1. That seems to be a bit of a trap for people who submit them on September 1 and think they are on time. We would like to change those references to “on or before September 1.”
Section 3 clarifies ambiguous language about before the December 15, deadline. It needs to also be changed to say “on or before” and to add the 15-day notice for additionally requested information.
Section 4 authorized the Legislative Counsel Bureau department to submit necessary bill drafts within the proper exercise of the department’s duties.
Section 5 clarifies there is a provision allowing constitutional officers to submit bill drafts in a separate provision that limit the number. This section clarifies the authority is subject to a limitation, which is documented in a different place in the laws. We want to make the limitation clear to the agencies submitting bills.
Section 6 is adding the “on or” provision to the section of legislation that governs the bill drafts that agencies request.
Section 7 eliminates the requirement that bill drafts requested by the Judicial Branch of the state government be submitted to the legislative judiciary committees. In some cases, the Judicial Branch submits appropriations and those should go to the financial committees.
Mr. Malkiewich:
Section 8 revises the requirements that a bill has to have a fiscal note if the cost is $2000. This changes that threshold to $10,000. Some of the provisions in this section are small procedural matters, but the most significant change is the amount required for fiscal notes.
Section 9 provides that the agency name preparing the fiscal note must appear on the fiscal note, but does not necessarily have to be at the end of the fiscal note.
Section 10, 11, and 12 are small procedural changes.
Section 13 is the provision for enforcing subpoenas. It authorizes the legislative committees to go to court. The current language of the statute says the committees that order subpoenas are to send the Legislative Police to arrest the person. It would work much better to go to court to have subpoenas enforced.
Section 14 adds the Capitol Apartments grounds and buildings to the Legislative Counsel Bureau grounds. We closed on that property, and now need to define it as part of the LCB property.
Section 15 authorizes the reprinting of the Statutes of Nevada that are out of print. Currently, we reprint versions of old Nevada Reports, the cases of the Nevada Supreme Court, when they are out of print. We do not have specific statute that allows reprinting Statutes of Nevada that are out of print.
Section 16 repeals the requirement that state agencies reimburse the LCB for bill drafting services. That is just paper pushing. We charge them, then make an appropriation to them and they use the appropriation to pay us. It does not make a lot of sense to do that.
Mr. Malkiewich:
The “Proposed Additions to Senate Bill 570” handout (Exhibit D) explains more of the changes we would like to add to the bill.
The first proposed amendment requires that interim statutory committees submit bill draft requests (BDRs) on or before September 1, preceding session. Interim studies are required to submit BDRs on or before July 1 preceding the session, but there is no specific statute that requires statutory committees (such as health care, public lands and education) to submit their requests by a certain date. I propose we set the date of September 1, which is the first deadline for legislators’ requests and the deadline for requests from state agencies and local governments.
The second proposed amendment authorizes the use of space on the legislative grounds for day care and includes a contract that limits the liability for the state. If it is feasible, we would like to consider using a part of the former Capitol Apartment complex for day care for the children of our employees. The cost would be paid entirely by the employees. The purpose of this change is to authorize the activity, not to fund it. If we determine it is financially and practically feasible to establish a licensed day-care facility, we want to be sure there are no statutory obstacles.
Senator Wiener:
If I were to submit a BDR today I would have to have everything you would need to craft the bill in 15 days or 15 days after the September deadline?
Mr. Malkiewich:
That provision is not about when a legislator submits a request. There is already statute to cover that. That provision is talking about after you have submitted your request, it goes to legal, they start drafting it, and realize there are a few decisions the requester needs to make or the drafter needs additional information. You submitted a complete request, but the drafter cannot finish the bill. At that point, the legislative counsel would contact the requestor at least 15 days before the deadline, and probably a lot sooner than that.
In the case of legislators, any requests you submit by September 1, preceding session the deadline would be December 1. You would have 3 months to submit needed details. You would be notified at the very latest by mid-November. If you do not get those to the drafter by December 1, then that bill would be considered withdrawn.
Those deadlines for the legislators are in section 3, page 3, lines 11, 12, and 13. The deadline for legislators to submit the needed additional information is December 1, for requests submitted before September 1, and January 15, for the requests submitted before December 15. During session, there would be a need for a separate restriction.
Senator Wiener:
Some legislators have unfinished business before they leave after session or even a few days before the end of session, or may have missed the deadline for this session, but still want that bill draft for the next session. They may not have those extra details until just prior to that September deadline.
Mr. Malkiewich:
That is not a problem; the deadline for submitting all the details would be December 1, of the next year. The legislator would be notified, at the latest, by November 15 of next year that the drafter needs more details.
What the LCB staff is concerned with is getting all those details one week before it needs to finish all of the legislator’s requests. Everyone has two or three bills that need more details submitted. If all 63 legislators come forward with their details on those 2 or 3 bills, we would have 180 bills that we would need to draft. This is only a slight exaggeration of what happens.
Senator Mathews:
Does this have anything to do with 120 days?
Mr. Malkiewich:
The 120 days adds to the problems, because we now have deadlines for completing drafts. Before, a bill that was submitted might not be finished until May or June and could still be introduced. Now we have deadlines saying bills have to be finished by a certain date. There is a need to make sure all the details are submitted in advance of that date. Certainly, the fact there are deadlines for drafting is why this provision is needed.
Senator Mathews:
Did you say the details must be provided within 15 days after being notified of the need for more details?
Mr. Malkiewich:
At the least, it could be 15 days, but the submitter could have months. For the December 1, deadline you may be notified in October that we need additional information, which would give 60 days of notice instead of 15 days.
If you do not like this idea, you could amend it out of sections 1 and 3.
Senator Porter:
Have the problems with the new technology and the fact that each legislator is receiving approximately 250 e-mails a day been discussed? Have you considered possible solutions? The legislators do not have the staff to respond to that many e‑mails a day.
Mr. Malkiewich:
When we first started the Internet, I told people this is a wonderful way to contact your legislator. I am now telling them the opposite, that there is no way a legislator can respond to the volume of e-mails he or she may receive in a timely manner.
Our Research Division has established a separate constituent services unit. As you would expect it was immediately overwhelmed with work. I think this is a trend toward more direct involvement of voters with their legislators.
Senator Porter:
I understand there is some new technology that can help with constituent services. This technology would send an automatic response to the sender to acknowledge the e-mail has been received.
Mr. Malkiewich:
That is something I would have to talk to the computer department about.
Senator Porter:
Are you proposing two amendments to this bill?
Mr. Malkiewich:
That is correct.
Senator Wiener:
Has the number of pages in the bills become a problem? We have replaced 16 page bills with 92 page amendments.
Mr. Malkiewich:
The number of pages of legislation is around 4000. That does not include all the changes and the reprints of bills, that is just the final amount that is signed into law. The number of pages drafted far exceeds that.
The next several items on the agenda are proposed interim studies. Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, and I would like to speak to you about setting some limitations on the number of interim studies for this session.
The chart, “Interim Studies 1993 through 2000” (Exhibit E), being passed out to you shows the interim studies that have been done over the last several interims.
You can see starting in 1995 to 1996 we limited the number of studies in each house to try to cut down on the amount of studies that had to be staffed during the interim. However, that does not reflect the total number of studies on which staff has worked.
Under the permanent ongoing study committees’ column, you will see we have gone from four permanent study committees to nine permanent statutory studies committees for this interim.
Senator James:
You have explained this prohibition on drafting of measures if certain information has not been received. Why would we want to do this?
Mr. Malkiewich:
You could put a different deadline, or no deadline for this. All of the provisions are separate and can be amended out.
The reason for this is to avoid an overload. What happens is a few days before a deadline for drafting, three or four bills for each legislator that have been awaiting final details, all come to the drafters at one time. This is not a case where you have not submitted details, this is where the bill drafter needs some questions answered. Questions such as, do you want this to be administered by welfare or by transportation? Staff needs answers to these kinds of questions before he or she can finish drafting the bill. The problems is that staff receives the additional details needed shortly before the deadline for drafting, which put staff under a tremendous strain trying to finish up before the deadline.
Senator James:
I understand that, but these are the kind of things that should be worked out between the bill drafters and the legislator, and/or the leadership. Putting these kinds of things in the law results in a “draconian rule” that says it is not going to be done if certain things are not met.
I do not see any reason to “hamstring” the legislators in this way.
Mr. Malkiewich:
There is a provision in here for non-legislative requesters. Section 1 relates to them. Those non-legislative requesters would have a 15-day notice. You could amend out the legislative requester part of that section.
A bill drafter working with you on a bill is staff and it is very difficult for them to say, “If you do not give me this detail, I am not going to be able to get it done.” We did see a large number of bills that came from near death to becoming live requests that needed to be drafted in the final week before the deadline to introduce new bills.
This is an approach. If you do not like it the provision can be taken out. If the committee has a better approach, we would be glad to consider that.
Senator James:
I cannot support putting these kinds of rules in place that “hamstring” a legislator and the legislative process. These problems need to be addressed through the legislator, or whoever is involved on behalf of a requester, or by leadership.
Mr. Malkiewich:
This also relates to the study of the LCB and the workload put upon staff during the interim. Perhaps during that period we could come up with a different way to handle this problem.
The table on Exhibit E has a great deal of information. What it is intended to show is that the number of studies that you designate for each house is just a small part of the overall workload during the interim.
It has been suggested that the Legislature do three studies per house. If you look at the row for 1999 to 2000, three studies in the Senate and four in the Assembly totaled 28 studies worth of work, even though only 7 were approved.
The additional studies approved during a session are where the problems lie. When a statutory committee takes on an additional study and creates a subcommittee for it the result is an additional study. The subcommittees are not counted within the limitation and add an incredible amount of work.
We would like to ask this committee and the Assembly committee when approving studies, to keep in mind those three studies will turn into 25 studies.
Senator Porter:
How do we repeal the ongoing study of workers’ compensation?
Mr. Malkiewich:
I believe there is a bill draft to repeal the workers’ compensation committee. A few sessions ago, this was a dominant issue, but now it is a much smaller concern.
Senator Porter:
What is the Marlette Lake study?
Mr. Erickson:
That has been in existence for about 30 years. Above Carson City is a unique watershed at Marlette Lake.
Senator Porter:
Do they meet very often?
Mr. Erickson:
Yes, this group met four times last interim. I was the staffer assigned to it. This system supplies water to Virginia City. There is discussion on a better way to transport water to Virginia City than this antiquated system.
Senator Porter:
Should that be a local group, instead of a legislative group?
Mr. Malkiewich:
This has been an ongoing study, and is not one of our high-volume ones. Note that most of the permanent studies are equal to about two studies, but that one in high radioactive waste is considered a single study.
It is not that big of a committee. The water for the Legislature use to be supplied by this system, but we have since switched to city water. That is how the Legislature got involved and is still involved.
As you decide on your interim studies, remember the average meetings a Senator attended last interim was 34 meetings. Those that were on more than one committee attended more than 34 meetings.
Senator Porter:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 570, and will open the hearing for Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 32.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 32: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning Nevada’s program for providing services to persons with disabilities. (BDR R-937)
Bev Kling-Hesse, Disability Rights Advocate, Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living:
I strongly urge you to adopt S.C.R. 32, because there is a terrible fragmentation of services that currently exist for people with disabilities.
One of my jobs at the center is to help people who are newly disabled, whether through a spinal cord injury, a head injury, multiple sclerosis, or any number of other disabling illnesses or injuries. I help navigate those people through the service systems.
I have been in social services for about 15 years and with my knowledge, it is still not an easy task for me to help these people through the systems.
When you become disabled, overnight your life changes. You go from being a very independent human being to someone who is entangled in a social services whirlwind. You do not have a clue what you need. Unfortunately, the people you see first in the hospital, or rehabilitation hospital, also do not know what you need.
I would like to give you an example of what you might need if you were suddenly to become disabled overnight. Let us say you are a 25-year-old single male construction worker. You make pretty good money, but like most 25‑year‑olds, you think you are going to live forever. You certainly have not taken out long‑term disability. You do not have a pension, and why do you need health insurance, you have never even had a cold.
One night you are driving in your Camaro, someone runs a stop sign and broadsides you, and you end up with a C2 (cervical vertebra) level injury. You have a spinal cord injury, and your life is never going to be the same again. You are quadriplegic. You are going to be in a rehabilitation hospital after the regular hospital. You do not have family, you have not saved money, so there are number of things you are going have to do, and remember you are a new quadriplegic. You have not learned how to use your hands yet. Your are going to have to fill out an application for Social Security, which is about 40 pages long, the nurse does not have time to help you, and the social workers do not have time to help you, and Social Security is a federal benefit.
Ms. Kling-Hesse:
You are no longer going to be able to live in your old apartment, because it was on the second floor and you cannot walk, and now have no money to pay the rent. You are going to have to apply for subsidized housing, and you do not have hands to fill out the applications. The people at housing do not have time to help you either. Reno Housing Authority is a quasi-governmental agency. So, somehow from your bed you have gone over to the Social Security office, which is on one side of town, to the other side of town to the housing authority office and you have not even begun to apply for the things you need.
You are also going to have to apply for general assistance, because it is going to take 6 months for your Social Security to come through. General assistance is a county benefit, so you might as well apply for that while you are applying for housing, but how are you going to get there. You can no longer drive your Camaro. Do you have Citilift yet? No, because that process takes a couple of months.
So far, you have applied for four different services at four different agencies. You are going to need Medicaid to cover your hospital bills, because you are not working. However, once you receive Social Security Disability, you will no longer be eligible for Medicaid.
That brings up the issue of medical and prescription assistance. You are going to be spending half of your time trying to get assistance, and no one at any of the agencies you have been to can tell you where to get it.
You are going to need a personal care assistant, because being able to write is the least of your problems. You cannot feed yourself, you cannot toilet yourself, you cannot shower, and you cannot do many of the things you used to do. You have to go to another agency for a care assistant. You are hoping there is one agency that is going to tell you every place you have to go, but there is no such agency.
Ms. Kling-Hesse:
Because you used to be a big brawny construction worker you are having difficulty adjusting to life without hands, life without bladder or bowel control, you need some peer support, and do not have a clue as to who to call for that.
The amount of adaptive equipment that you will need will take up your entire bedroom. The bedroom you had your rowing machine or home fitness equipment in, you will now have a ventilator, electric chair, hospital bed, catheters, colostomy bags and other supplies that you would not have thought of 6 months ago. There is no agency that can prepare you to deal with that emotionally.
You are probably going to spend the first couple of years of your new life simply going to all of those agencies to get the minimum amount of things you need. After that you may find that you can work, then you add another agency on the list and that is vocational rehabilitation.
I think what I just described would be a harrowing experience even for an able‑bodied person, but try to imagine that you are in a chair with no transportation and you have to go to all of these places, because they cannot come to you.
For that reason I strongly recommend you adopt S.C.R. 32.
Paul Gowns, Disability Forum:
In the 1997 session there was a bill developed to look at disability services and how they provide for people with disabilities. There was not a lot of enthusiasm to move it forward, and it died a painless death. I was fortunate enough to sit on the fundamental review committee for the Governor in the recent biennium, and this idea again surfaced. This idea is to look at how to coordinate services for people with disabilities, to provide better services, to get a grip on how much these services are going to cost, to do some planning for our state. It seemed like a good idea so it moved forward.
This idea went to the Department of Human Resources plan, the disability community looked at that plan and disagreed with it. The disability community felt any plan would be better than what human resources came up with. There were several community meetings about this issue, and they felt a legislative study would be a good way to deal with the issue. The disability community felt the amount of work it would take to put together this would need a good solid planning process and would need to look at all the issues to take a focused view. When we saw this come available through Senator Titus’ efforts, we wanted to be here to support it.
We feel the interim committees have served well for the disability community in the past and have helped develop services. We are looking at this to flush out some of those issues. We need to make this study a priority. We would support anything to move this study forward.
There were a couple of recommendations brought to me regarding this bill. One was to get the interim finance committee involved in this study. The other suggestion was to have Nevada Community Enrichment Center listed with the other nonprofit organizations.
We have been working with this issue for about 4 years, and we believe the interim study is the best way to deal with it. We urge you to support this bill.
Senator Titus:
I have been talking to Senator Rawson, who has a similar proposal that would incorporate some of the suggestions Mr. Gowns just made, and I am in total support of those suggestions.
Senator Rawson:
Mr. Gowns do you believe this study would be complimentary to the Olmstead study, should it replace that study, or is it in competition to the Olmstead study.
Mr. Gowns:
I believe if this is done correctly, we will relieve many of those issues. You will have the planning issues, will identify the populations, and will do about half of the normal steps of any type of Olmstead recommendations that I have seen. I do think it would contribute to the Olmstead study.
The second half is the action half. After you have identified the problems, act on them.
Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, EduCare, Community Living Corp:
We support this study. I think the way it is written is skewed toward physical disabilities more than developmental disabilities, but I have no problem with that. I believe if Senator Rawson’s bill and Senator Titus’ bills are combined then we will end up with a good bill.
We have real concern about never being able to provide people with information throughout the state on what services are available. If you had a grandchild tomorrow that had a developmental disability and you called the state and said, “This child is going to need services for the rest of his life and I need to start planning. So, let me know by age or type of disability what kinds of things should I start planning for? What kinds of services am I going to need? How many of those are private? How many are public?” There is no such document and there is no such Internet location to find that information. I think Senator Titus’ bill starts to describe the need to accumulate that information. I think that would be a great step, both for the physical disabilities and for the developmental disabilities. Nevada is fifty-first in the nation for funding both physical and developmental disabilities. We know the dollars are rare, so being able to anticipate a need and putting your name on a waiting list for a service will be very important.
We support the concepts laid out in the bill and we would be willing to work with Senator Titus and Senator Rawson to try to combine the best ideas from both bills.
Mike Goesch, Chairman, City of Reno Access Advisory Board:
I fully support this bill, and I urge the committee to adopt it. One of the problems we have as a board is recommending resources to people who are disabled. There is no one “clearing house” we can use for that.
I feel with the adoption of this study it will give us a very good tool to work with. As it stands right now, if I have a person who needs services I have to search for them. Unfortunately, that is not a good option. It does not make the system look very friendly. What I would like to see is to have the state adopt this study and combine overlapping services into one service that is easily accessible. So that trying to obtain services is not a bureaucratic nightmare.
Mary Christianson, Concerned Citizen:
I have been disabled since 1996 and have been confined to my home. I did not know where to go for help, or how I could get access to leave my house. It has just been in the last few months that I have had help with several things. By combining a program that would enable people to learn of all the resources available at one time and place would make life so much easier for disabled people.
All of a sudden, your life is taken away and you do no not know where to go or even what you are going to need. My life was taken away by two car accidents. My life changed and I did not know where to go or how to receive help. I think the plan outlined in the bill will be very important to people like me.
Joe Bohl, Executive Director, Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living:
I have been with the center since 1992. I started as a recreational coordinator, and in 1998, I became the executive director. Without being redundant, I would like to completely support everything everyone before me has said about this study. We need this “one stop shop” sort of center.
For all the years I have been at the center, we have always had people bumbling around trying to find resources that can help them. We have been in the area for 20 years and there are many people who have never heard of us. They think we walk on water sometimes, because we have some resources to refer them to and have information that can help them. It has been a long time coming to do something like this. I think you should promote this study and follow through with it.
Vincent Triggs, Executive Director, Nevada Association for the Handicapped:
The testimony you have heard speaks for itself. I think the language in the resolution speaks for itself. I understand you are under a great deal of pressure to set priorities in terms of interim studies, and the funding for those studies. However, I will tell you in reiterating everything you have already heard that this is an opportunity to make one of the greatest steps forward in disabilities services in the state. I urge you to consider this as one of those interim study priorities.
Senator Porter:
We will close the hearing on S.C.R. 32, and open the hearing on S.C.R. 31.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 31: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of organizational structure of agricultural extension program at University of Nevada, Reno. (BDR R-1044)
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District:
During my last campaign, I traveled all over my district, and received concerns about the Cooperative Extension program that use to be in the College of Agriculture. The attitude of the people to whom I spoke was that the Cooperative Extension should be looked into. So, I came up with this resolution with the help of several other people who believe we should look at it. We believe we should have a study committee and a technology subcommittee.
I understand the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation has an amendment they will be presenting to change some of the format for the technical committee. I support those changes.
This is a way to have some hearings during the interim and see if we could serve the public and the farmers in the state better.
C. Joseph Guild III, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association:
I have heard complaints about the Cooperative Extension in my capacity as president of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association. These complaints are about the changes that were made in 1997. Many people in the rural areas feel that perhaps the extension service has not changed for the better. The old system has definitely changed. These people are concerned and feel this issue should be looked at since this new system has been in existence for 5 years. I believe S.C.R. 31 is a good way to create the structure to analyze this system and see whether it is working, and perhaps air some of the complaints that have been expressed to me about the lack of attention being paid to production agriculture.
I know you are going to hear from opponents to this resolution saying they have been paying attention to production agriculture. I believe they believe what they are saying is correct. However, I hear a different story from producers who have made complaints to me. Therefore, without casting any criticism in the direction of the extension service or the Cooperative Extension program, I think it is a good idea to look at this issue. I guess my remarks are constructive suggestions and making the program better by studying it.
On behalf of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, I would urge your support of this resolution.
Senator Porter:
What is not happening that should be happening with the extension?
Mr. Guild:
I do not want to have my remarks characterized specifically criticizing a situation. I do not believe that is the case. Producers, however, use to have a lot more access to extension services in certain areas of the state. The fact that the extension is now paying a lot of attention to urban areas of the state is not something that I am overly critical about, because I think there is a need there. Obviously, they are doing a good job of serving those urban areas. But, the original land grant mandate was that the extension service would be a part of the land grant institution, and agriculture was obviously a very important component of that outreach effort.
While in some parts of the state there are excellent progressive modern agricultural extension programs, there are some areas of the state where services use to be provided that are no longer being provided at the same level as they once were.
The general comments I have received from some of my membership is that they would like to see more attention paid to agriculture. I know that is not specifically answering your question, but again I want to emphasize there are some fantastic programs being conducted by the Cooperative Extension.
Tony Lesperance, Concerned Citizen:
I believe I am qualified to speak on behalf of S.C.R. 31 for the following reasons:
On graduating from the University of Nevada, Reno, with a master’s degree in range and animal science in 1959, I was employed in the animal science department for the next 24 years. During my tenure, I conducted livestock and range research throughout Nevada. At various times I held teaching, research, and extension positions. In addition to teaching numerous agriculture courses, I publish nearly 200 scholarly articles. My extension work included being the livestock extension specialist for the state. In 1984, I left the university and established an agriculture supply and service business in Elko. In addition to sales and service activities, I also managed two of the largest ranches in Nevada. While in Elko I became a county commissioner, and eventually, chairman. In the year 2000, we sold our business and purchased a small ranch in Humboldt County where my wife and I currently reside. It is safe to say from becoming an agricultural student at Nevada in 1957 until today, Nevada agriculture has been my entire life.
Today I am here to speak in strong support of Senator Rhoads’ resolution, S.C.R. 31, aimed at studying the impact of the removal of the Agriculture Extension Service from its historic home in the College of Agriculture. But first let me briefly bring you up to date on the status of Nevada agriculture.
In 1986, total cash receipts for Nevada agriculture amounted to $238 million. Range livestock, cattle, and sheep, accounted for nearly 52 percent of that total. Irrigated agriculture accounted for only 33 percent. By 1996, some 10 short years later, total receipts had grown slightly to $287 million. However, by 1996, range livestock production accounted for less than 30 percent of the total. Total cash receipts for range livestock production had declined from $123.5 million in 1996 to only $85 million in 1996, a drop of some $38.5 million. During that same period, irrigated agriculture had grown to capture nearly 46 percent of the total cash receipts. It is now a fact that Nevada, once known as the capital of the range livestock industry, a state where cattle once outnumbered people, is no longer a dominant player in the range livestock industry. The figures come directly from one of your own publications, “Nevada Agriculture Statistics.”
Mr. Lesperance:
Some now say the future of Nevada’s agriculture lies in irrigated crop production. Certainly, the statistics from the last few years supports that conclusion. Total cash receipts for all crop production increased from $79 million in 1986 to $132.5 million in 1996, an increase of some 68 percent. But will these trends continue? I have serious reservations about that. Sierra Pacific Power Company has already warned agricultural producers that they had better be prepared for large increases in power over the next 3 years, perhaps as much as 200 percent or more. By far and away, the largest cost to Nevada’s farmers that produce crops is electrical power, for nearly all use electrical power to pump water in one form or another. Can the average Nevada farmer survive a near doubling of his power rates over the next few years? The answer to that is very simple, no, he cannot.
Without changes in the management philosophy of the federal land management agencies, without changes in the cost of power, without changes in the federal philosophy of water management, or most especially without new and innovative ideas, Nevada agriculture is in trouble, serous trouble. Twenty, thirty, even forty years ago, when Nevada agriculture faced serious challenges, it always turned to the University’s College of Agriculture, and its all important Agricultural Extension Service, but all that has changed. The extension service is no longer housed in the College of Agriculture, now it is in Las Vegas, and simply referred to as the Extension Service. Certainly there are Extension Agents in rural areas that still deal with agriculture, but they also deal in many other areas, social areas, youth at-risk areas; the list goes on and on. I will not argue that some of those social problems are not important, but social programs have many sources of funding, agriculture-support programs have pitiful few.
Agriculture and to a certain extend mining, have always been the economic backbone of rural Nevada. Unfortunately, mining has the habit of coming and going, and now it threatens to go once again. It is obvious at this time agriculture is not in the strongest of positions. Of Nevada’s 17 counties, it can be said that 12 to 13 must be classified as rural. Of those rural counties, several are in desperate financial straights. I would dare say all of them are having a very serious time this year balancing their budgets.
If these rural counties are to survive, they need all the support they can get. It seems to me, placing the Extension Service back in the College of Agriculture would be one of the cheapest and most efficient ways to partially accomplish that goal. Certainly, at the very least, the concept should be well studied. For these and many more reasons, I offer the strongest of support for Senator Rhoads’ resolution.
Doug Busselman, Lobbyist, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau:
In 1997, we came before the Nevada Legislature to express our concerns with the direction of the Nevada Cooperative Extension. We were troubled by the number of vacancies in rural counties, and the difficulty that agriculture had in getting meaningful response to its needs. As part of a legislative compromise, we were afforded the opportunity to participate in an in-depth review of the Cooperative Extensions programs. I was a member of the citizens study committee representing the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, which engaged in that program review.
Independent of this process, but unfolding at the same time was the decision and the beginning implementation of the changes that bring us here today in the form of S.C.R. 31. At the time, we learned of the impending separation of the Cooperative Extension from the College of Agriculture and the Agricultural Experiment Station system. We were concerned and not completely supportive of the idea. Our primary concern we felt was a lack of attention and responsiveness to needs of production agriculture. Since that time and from our experience in working in an ongoing fashion with the leadership with the University of Nevada’s Cooperative Extension we are pleased to report to you a complete turnaround to our perspective.
Throughout the state of Nevada, we can report a high level of service and attention to production agricultural needs by the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. A team of local extension educators is today a top-notch group of highly dedicated individuals interested and involved in the issues of the day. They deliver outstanding programs and informational materials to their agricultural and other constituents.
Mr. Busselman:
Since 1997, and our involvement in the process of reviewing the University of Nevada’s Cooperative Extension we have had the opportunity to participate in activities such as “needs-analysis” programs for sustainable agriculture. This was a jointly sponsored activity between the University of Nevada’s Cooperative Extension and the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation and serves as the foundation of future program development in this area.
I also serve as a representative on the advisory committee to the University of Nevada’s Cooperative Extension. While we do not believe the interim study outlined in S.C.R. 31 is necessary, we do appreciate the interest of the Legislature in the area of enhancing the organizational structure of University of Nevada’s Cooperative Extension; the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources; and the Nevada Agriculture Experiment Station.
We would be pleased and interested in participating as members of the advisory committee in the event this interim study is approved. At the same time, we would like to recommend various amendments we feel would provide a more comprehensive study.
First, we believe the two respective deans should serve as representatives of university faculty, and they should be specifically named as being the representatives in the resolution.
Our next proposed amendment on lines 33 through 37 of the bill addresses a component of the evaluation of the new organizational structure, with respect to the effectiveness of integration of educational programs with research programs of the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources and the Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station. In making this evaluation, we believe it necessary to determine the backup and support from qualified individuals at the College of Agriculture and from the Experiment Station system.
Mr. Busselman:
If anything, our current area of concern is not with the Cooperative Extension, as much as with the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources and the Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station. They have been receptive of working with us, but have not demonstrated the overall capacity within their structure to be responsive to the needs of today’s agricultural producers.
Our next proposed amendment is self-explanatory on lines 40 through 42, we would not like to be judgmental about costs, but instead of focusing on where the “bang for buck” might be coming from, focus more on programs.
Under a renumbered point seven, the form of an assessment of the process used by the College of Agriculture to obtain input from the University of Nevada’s Cooperative Extension and the agricultural community on research and/or development needs should be looked at.
In our earlier study of the Cooperative Extension, we learned the importance of the system used for conducting a “needs analysis.” We are not sure we have been able to figure out how to effectively communicate our needs to the College of Agriculture and the Agricultural Experiment Station. Our organization is represented on several advisory groups, which work with these entities, but it is difficult to judge whether there has been any outcome from the advice. Perhaps part of the difficulty between the Cooperative Extension and the other two entities is the system used to communicate what the agricultural community needs for research and development.
On the same basis as we have outlined earlier, we suggest a new number 8, covering an evaluation of the level and nature of applied agricultural research within the Agricultural Experiment Station system, with appropriate expertise of research personnel, to address identified agricultural needs for applied research.
We do not believe the purpose for the Agricultural Experiment Station should be limited to farming and ranching. We are looking for meaningful, applied research experimentation taking place at these facilities. Frankly, we are not certain about the level or the nature of what type of agricultural research is going on.
Mr. Busselman:
Our last recommended amendment, which rewrites number 7 into number 9, is likely to be the most controversial of all of our proposals. In this amendment, we suggest adding the Agricultural Experiment Station within the structure of the Cooperative Extension. We agree this linkage is important and given the outstanding progress the Cooperative Extension has made over the past few years on connecting with the agricultural community, we believe it warrants consideration.
We have learned the manner in which the process works for “needs analysis” from the Cooperative Extension. We have had the opportunity to participate in a joint system of identifying areas of research and development needs with them. We have not figured out how to connect these needs with the Nevada Agriculture Experiment Station research programs, therefore it seems to us the linkage we have described might be the way to improve the organizational structure and improve the service to the public, as sought in the proposal in S.C.R. 31.
Senator Porter:
Mr. Busselman, have you discussed these proposed amendments with Senator Rhoads?
Mr. Busselman:
Yes, I met with Senator Rhoads yesterday and we went through the proposals.
Senator Titus:
Mr. Busselman do you think that legislators and laymen who serve on this committee are qualified to make these kinds of high-end, high-tech assessments of technical types of research.
Mr. Busselman:
I think the outline of the study itself does provide some opportunities for discussions on the concepts if not the details of the work. We benefited a great deal from our experience in working as laymen in the discussions in 1997. We learned the process of how to participate in working more cooperatively with the research people. I think that is the direction we need to take. We need to learn more of the concepts, instead of the details of the research. From an agricultural prospective many of the agricultural producers who are engaged in production today may in fact be higher-tech than some of the research going on within the experiment station system. Maybe the research people could learn some of the things that producers are achieving.
Joe Crowley, Lobbyist, University and Community College System of Nevada:
In 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Land Grant Act which provided for land grant institutions to be established around the country and with the intention that there be a least one land grant institution in every state. The country was then overwhelmingly agricultural. It was a natural outgrowth of the legislation, and part of its purpose was land grant education to serve agricultural communities. Bringing to those communities elaborated education as well as research and service. The cooperative extension was added in the early twentieth century to provide the service component of the grant act’s mission. The Cooperative Extension through applied research brought the research of the Experiment Station to agricultural communities. This became the foundation for American land grant universities, of which there are now 73.
Every state has a land grant institution; this state’s land grant institution is the University of Nevada, Reno. Like other states when the Cooperative Extension came along, Nevada developed a Cooperative Extension service, agricultural research station, and the College of Agriculture. That model served us well for many years.
When I came to the university, I was surprised to find that very few of my colleagues understood what the institution’s land grant charter was, and what that mission meant. Not surprisingly, I suppose, because the institution had grown and the state of Nevada went from being primarily a rural state to an urban state.
It was no surprise to learn the two largest extension offices serving the state were located in the two metropolitan areas and were providing services that were other than agricultural services, although the agricultural services were still present. The organization problem was what kept the rest of the university from understanding that the entire institution had the land grant mission.
Mr. Crowley:
I took it as my task to acquaint the institution with its land grant charter and mission and what it meant. It meant bringing the services of the institution to the entire community of the state of Nevada through all of the colleges and schools of the university. We all had a land grant obligation in my opinion, but the principle model for the mission was the Cooperative Extension, and it was within the College of Agriculture. I did not see that as a match for where the institution needed to go to serve the entire state. To have the most important component of the service mission of the institution housed in a department in a college that served mainly agriculture. So, by degrees I sought to change that.
I brought in a dean in the early 1980s who believed as I did that the Cooperative Extension needed to serve and have relationships with all of the colleges and schools of the university system. This was a large change. We did it by degrees and discussed it with the faculty of the College of Agriculture and with the faculty of the Cooperative Extension. The faculty of the Cooperative Extension favored separation from the College of Agriculture. We reviewed the split university-wide, the idea went through the faculty senate, and the Board of Regents, which approved the split.
We had a transitional period during which the Cooperative Extension was not a separate unit, the dean of the College of Agriculture still served as the director of the Cooperative Extension. When he retired it was time to make that separation complete and we did that. We searched for our first dean and director of the Cooperative Extension that was different from the College of Agriculture.
Every step of the way was to continue the agricultural community. We did not want to serve as well as we had in the past, we wanted to serve better. We have done that, and have done so quite well.
We have come to a point that other land grant universities have come to in this country. There are now 27 of those institutions in the nation, and they have all gone to this model. This model is where the reporting line is no longer to the dean of agriculture, but to the university vice president. In my opinion the two leading land grant universities in this country is the University of Wisconsin, and Iowa State University.
Mr. Crowley:
We had the study in 1998, which grew out of concerns about the Cooperative Extension, and its ability to serve. I do not see the need for another study, and I would suggest, if indeed there are concerns in rural Nevada about the services provided by the Cooperative Extension, the best place to take those concerns is to the dean of the Cooperative Extension. I am sure she would be willing to listen and take action as appropriate. I do not see that there is a useful purpose served by studying again the functioning of the Cooperative Extension.
I would suggest instead of a study, that we get people communicating to assure where there are concerns we can meet them. Where there is a way to educate people about the way the Cooperative Extension operates, that we can do also.
Robert Dickens, Lobbyist, University of Nevada, Reno:
In 1997, the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation brought forward legislation to emphasize the fact that the rural constituencies of our land grant university were going unserved.
We had a rather interesting series of hearings in the Assembly. I tried to talk the bill to death, I was on the record for around 13 hours in the committee, and the subcommittee and I still failed. We reached a compromise, which Mr. Busselman referred to as a legislative compromise, to conduct an interim study between the university and a stakeholders group.
“The University of Nevada, Reno, Cooperative Extension: Bringing the University to You” (Exhibit F. Original is on file in the Research Library.), includes the results of the advisory board and lists its members. That committee met for 35 hours around the state and went through a very difficult decision-making process, which established a series of recommendations. The decision rule for that committee was every recommendation had to have 80 percent approval within the working group. We at the university took the findings to heart, hired Dean Karen L. Hinton and she has proceeded since that time to implement the recommendation of that working group.
In 1999, the university requested to modernize the mission statement of the Nevada Cooperative Extension service to included activities in addition to agriculture, education research, outreach and service programs pertaining to agriculture community development, health and nutrition, horticulture, personal and family development and natural resources in the rural and urban communities in Nevada. That is the concept of our modernized mission statement and is what we are now doing in the Cooperative Extension.
David Gordon Thawley, Dean, College of Agriculture Biotech and Natural Resources, and Director, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Nevada, Reno:
I have come to learn there are issues raised by S.C.R. 31 that outdate my arrival in Nevada. I see this resolution as a continued cry for help from constituents within the agricultural and rural sectors of Nevada. In my opinion, S.C.R. 31 represents a symptom of the feeling that my college is failing to meet the expectations of agriculture and rural interests throughout the state.
Immediately upon my arrival in Nevada in 1998, I toured the state and met with many of the constituency groups. I was struck by the outright hostility towards the College of Agriculture stemming from perceptions both real and unreal, that the college was failing to meet the instructional and service expectation of its cultural and rural interests.
When I entered the College of Agriculture, it did not have one person that could service the number two industry in the state, which is alfalfa, and still does not. There was also no one to service the number three industry, which is garlic and onions. There is no horticultural program. I am probably the most-qualified person to handle the dairy industry, as I was a dairy practitioner in New Zealand.
Over the past 2 years I have consistently received public comment and questions relating to the college’s inadequacies and its administrative relationship to the Nevada Cooperative Extension. I have repeatedly responded that I do not favor the reversion to the previous administrative structure. I realize there is some disappointment and unrest in the rural constituency. If the people of Nevada and our federal partners wish to advise us on how we can better serve our constituents, I would welcome their input.
Karen L. Hinton, Dean, Cooperative Extension, University of Nevada, Reno:
You have heard a lot of background information about the Cooperative Extension and the changes that have taken place in the last 2 decades. I would like to give you some additional information about some of the issues addressed in the resolution.
Dr. Crowley talked about the changing structure of the Cooperative Extension across the land grant universities. In Exhibit F, “Handout A” does list the universities that use the same structure as the Cooperative Extension in Nevada uses. The primary reason for utilizing that structure is to better enable us to respond to issues facing individuals and communities across Nevada.
In the past several years, we have made tremendous strides in developing a university-wide presence that has helped effectively bring expertise of the entire university to bear upon community issues. I think it has given us the opportunity to raise the viability of community issues to the university as a whole. We have now begun to draw on that broader range of expertise from the whole university.
In the complexity of the twenty-first century there seldom exists an issue that is very narrowly isolated to a single discipline. Very often, we need integrated teams to deal with those issues. Even for agriculture issues, we often go beyond the discipline of agricultural sciences. An example, we know that farmers and ranchers are now facing the threat of increased energy costs. For this issue we have been talking with our colleagues in the colleges of engineering and mining, and trying to engage their expertise to look at some long-term solutions. That is a positive result of our current structure. It enables us to make those direct linkages to other colleges on campus.
Ms. Hinton:
Our mission of disseminating research-based information still applies and necessitates a continuing close relationship with our historic partners, that being the college of agriculture and human and community sciences as well. New relationships with other colleges, such as business and medicine are also being formed so that we can move completely into addressing issues and disseminating a wide variety on university research.
Agriculture programs remain an essential part of the Cooperative Extension, especially in our rural communities. We have a great interest on those agricultural topics.
Contrary to what is being suggested in the resolution, there is a great deal of agriculture research, which involves the college of agriculture, and is distributed to the citizens of the state. In Exhibit F, there is a listing of examples of integrated research and the Cooperative Extension collaborations. That listing is from around the state.
Many of the programs are done in collaboration with faculty on campus when we do not have the subject matter expertise on campus. Others are done by the Cooperative Extension faculty.
Sometimes that expertise is limited, we do not have crops, and dairy departments on campus, so often our Cooperative Extension faculty does conduct applied research in locations around Nevada. Some of this research includes alfalfa research and testing of alternative crops. We also team with other states when campus researchers or the Cooperative Extension faculty cannot address the issue. We have established an agreement with Utah to provide information and consultation to dairy producers.
Ms. Hinton:
We continue to support joint positions in the college of agriculture and the Cooperative Extension. Most of these positions are housed on campus in the college of agriculture and that helps us to sustain agricultural research dissemination.
In the year 2000, the Cooperative Extension supported more than a million dollars of salary and operating costs in the college of agriculture. In Exhibit F there is also a graph of that support which includes part of our state-funded budget that is made available to the college of agriculture as well as other funds.
As you can see, we have sustained a high level of funding. There have been a few changes that have brought little dips, such as the water quality funds from our federal partner, which ended in the year 2000. We also moved the state 4-H program back into the Cooperative Extension in 2001. This graph shows a strong sustaining of that support for agriculture.
The resolution has raised some questions in regard to additional administrative costs. In Exhibit F we have also provided you with information that shows the opposite is true. We were able to reduce the top administrative positions in the Cooperative Extension, when it separated from the college of agriculture in 1998. We went from a high of $345,000 to $202,000. There is a substantial reduction in administrative costs of around $143,000.
Our personnel, who are located in 17 locations around the state, work diligently to respond to community needs. They work hard to maintain high levels of programming. Our faculty reported more than 400,000 face-to-face contacts in the year 2000.
It was only 3 years ago that we conducted the type of study suggested in S.C.R. 31. That study was done on a more comprehensive scale. With the diversity of programs, the size of programs, and the continued emphasis on both rural and urban priorities, it is important for our programs and the citizens of Nevada that the Cooperative Extension continue to operate on a equal basis with other colleges.
Senator Mathews:
You said you did a study a couple of years ago.
Ms. Hinton:
The working group study that Dr. Dickens talked about was conducted in 1998. That report is in Exhibit G.
Senator Mathews:
Has that been disseminated?
Ms. Hinton:
Yes, actually that was disseminated statewide. That report was sent to all county commissioners across the state.
Senator Porter:
Could you summarize for me what you perceive as the problem and what resolution would you suggest to that problem?
Stephen C. McFarlane, Interim President, University of Nevada, Reno:
Whenever you make a change, you are going to have people who are in favor of the change and some who are not. When it involves working throughout the state with the number of contacts that are made through the Cooperative Extension and the college of agriculture, it involves many people, lots of communication, and lots of miscommunication. One of the things we know from looking at the number of contacts that have been made from the university to the community is the area of the Cooperative Extension has the largest number of contacts in the entire university. I think that is a basis for some problems. There is also rapid change, and rapid change has been mentioned already in terms of the role of the Cooperative Extension.
Dean Thawley spoke about the inappropriateness of returning the Cooperative Extension to the college of agriculture. We have had comments from the farm bureau that indicate an improvement to services from the Cooperative Extension. I think we are looking at a process. The process started in orderly fashion as Dr. Crowley mentioned, with proper input along the way from various individuals in the faculty senate, with approval of the regents. I think we are seeing an evolving process. We are evolving in the Cooperative Extension and changes in agriculture.
I would mention we have some needs in the university that we need to shore up. We look at a snapshot in time. We know you have given us what funds are available and there will still be needs left unmet.
In summary, I do not think we need to have another study, and I do not think we need to return to the former structure or to the modified structure suggested by the farm bureau.
Mr. Thawley:
I would echo the previous statement. The thing I would add is the college of agriculture has historically been funded and is funded now by about 72 percent from the Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station, 10 percent from the Cooperative Extension, and 18 percent from the academic budget. This funding covers the full spectrum of areas from biotechnology, biochemistry both for the medical school and for the rest of the university all the way through agriculture, natural resources, and wildlife conservation. The difficulty there is over a period of a century as budget reductions have occurred colleges of agriculture have come to rely more on the agricultural experiment station funding and Cooperative Extension funding to be able to teach the 18- to 22-year-olds. That causes a considerable amount of stress, particularly at University of Nevada, Reno, where biochemistry is the largest department and has the third greatest number of majors graduating on campus. A considerable amount of the Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station resources are drained off to support the biochemistry program, which leave less for agricultural and natural resource programs of the university. It is a resource issue.
Another example is the lack of a horticultural program in the university and possibly in the state of Nevada. I have maybe one person that could participate in a horticultural program.
Where some of the disconnect occurs is the considerable horticultural program in the Cooperative Extension, but I cannot draw on them to teach. We cannot teach our 18-year-olds to be employed in the horticultural industry. The horticultural industry is a growing field. I get very frustrated because I come under a lot of criticism, because we do not have the personnel to deliver the expertise.
Ms. Hinton:
I would agree with what has been said. Our resources are limited and we have to learn to live with the resources that we have available. We put together an enhancement for sustainable agriculture, to have more positions that could deal with production agriculture. We understand the situation that the Legislature is in this year with the lack of funds. Unfortunately, we cannot have specialists in all areas. So, we have to analyze the needs and choose to use our resources well to deal with the major issues. Sometimes that means we have to deal with some issues in other ways, such as dairy. We spend $10,000 to get expertise from Utah. If we filled a position at the university, it would be in excess of $100,000 to get operating and to hire faculty. We are looking at alternative methods in which we could be creative within our means.
Senator Porter:
When we were looking at the Henderson college campus an issue continuously mentioned was that Nevada is considerably lower than other states in obtaining grants coming in from across the country. Is there something we should be doing that we are not doing to increase the grant funding?
Mr. McFarlane:
We have grown in the last 2 years from $80 million to $87 million in external funding in grants and contracts. We will exceed $90 million and approach $100 million this year. Our researchers at the University of Nevada, Reno, in all fields have perhaps the highest success rate in achieving grants of any university in the nation.
Senator Porter:
We were looking at comparable sized other states. In some cases, the difference was as much as $100 million between states.
Mr. McFarlane:
Well, that is true, but you have to look at the number of grants we are submitting and the number of grants that we can deal with per capita in terms of the number of people we have to use those grants. That was why I was trying to relate our numbers to per capita and per grants submitted in terms of our success rate. We have been very successful in that. One of the problems is that we have departments that are smaller than many other schools.
Ronald S. Pardini, Associate Director, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Nevada, Reno:
I would disagree with the suggestion to move the Agricultural Experiment Station away from the college of agriculture and into the Cooperative Extension. You heard our dean say there are resources mandatory to keep the college alive and to offer programs. The resource base provided by the Agricultural Experiment Station is essential for the graduate training programs associated with the college of agriculture.
Sandy Green, Executive Director, Eureka County Economic Development Council:
I am speaking today as the former commissioner of Eureka County. I was part of the interview process when Dean Hinton was hired, and I have also been named to serve on her advisory committee. I would like to say Eureka County has been a true beneficiary of the change to the Cooperative Extension. Our extension educator has become a part of the community, and the extension program has become a community-driven program. That educator has become involved with the small business development center and helping the economic development department with its programs. He has also initiated videoconferencing, which for rural communities is a tremendous time saver for getting quorums for meetings.
He has become involved with the 4‑H program, which is where we need to start with our youth, so they know that milk does not come from the grocery store. He has built the program from 7 children to over 130 children. In a small community of 500 to 600 people, that is a substantial change. He has also persuaded the parents to become involved with the program.
As far as alternative agriculture goes, he has been working with the economic development department to try to develop biomass programs with poplar trees and “junk” hay that we always have to deal with. As a community, we have become involved with weed management.
The Cooperative Extension worked with the Nevada Association of Counties on the survey to find out how people perceive public land management. The extension has also developed some facilitation courses, which we need in our rural communities to deal with conflict management.
It seems to me the new organization needs to be given a chance to work. The extension has become more visible. I have been in Eureka County farming for 30 years, and have been involved with the extension throughout those years. This is by far the best outreach program that I have seen. I would give it an opportunity to work.
Sarah Mersereau, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture:
I do not believe the study committee would be a good use of time. The extension people are the most mission-driven people you will ever come across.
They put a tremendous amount of effort into supporting the previous study committee to allow a group of partner agencies to have a full look at what they are doing. We succeeded in proposing to the Legislature, and adopted it last session, statutory language that appropriately broadens the mission of the Cooperative Extension. This broadening of their mission allows them to serve all kinds of needs throughout rural and urban Nevada. I think it is working well. Any legislator would have a great time on such a committee, because he or she would meet people who are serving Nevada as no one else is.
Tom Baker, Former Rural Representative for U.S. Senator Richard Bryan:
Over the last 12 years, I have worked with the Cooperative Extension on a number of issues. In the last years, I have worked with them primarily on water issues in northern Nevada, and wildfire issues. The Cooperative Extension has done an exceptionally fine job of reaching out to our communities on a number of these issues, and on bringing together numerous disciplines, and bringing together, not only the university, but the federal and state agencies to solve a lot of these problems. I just wanted you to know how well they have been functioning.
Senator Porter:
We will close the hearing on S.C.R. 31, and open the hearing on S.C.R. 6.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning wilderness areas and wilderness study areas in this state. (BDR R-727)
Senator Rhoads:
When the interim committee on public lands held hearings all over the state, the two things that we heard at every meeting was wild horses and wilderness study areas.
Since passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the topic of wilderness designation has been one of the most contentious subjects in the western states. The U.S. Forest Service has designated 13 wilderness areas totaling 783,000 acres in Nevada. They currently list an additional six wilderness study areas consisting of 190,000 acres.
There are presently 11 wilderness areas designated on public lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Nevada. These areas total a little over 750,000 acres. There are, however, 99 additional wilderness study areas by the BLM in Nevada, and these study areas include almost 4.4 million acres of Nevada lands.
The public lands committee recommends this wilderness study as a separate interim study under the Legislative Commission to ensure the membership of the subcommittee conducting the study is broad enough to develop the required consensus. We in Nevada have been fighting about wilderness designations for over 30 years. The recent problems related to the Black Rock Desert‑High Rock Canyon Designations, and the Congressional Delegations’ renewed statements that they will support only consensus legislation, make the time right for the Nevada Legislature to be the catalyst to develop such a consensus.
In support of S.C.R. 6, we have a packet of background information (Exhibit H). The initial tab entitled “Remarks” provides a copy of my prepared testimony.
Senator Rhoads:
The second tab titled “Letters” contains letters from the BLM and Nevada’s Division of State Lands expressing support for this study. The BLM letter specifically offers, within its budgetary constraints, to provide technical mapping assistance and hold informational field meetings in conjunction with this interim study.
The crucial point is that as long as these lands are classified as wilderness study areas, they are managed as if they were already designated as wilderness.
The BLM has recommended that 2.8 million acres be released from wilderness study classifications and returned to multiple-use management. Congressional action is required, however, to designate wilderness areas and release the “log jam.” To date, the Nevada delegation has never felt they had enough of a consensus to process a BLM wilderness bill.
Members of Nevada’s Congressional Delegation have consistently indicated they will process wilderness legislation only if a consensus of interested parties is reached. Passage last year of the act creating 10 wilderness areas as part of the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon National Conservation Area proved to all concerned that designation without consensus is politically “bloody” and not the way to go.
Recent conversations with members of the delegation reconfirm they are not willing to support wilderness legislation until a consensus can be built, and building this consensus is the goal of S.C.R. 6.
The third tab entitled “Background” provides background information and statistics on wilderness areas and wilderness study areas in the state.
The final tab titled “Program” contains an overall program outline that was presented to the Congressional Delegation. This program highlights the goal of developing a consensus product and outlines the process to achieve the consensus.
Even if the federal funding assistance requested in the overall program outline is not approved immediately, it is still time for the Nevada Legislature to approve this interim study and begin putting together the consensus to address the wilderness issue. An interim subcommittee can be the catalyst to bring together the public participants, the federal agencies, and the Nevada executive agencies to develop a Nevada-based consensus proposal for federal legislation.
Senator Porter:
In southern Nevada, U.S. Senator Harry Reid is looking at the designated wilderness study areas, would that be a part of this study?
Senator Rhoads:
I understand from talking to the senator a few months ago, that he is considering introducing a special Clark County wilderness bill, because of the airport, the shooting range, and some other problems. The senator did not make a decision on our proposal.
Senator Wiener:
Have we resolved the problems with the U.S. Forest Service?
Senator Rhoads:
Yes, we have. They have some wilderness study areas also, but the bulk of them are BLM study areas.
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
The wilderness issue is one of the great-granddaddies of all public issues in Nevada. It has been going on for a very long time. On the forest service issue, we have had wilderness bills, although, the forest service will be revisiting this issue in 2 years when they start their next planning cycle.
The BLM has more than 5 million acres tied up as either wilderness or wilderness study areas. This is an issue that is controversial no matter which side of it you are on. If you are a wilderness advocate, you want to see wilderness designated so it will be protected. If you would like to use the public lands in a way you feel wilderness would be a hindrance then you do not want to see so much wilderness. You want Congress to take action so that the wilderness study areas are released. One way or the other this issue needs to be resolved. We simply have been unable to bring all of these groups together.
The major progress made during this interim was due to Senator Rhoads and Assemblywoman de Braga who sponsored two land summits. We had people from all over Nevada come to those summits. One was held in Reno, the other was held in Carson City.
The biggest sessions and the most hotly contested sessions were the sessions on wilderness. There was a very strong demand coming out of those two summits that this issue should be pursued. If we do not move now, I do not know when we could do it. As time passes, the issue becomes more contentious and more problems arise. The time is right to move this issue forward and I urge you to make this study a priority.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum:
As I looked over this resolution, I thought about many of the land issues and many of the economic issues that have been discussed. One of the things that is a continuous concern is the issue of economics in our rural counties. I have seen figures that say as much as $520 million have been lost in six counties over a 13‑year period because of the reduction of ranching. Also, those figures go to the fact that $65 million a year can be lost in tax money, which could go to local and state coffers. It is a problem when rural counties cannot sustain themselves and provide basic services to their population.
I spoke to Senator Rhoads earlier about these two proposed amendments, which would add on page 2, line 13, after the word state, “and to solicit public participation and conduct hearings concerning the broad impact the designation of wilderness areas may have on the residents of Nevada.”
On page 2, line 21 at the beginning of the first sentence:
Review the economic impact the designation of wilderness may have on individuals, industries, and local communities, and review the impact the designation of wilderness may have on the local and state tax base and local and state government’s ability to provide government services.
One other thing that I did not have a chance to discuss with Senator Rhoads is the idea of a more neutral language in S.C.R. 6. I would suggest where the bill says “federal public land” it should be changed to “federally controlled public land.”
The economic impact federal management of the land has reduced the timber mill jobs by about 130,000 people. Also, 20 percent of livestock production has been lost in wilderness expansion. There are many other issues, such as the government has removed 2.3 million acres from public usage.
There are also problems with litigation, because of problems with fires in the west due to mismanagement of the land. There is a lot of economic impact because of the mismanagement of the land by the federal government. I think it is an important issue and needs studying. We need to know how these wilderness study areas are impacting our rural counties.
One of the things I found is that private property is at risk. The wildlands activists seek to return the land to a primitive state. There is some suggestion that human population should be reduced in these areas by as much as a third.
My concern is the issue of economics, as you look at any study of these areas, I ask that you specifically identify the economic and tax impact concerns of these wilderness areas.
Senator Titus:
I worry that if we create a study like this it is going to become another forum for diatribe against the federal government and federal land policy of the West’s environmental policy. I think you already have a forum for this issue; you have the public lands committee. There are all these resolutions to Congress against anything environmental, or federally oriented. Do you really need to rehash all that stuff?
Ms. Hansen:
Perhaps this is not the right arena, Senator Titus. I would not be the one to make that decision. But, I suggest that any study including the public lands committee should focus on the economic issue, which I think has not received the focus it needs. The real impact is to people that are losing their livelihood, and whose communities do not have the funding for schools or other basic services are of great concern. This whole debate is a survival issue for rural communities. I think those economic issues have been overlooked. If this is not the place to look at those economic issues then perhaps we should make sure those issues receive recognition in other places. There are many issues in the rural areas, and they have not had their economic and tax issues recognized. I think we need to have some hard numbers on these issues.
I cannot answer your question as if this is the place, I think it is “a” place, but is it not the only place? No, I think it needs to be looked at from several different perspectives.
C. Joseph Guild III, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association:
I would like to lend my support to S.C.R. 6. I believe a separate forum needs to be initiated by this Legislature to discuss this issue. I think the interim summits brought this issue to the forefront. It lingered under the surface for a while, but it became clear to everybody that we need to do this study. We need to get this issue behind us. There are over 5 million acres under wilderness study area designation right now. This means those 5 million-plus acres are administered as if they were wilderness-designated areas and the BLM figures say that only about 2 million of those acres should be designated as wilderness. That means there is at least 3 million acres being administered as wilderness that probably should be put back to the multiple-use concept designation. That would help address some of Ms. Hansen’s economic impact in the rural area issues.
By being in the livestock business for the last 35 years, I have been oriented towards this issue. This issue has been a problem all that time. It is time to do something about it, and I think organizations, such as the one I represent, are ready to sit down and actually talk about this and solve the problem. I do not believe this is going to devolve into some sort of debate, as Senator Titus is concerned about.
If we designate some acres as wilderness, get it over with; get the Congressional Delegation to understand the consensus that has been created, I believe we will have done something good for the state of Nevada. Good because the wilderness areas that needed to be designated have been designated and I believe Congress will pass such a bill.
Andrew A. List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties:
I agree with Mr. Guild that this a very timely issue, and a timely period in which to study wilderness areas. I think we need to get some of these areas designated, the ones that are not officially designated as wilderness areas are being managed as if they were designated as wilderness areas. I think this is a timely period to finally decide what to include as wilderness areas and what to return to public use.
There are some other resolutions that can work with S.C.R. 6 and show that this is the time to study this issue.
I was at the land-use summit and helped organize it with Ms. Stephanie Licht. From all the attendees, one thing that came out was that it is necessary for the state to take the lead in this arena.
Raymond Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association:
We were part of the funders for the land summits, and when I attended the first evening I did not believe there was a way this group was going to meet any sort of consensus. I wandered back through about 1:00 p.m. on Saturday afternoon and the difference between Friday night and Saturday afternoon was monumental. So I think it is possible to reach a consensus. I think uncertainty in the state is causing major confusion on both sides of the issue. Just making any decision will be a step toward the right direction.
There is a third element to this issue that has not been touched upon. In the entire western states, the whole energy issue has become a heated issue. Whether it is for power lines going through, transmission lines going through, gas lines going through, or whether it is for solar sites or geothermal sites, getting this wilderness issue resolved one way or the other is going to at least open up and clarify what is available for those power generation resources that the west is going to need.
The last issue is urban Nevada funds rural Nevada. That is going to continue to happen. If you resolve some of these issues, it will not fix that, however, it is a major step in the right direction. It will help the entire state.
Senator Porter:
We will close the hearing on S.C.R. 6 and open the hearing on S.B. 141.
SENATE BILL 141: Requires study of State Fire Marshal Division of Department of Public Safety. (BDR S-404)
Dave Drew, Deputy Chief, East Fork Fire and Paramedic District:
The state is looking at limited resources and huge problems. That is what this bill is designed to address. In the fire service of Nevada, we have limited resources, as do other departments. In testimony during the budget hearings earlier in the session, the Acting State Fire Marshal mentioned there are 29,000 public buildings in Nevada that are supposed to be inspected. How in the world do they do that? They do not have the staffing to do the inspections on 29,000 buildings, and they do not have the funding.
There are about 3500 fire fighters in the state, who in varying degrees are impacted by the training resources from the state fire marshal’s office. The rural areas have the greatest impact to training from lack of funding. That also would cover the largest geographical area in the state. There is a need.
The most predominate study of the fire departments was done in 1980. In 1980, some of the more recent disasters in Nevada had not occurred with regard to the fire service. The fire service has changed considerably since 1980. The needs have changed, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements have changed, training requirements have changed, equipment requirements have changed, and many other changes have taken place.
In 1997, we had a combined meeting of the State Board of Fire Services and the Fire Service Standards and Training Committee. We were told there was not any funding to do those meetings. Speaking as the chairman of the standards and training committee at that time the feedback I got from my committee and the State Board of Fire Services was that they did not care whether they were funded, we were going to do this, it was important. These people went to that meeting knowing they would have to pay the bill themselves.
With the way this bill is formed, the majority of the work would be done by the board of fire services and the standards and training committee and we are relying on the other state fire services organizations to assist us in that. Those two statutory committees are currently funded in the budget. Funding should not be much of an issue, however, I am not well versed in some of the intricacies of how that fits with the Legislative Counsel Bureau. The people that are actually going to be doing this study are not asking to be paid for it. Our past performance has demonstrated that.
What we are asking for is a legislative endorsement, and a legislative commitment to look at this issue because it is growing.
I would like to mention, the bill nor my comments are not directed at the personnel in the state fire marshal’s office. Those people are working very hard to meet the requirements that are put on them. I think, I can say they are also as frustrated as we are, because they are not sure which direction they should be heading sometimes. There have been some directions given and some promises made, and sometimes these are in conflict. There are not the resources to accommodate those things. The real question is, given the massiveness of the issue, where do we take those limited resources and where can we put them to the best use. Conditions have changed a great deal over the last few years.
Terry Taylor, Captain, East Fork Fire and Paramedic District, and The Nevada Arson Investigator’s Association:
I wanted you to know that the arson association supports the bill. I want to remind Senator Porter of something. I believe it was 5 years ago when we began working on the insurance fraud issues in Nevada. I worked with the senator on that. We worked with the Legislature to break the back of the insurance fraud problems we were having in Las Vegas and I think that cooperation is what we need here. We need some legislative support for this bill. We have people in place, as we did 5 years ago, who are willing to help do the work. I believe the funding exists there and I think we can replicate that success for the fire service.
I believe it is important that we do this study. Our association supports the bill, our fire districts support the bill, and I think it can work.
Ronna Hubbard, Legislative Liaison, Nevada State Fire Fighter’s Association:
After hearing the financial issues, our point was not to make a financial impact. We may have worded it wrong by making it an interim study. It might just be a legislative endorsement of the two committees getting together, doing the study, and reporting to the Legislature. That is what we would like to do.
What amazes me is that these groups can work so well together when they go from having chiefs from large metropolitan fire departments to the smallest rural volunteer fire departments. The stress is to get training. When we met in Tonopah, I was amazed that we could all sit in the same room, come to the same conclusions, and agree on the same issues. I think these two groups can work together.
We support this bill and do not want it to be a financial impact on anyone.
Bryon Slobe, Acting Nevada State Fire Marshal, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:
Since hearing testimony from my colleagues, I am not so much in opposition to this bill. I did have a problem with the fiscal impact and the financial stress it would put on the office budget.
We have been squeezing pennies as you know, and I just got my budget through this morning. I do not think we could take a fiscal impact. I do not object to another interim study to help Nevada’s fire service. I think it is probably way past due. We had one in 1992, 1980, but they are old. Many things are the same but many things have changed. Things need to be looked at.
This study should be submitted instead of another study with a fiscal impact. All I ask is that we know where this study is going to go. Because of the budget constraints and the mandates, only certain things can be implemented. I think it needs to be carried through including legislation if necessary.
Senator Porter:
Mr. Slobe if you could get us some of your suggested changes, we would be happy to look at those.
We will close the hearing on S.B. 141 and open the hearing on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 5.
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 5: Directs Legislative Commission to appoint committee to continue review of Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. (BDR R-703)
Assemblyman Greg Brower, part of Carson City and Washoe Counties Assembly District No. 17:
As chairman of the last interim committee to oversee the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), I thought I would introduce the bill. As the committee knows the Legislature has for the past several interims authorized the interim committee to oversee the TRPA. The TRPA is in need of constant oversight, because of its unique nature as a bi-state entity. This is not a committee that counts against the number of interim committees that staff is recommending.
I had the pleasure of chairing the past interim committee for the TRPA. I found it to be an eye-opening experience, particularly in light of the fact that I represent the Washoe County part of the lake. I think the committee is important. There is a lot happening at the lake with respect to environmental improvement programs. I think it is important to continue our oversight as a legislative body.
Pam Drum, Public Affairs Coordinator, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency:
We have been privileged as an agency over the years to have such quality time with members of the Nevada Legislature, during the interim periods. It has been valuable and productive time spent on our part, as well as the Legislature.
As part of the series of hearings held last interim, we took the members of the committee on a tour of both sides of the lake. It is always good when we have the opportunity to get people out into the field to look at some of the things that are happening at Lake Tahoe.
There is a Committee to Review the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact as opposed to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The main purpose of the compact was to create the agency, but the compact also talks about the role of the federal government and the state governments in their efforts to preserve Lake Tahoe. The activities of this oversight committee are consistent with the intent of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. Additional information is included in the 1999-2000 Continued Review of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (Exhibit I. Original is on file in the Research Library.).
These hearings are an excellent forum for the members of the public and the various stakeholders at Lake Tahoe to have some direct communication with the Legislature.
I would like to remind the committee that the California Legislature does have direct representation on the TRPA governing board. The speaker of the California Assembly and the Senate Rules Committee, both have appointees to our governing board. The compact is written so there is no direct corollary to that on the Nevada side. This is the Legislature’s opportunity to have direct participation and input into policy and other decision making at Lake Tahoe.
Senator Porter:
Was it the federal act that created the committee?
Ms. Drum:
The Tahoe Regional Compact is actually an agreement between the two states of California and Nevada. The amended compact was adopted in 1980, and the compact defines very specifically, who makes up the 15-member TRPA governing board. For whatever reason, the makeup was different between the two states. On the Nevada side the members of the governing board are the secretary of state, the director of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the three members of local government that border the lake, an at-large member, and the governor’s appointee.
Senator James:
The TRPA is structured so the California Legislature appoints members to the governing board and Nevada does not?
Ms. Drum:
That is correct. The compact calls for the California delegation on the governing board to include an appointee of the positions I told you about before.
Senator James:
We ought to change that.
Ms. Drum:
There has been a proposed amendment to the compact floating around for a number of years.
Senator Porter:
We may be able to introduce some resolution in this state. I think we can within our rules.
Senator James:
What is the proposed amendment?
Steve DuCharme, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance:
There was a resolution presented to the Legislature a number of years ago that would call upon the Congressional Delegation to approve the change to the compact, which would have the delegation on the Nevada side constituted the same as the California side. It would eliminate the secretary of state, and eliminate the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources as standing appointees from Nevada.
It is important to point out that although the California Legislature has appointing power, the people who sit for them are not legislators. They are individuals who are appointed to represent those bodies, not elected officials.
Having been at the Lake Tahoe area for many years now and seeing both systems, I believe there is great merit in how Nevada does it. Nevada has an active oversight committee in the interim, and has an opportunity for at least six legislators and a variety of other people to be more active in Lake Tahoe issues. I believe up until the time when the environmental improvement program was put into place and California became more active that the Nevada-side system functioned better.
Senator James:
Are the California counties’ local government representatives selected the same way as they are in the Nevada counties that border the lake?
Mr. DuCharme:
Yes, they are appointed by their respective governments.
Senator Porter:
It seems to me we should have a legislator on the oversight committee.
Ms. Drum:
We currently have two former legislators.
Senator James:
This is one of those things that is difficult, because it seems like the policy of the proposed amendment is a good one. We have a good member in our secretary of state who takes a tremendous interest in TRPA. Although, I think I would like to as a committee support that change, I would have a problem removing our secretary of state. Both he and the at-large member are assets to that board. They roll up their sleeves and look at things. They both are critical thinkers.
We are lucky the secretary of state and the at-large member are former legislators. They understand the peculiar nature of the TRPA from the standpoint of a legislator and they generate support for its activities.
Ms. Drum:
I would assure you that our governing board is in tune with what the interim committee has to say. We operate similar to how a state agency does for budget requests. We have to come before this body every 2 years to ask for funds and other changes as needed, just as a state agency would.
Mr. DuCharme:
One of the opportunities the interim committee has is to discuss the merits of changing the delegation during the next session through a resolution. That would give the interim committee a chance to hear both sides of the issue.
My organization is the Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance. We are part of the Lake Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition. We do everything we can as one of the host organizations to try to assist the Legislative Counsel Bureau staff, which has done an outstanding job, and knows a great deal about Lake Tahoe’s history and issues. We try to do everything we can to coordinate tourism, help provide meeting venues, help the committee understand the issues, and lessen the burden on the LCB staff and the budget.
It seems prudent to continue the interim committee since the state has invested well over $80 billion.
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
We carry out most of the state’s environmental programs at Lake Tahoe as well as holding state land in the Tahoe basin. The committee in A.C.R. 5 is one of the Legislature’s great success stories. When this committee started there was great hostility between the Legislature and TRPA. When we first started going to these meetings the public hostility in the room was obvious. This committee has been very successful in cutting through that hostility, and helping to forge the consensus in the Lake Tahoe Basin. All of the parties now speak to one another and generally like each other. We still argue about issues, but this committee has been very influential in making that happen.
The Lake Tahoe oversight committee oversees not only TRPA, but also programs of the state in the Lake Tahoe Basin. They have been very helpful to us. They help us focus on what the needs are in the basin, and help develop the programs to meet those needs.
I believe you are aware that all of the bills that have been requested by my agency regarding the Lake Tahoe Basin have been requested simultaneously by the Lake Tahoe oversight committee. We have had the rare privilege of having all of the environmental improvement programs at Lake Tahoe be sponsored simultaneously by the legislative and executive branches of the government.
I am hoping you will be able to find the funds to have this committee continue, it is very valuable to the Lake Tahoe Basin, and valuable to the state of Nevada.
Senator Porter:
We will close the hearing on A.C.R. 5, and it being 5:30 p.m., we will adjourn.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Johnnie L. Willis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Jon C. Porter, Chairman
DATE: