MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Natural Resources

 

Seventy-First Session

May 9, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Natural Resourceswas called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 2:30 p.m., on Wednesday, May 9, 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 Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Mark A. James

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

Senator Maggie Carlton

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator Bob Coffin (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1

Assemblyman Bob Beers, Clark County Assembly District No. 4

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Fred W. Welden, Committee Policy Analyst

Heather Miller, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Detective Division, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

Thomas M. Lindley, Lobbyist, America Mounted Police Association, and Nevada Horse Alliance

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada

Gemma Greene Waldron, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association

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

Hugh Ricci, P.E., State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State Department of Conservation on Natural Resources

C. Joseph Guild III, Lobbyist, Newmont Gold Company

Russ Fields, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Mining Association

Peter J. Goicoechea, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Eureka County

Karen A. Peterson, Lobbyist, Eureka County

Jon Hutchings, Eureka County

Mike L. Baughman, Lobbyist, Contract Executive Director, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority

 

Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 463.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 463:  Revises provisions governing use of certain animals. (BDR 15-809)

 

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1, testified about his introduction of A.B. 463, which passed with slight amendments from the Assembly.  He said since horses are being used more and more in law enforcement, the proper legislative acts must be passed to ensure it is practiced appropriately.  He said horses are used on college campuses and for crowd control in Las Vegas. 

 

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Detective Division, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, testified in favor of A.B. 463, stating prior legislation has never addressed horses when they are used as police transportation.  He said this legislation would help protect the animal against assault or injury, whether the horse is owned by the officer or the agency.  He explained the bill gives exemptions to police officers to ride the animals on streets, sidewalks, and so on.  He suggested a few proposed amendments (Exhibit C), which he provided to the committee for its consideration. 

 

Chairman Rhoads asked why A.B. 463 was necessary.  Thomas M. Lindley, Lobbyist, America Mounted Police Association, and Nevada Horse Alliance, answered Chairman Rhoads, stating that to date there had been no assaults on police horses.  He said a horse unit had been hit by a car in Las Vegas last year, and because of the way the current law is written, the officer rider was found at fault because he was on the street instead of the sidewalk.  He explained this law needs to be clarified so mounted officers can have a legal right to be on the street.  Mr. Lindley stated another problem in the present law that needs clarification is the definition of a police horse.  He said three-quarters of police horses in Nevada are owned by the individual officers instead of the different agencies.  He explained the animals that are privately owned are not addressed in current legislation. 

 

Chairman Rhoads asked if a lot of horses are used in Las Vegas.  Mr. Nadeau answered horses are used in a variety of places in Las Vegas, including The Strip, for things like crowd control. 

 

Senator McGinness asked if the proposed amendments would allow mounted officers to endanger the life or safety of bystanders.  Senator McGinness said he understood the officers wanted to ride in the street, but it was important they do so in a safe manner.  Mr. Nadeau answered that the police departments did not want reckless behavior of officers to be exempted, and he was willing to work on the language to clear up any possible misinterpretations. 

 

Assemblyman Collins commented the exemption is for everyone but the mounted officers.  Senator McGinness said the law does not allow officers to drive a vehicle in an unsafe manner, and mounted officers should conduct themselves similarly. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked if an officer who owns his own horse is responsible for providing liability or insurance on his animal.  Mr. Lindley answered the departments cover the liability on any horse used. 

 

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, testified in support of A.B. 463, stating he was a retired Reno police officer who had seen horses used effectively for crowd control. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked what protocol was used when a horse unit crossed the state line.  Mr. Dreher answered there are protocols for pursuits, just like there are with squad cars. 

 

Gemma Greene Waldron, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, testified in support of A.B. 463.

 

Senator McGinness asked if there is language in current law that allows officers in vehicles certain exemptions to safety when in pursuit.  Ms. Waldron replied she was not aware of any similar language for mounted officers.  She said the difference was that a horse could use a sidewalk, which is not acceptable for a squad car.

 

Senator James asked if the existing law is constitutional.  Ms. Waldron presumed that it is.  Senator James asked if a person demonstrating on a horse in a public street could be arrested for disturbance.  Ms. Waldron replied the law did appear to be broad when taken in that context. 

 

Senator James asked Assemblyman Collins if he wrote the law so it would exempt peace officers.  Assemblyman Collins answered the law had been written to help peace officers fulfill their duties, and the exemptions separate the criminal from civil penalties.  Senator James reiterated it did not seem like a constitutional law.  Senator James asked if Assemblyman Collins would support amending the present law.  Assemblyman Collins said he would. 

 

Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on A.B. 463 and opened the hearing on A.B. 468.

 

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

 

Assemblyman Bob Beers, Clark County Assembly District No. 4, testified on his introduction of A.B. 468.  He said the bill was written to aid in situations where mines and ranches use water, and once they are through with it, it runs off into an adjacent county. 

 

Chairman Rhoads said the present law states if water moves across a county line, whoever is responsible for the runoff must pay $6 per acre-foot, per year.  Assemblyman Beers replied the current law does not specify if that water should be put to beneficial use.  Chairman Rhoads asked if water going into a river was beneficial use.  Assemblyman Beers answered no one made money from that. 

 

R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified in favor of A.B. 468, giving a brief statement about the past problems created by runoff water.  He said the new language in the proposed amendments would prevent any future confusion. 

 

Senator James asked Mr. Turnipseed if a county cannot levy a tax when a mine company within its borders is moving water from a site and discharges it into a river, which flows into another county.  Mr. Turnipseed affirmed yes, as long as the beneficial use, mining and milling, was declared on the application.  Senator James said he saw the theory in that, if the dewatering of a mine is the same as any other beneficial use.  Senator James wanted to know if the dewatering of a mine should be considered a beneficial use.  He said the water was just being moved, not utilized. 

 

Chairman Rhoads asked Mr. Turnipseed what this legislation would accomplish that present law does not.  Mr. Turnipseed answered the current law has been misinterpreted since its passage in 1991.  He said A.B. 468 would allow the state engineer involvement in the process and makes the determination if the water is indeed an export from one county to another.  Chairman Rhoads and Mr. Turnipseed discussed past litigations in this area.

 

Hugh Ricci, P.E., State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified he agreed with Mr. Turnipseed.  He said this legislation was important to him because of his position as state engineer. 

 

Chairman Rhoads asked if this legislation would go into effect if Leeville (a potential goldmine) pumped water at 40 gallons per minute, but the water stayed within the basin and did not cross the county line.  Mr. Ricci replied there is now a provision that no discharge would be allowed under that particular permit, and there would have to be some substitution or actual recharge back into the groundwater basin from where it was taken.  He said under some extreme circumstances, the Newmont Mining Company could request that it be able to discharge without going through another committee process. 

 

C. Joseph Guild III, Lobbyist, Newmont Gold Company, testified in support of A.B. 468, stating the past legislation was economic mitigation.  He said there had never been any mention of mine dewatering situations, and the intent of the law was to make sure water was transferred from a county of origin and beneficially used in a destination county, thereby creating an economic detriment to the county of origin, and the tax would then be imposed.  He said this tax should not apply under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 533.438.  He said A.B. 468 should clarify this, and give the state engineer a scrutiny role in determining whether the tax should apply.

 

Chairman Rhoads asked if that meant pumping water out of a mine is a beneficial use.  Mr. Guild quoted a statement Mr. Turnipseed had given, saying the dewatering itself is not a beneficial use, but rather an aspect of mining, which is an enumerated beneficial use. 

 

Mr. Turnipseed explained when ore is below the water table miners can pull the water from the mine and continue to extract the ore, which is beneficial.  Chairman Rhoads asked if Eureka County would have been able to collect this money if the law had been enforced for the last 10 years.  Mr. Turnipseed answered they would have been subject to the tax. 

 

Mr. Guild added that an amendment might be proposed to A.B. 468 that he objected to.  He said on line 5, section 1, page 1, the amendment would change the word “and” to “or,” before the words “beneficial use.”  He said that entirely changed the intent of the bill.  He declared he was opposed to that change.  He also said another amendment might propose an increase in the tax from $6 to $8 an acre-foot.  He said this was not the proper time for that increase to be discussed.  He said there was another possible proposed amendment that would add a paragraph (c) to subsection 2 of section 1.  He said the new paragraph (c) would also change the intent of the bill and he is opposed to it as well. 

 

Russ Fields, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Mining Association, testified in support of A.B. 468, and asked the committee for its passage as written. 

 

Peter J. Goicoechea, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Eureka County, testified in opposition to the current draft of A.B. 468, stating if the committee decided to pass it, some amendments should be considered (Exhibit D).  He said there was need for this legislation, and no county had been taxed in the 10 years the statute has been in effect. 

 

Karen A. Peterson, Lobbyist, Eureka County, testified in agreement with Mr. Goicoechea. 

 

Chairman Rhoads asked if the discharge water has to run into the river before these funds can be released.  Ms. Peterson answered it did not.  Chairman Rhoads asked how many years were left in the term of agreement of water treatment.  Ms. Peterson answered there were 6 years left, but no money had been collected yet.  Chairman Rhoads clarified that Mr. Goicoechea did not want the bill at all, or add the proposed amendments he had submitted.  Mr. Goicoechea affirmed that was correct. 

 

Jon Hutchings, Eureka County, testified in accordance with Mr. Goicoechea, stating he had nothing new to add.

 

Ms. Peterson informed the committee the mining industry has been exempting itself from certain water rights statutes for the last few sessions.  She said when large amounts of water are pumped from the ground, the Legislature needs to be very clear on the broad policies it is enacting.  She said granting exceptions must be done very carefully. 

 

Mike L. Baughman, Lobbyist, Contract Executive Director, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority (HRBWA), testified in opposition to A.B. 468, stating the water in the basin is available for beneficial use for perpetuity within that area.  He said the counties involved had worked on this issue together, thereby removing the need for any legislative action.  He offered some proposed amendments (Exhibit E) for the committee’s consideration if it is intent on the passage of A.B. 468.  He informed the committee he was also representing Lincoln County and its interests in this matter.  He asked the committee if this was a tax or a fee.  He suggested it be changed to a fee, which he believed was more appropriate.  He said he thought it would not be subject to the statutory cap if it was a tax.  He mentioned the primary reason for his objections was because it would require two-thirds majority of the vote, or it could be vetoed. 

 

Chairman Rhoads asked what the new section 4 would accomplish in the HRBWA’s proposed amendments.  Mr. Baughman replied it would require that before an automatic exemption could be applied, the state engineer would have to determine whether the water that is to be appropriated is beneficially used.  He said instead of giving a categorical exemption, the state engineer should evaluate every proposed transfer or application permit that this might apply to and render a conclusion.  Chairman Rhoads asked if that was not already done in section 1, subsections 2 and 3.  Mr. Baughman said that was in the proposed bill, so that does not happen right now.  Chairman Rhoads and Mr. Baughman discussed whether the state engineer currently did these evaluations.  Mr. Baughman then questioned why there is no fiscal note in A.B. 468.  He said it was clear counties will have a new requirement and submit a justification and a notice to the state engineer, who will have to review them, but there is no mention of the fiscal note. 

 

Mr. Guild pointed out if the county of origin wanted to trigger state engineer scrutiny, all it has to do is give notice to the state engineer.  He said subsection 1 of section 1 allows the enabling of the tax.  He said he did not think subsection 4 of subsection 1 modifies subsection 2 of section 1 to the point where a county could not notice its intent to impose a tax. 

 

Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on A.B. 468.  Chairman Rhoads could not open the work session on A.B. 629 due to the loss of a quorum, so he postponed it until the next meeting. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 629:  Clarifies standards for regulating petroleum products used in internal combustion engines. (BDR 51-543)

 

Chairman Rhoads adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Heather Miller,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman

 

DATE: