MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining

 

Seventy-Second Session

February 5, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, February 5, 2003.  Chairman Tom Collins presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. Tom Collins, Chairman

Mr. Jerry D. Claborn, Vice Chairman

Mr. Kelvin Atkinson

Mr. John C. Carpenter

Mr. Chad Christensen

Mr. Marcus Conklin

Mr. Jason Geddes

Mr. Pete Goicoechea

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Bob McCleary

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

Erin Channell, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Michael Turnipseed, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Catherine Barcomb, Administrator, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Commission of the Preservation of Wild Horses

 

 

Chairman Collins called the 72^nd Session of the Nevada Legislature’s Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining to order.  Roll was called.  All members were present.

 

Chairman Collins greeted the Committee members and guests.  He opened the meeting by indicating the notebooks he provided on Committee members’ desks for their use on the Committee.  He continued with an overview of committee function and stated that committees follow the Constitution of the State of Nevada, the Legislative Standing Rules, the Committee Standing Rules, and Mason’s Manual.

 

Chairman Collins reminded the members that Session was 120 days, with two days past, and that he planned to expedite meetings so that he could allow testimony for proposed legislation that came before the Committee.  He indicated that he wanted Committee members to keep questions and comments pertinent to the testimony.  Personal questions by the Assemblymen could be asked before or after a meeting, as the witnesses would be available at that time.  He added that he did not want to discourage beneficial questions, but that he wanted to remain focused on the testimony and legislation; the time frame in which they had to work was limited and he wanted to be fair and allow as many issues as possible.

 

There would be presentations to the Committee since there were several new members in the Legislature; he wanted the presentations to be beneficial to the new members and applicable to the bills and resolutions presented in Committee meetings.  Chairman Collins then asked Committee members to provide a short introduction and began with Assemblyman Conklin.

 

Assemblyman Conklin introduced himself as the representative from District No. 37 for northwest Las Vegas.  He said that he was proud to be present and serving under Chairman Collins.

 

Representing northwest Reno, Assemblyman Geddes stated that he had been before the Committee in a previous session due to some of his work issues.  He stated that he loved the issues that the Committee dealt with, that it was his first choice of Committee assignments, and that he looked forward to the Session.

 

Assemblyman McCleary said he represented District No. 11 in Clark County and he was glad to serve on the Committee.

 

Assemblyman Christensen was from Las Vegas with a large number of constituents interested in the issues before the Committee and he had specifically requested an assignment to this Committee.

 

The representative of Assembly District No. 17 from Las Vegas, Assemblyman Atkinson, expressed that he was glad to be serving on the Committee. 

 

Representing Assembly District No. 35, which included seven counties, Assemblyman Goicoechea looked forward to serving on the Committee, where in the past he had been a witness testifying on issues before the Committee.

 

Assemblyman Marvel said that it was a pleasure to be back and that he had been serving on the Committee since 1979.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson represented Clark County and stated that this was his fourth term on the Committee.

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall indicated that it was her fifth term on the Committee; she had previously served as Vice Chairwoman and also said that the Committee was essential to the state.

 

Representing Elko County and part of Humboldt County, Assemblyman Carpenter stated that he was a senior member of the Committee having served nine terms.  He said that there were a lot of issues that affect numerous people, and therefore they had a lot of work to do.

 

Vice-Chairman Claborn, of District No. 19 in Las Vegas, said the Committee would deal with a variety of issues and that they were going to be the problem solvers. 

 

Chairman Collins asked whether the Committee members had had a chance to look over the proposed Committee Standing Rules (Exhibit C).  He said that they were very similar, if not identical to, other committee standing rules.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO ADOPT THE STANDING RULES.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Collins introduced Ms. Eissmann for her presentation to the Committee.

 

Ms. Linda Eissmann, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division of the Legislative Council Bureau, stated that she had been assigned to the Committee as the Committee Policy Analyst.  Because of a prior request from Chairman Collins, she provided a brief description of her background, including a degree in geology and employment by the state of Nevada since 1986.

 

Ms. Eissmann then directed the Committee member’s attention to the Committee Brief (Exhibit D) she had provided.  It was a document prepared jointly by the Assembly and Senate Natural Resources staff.  Both Senate and Assembly Committees have jurisdiction over nearly identical statutes in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), and the bills tended to move to the same Committees in both houses.  Pages 2-4 listed specific statutes that fell within the jurisdiction of the Committees.

 

She referred to Exhibit D, page 4, that summarized the legislation considered and enacted during the last session by the Committee.  Listed were some of the subject areas that were addressed, including agriculture, animal protection, environmental regulation, mining, and water issues.  One specific area that was not addressed by the Committee was the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact.

 

On page 9 of Exhibit D was a list of summarized issues anticipated to be addressed during the 72^nd Session.  The list compiled the types of measures that might be introduced during the session and was similar to those from last session.  Ms. Eissmann anticipated a number of bills dealing with agricultural issues such as invasive and noxious weeds, other pests, fertilizers, pesticides, and dairy products.  She stated that several Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) had been requested covering animal protection laws.

 

Ms. Eissmann indicated that issues relating to environmental regulation were more varied that last session.  She anticipated that in addition to air quality and emissions, there would be measures concerning hazardous waste transportation, solid waste fees, recycling, and certification of laboratories.

 

She discussed mining issues that might include reclamation bonds.  She also discussed bonding for environmental improvement projects at Lake Tahoe.  Exhibit D, pages 11 and 12, listed water measures, which included water rights, water, and water wells.  Bills that involved wildlife would also be referred to the Committee.

 

Ms. Eissmann then referred to pages 13 and 14 in Exhibit D with the 120-day calendar and pointed out several key deadlines. 

• February 10 was the deadline for individual Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) to be received by the legal division.
• February 24 was the deadline for Committee BDR requests.
• March 17 was the deadline for individual BDR introductions.
• March 24 was the deadline for committee BDR introductions.
• April 11 was the deadline for committee passage of a bill.
• May 16 was the deadline for passage of any Senate bills under consideration.

 

She continued by stating that Exhibit D contained a list of various contacts.  The final paragraph on page 12 stated that any Committee research requests had to go through Chairman Collins per the Committee Rules; however, as a Senior Research Analyst, she could handle any personal research requests.  She and Cecile Crofoot, Committee Manager, had scheduled presentations and briefings from different state and federal agencies, private entities, and interest groups that would testify throughout session.

 

Ms. Eissmann provided a brief introduction of the two presenters for the meeting:  Michael Turnipseed, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; and Catherine Barcomb, Administrator, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Commission of the Preservation of Wild Horses.

 

Chairman Collins emphasized the work Ms. Eissmann did for the Committee and said that she was the key between the research and the legislation presented to them.

 

Ms. Eissmann stated that she had asked the presenters to limit their comments to 15 minutes with an additional 15 minutes for comments and discussion involving the Committee members.

 

Chairman Collins provided a brief introduction of Cecile Crofoot as Committee Manager and Erin Channell as Committee Secretary.  He continued by saying that at the beginning of each meeting he would read over some rules about presentation of documents for the Committee and that witnesses could be sworn in prior to their testimony.  He asked if there were any questions, and seeing none about Committee procedures and functions, he asked that Mr. Turnipseed provide his testimony.

 

Michael Turnipseed, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, began by providing some background to his career and experience.  His duties included leadership and general management of numerous divisions including the Nevada Division of State Lands, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Nevada Division of Parks, Nevada Division of Water Resources, and two programs: Nevada Natural Heritage Program and The Wild Horse Preservation Commission.  He provided information about staffing, personnel issues, his work involving Walker Lake and Walker River and the related litigation, and his involvement with the distribution of funds from the Question One issues from the November 2002 general election ballot.

 

Chairman Collins asked if there were any questions, and seeing none, asked Ms. Barcomb to begin her presentation.

 

Catherine Barcomb, Administrator, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses, gave a brief history of the Wild Horse Preservation Commission.  She provided a copy of the Nevada Wild Horse Plan (Exhibit E) to the new members of the Committee.  She began by presenting a brief history of the Wild Horse Preservation Commission that began with the Heil Fund in the early 1970s.  In 1985, the Nevada Legislature created the Wild Horse Preservation Commission as a state agency, with jurisdiction that covered the entire state of Nevada; prior to the establishment of the Commission the focus of her work had been on land use planning.  Any issues that affected wild horses, whether from the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Forest Service, or state agencies, flowed through her office and crossed her desk, where she provided a review and comments as needed.

 

She worked with a five-member Commission Board, appointed by the Governor, that met quarterly.  The Commission received no general funds and was completely supported by the Heil Trust interest income.  In 1997, the Legislature mandated that the Commission gather public input from throughout the state into the problems that faced the Wild Horse Preservation Program, and to develop new ideas about how the state could help and improve this program.  The state provided the funding to collect public opinion, wrote a program plan and published it, and presented the findings to the 1999 Legislature.  The Legislature had provided full support for the programs they had presented.

 

After the 1999 Legislative Session, the Commission completed two additional studies.  One study created the National Wild Horse and Burro Foundation.

 

Ms. Barcomb then referred back to the plan the Commission created that dealt with the issues of wild horse and burro adoption after the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had gathered them.  If horses were not moved through the BLM gathering program, they could not be moved into the adoption program, which created a backlog of animals in the corrals and meant further gathering had to wait (Exhibit E).

 

The National Wild Horse and Burro Foundation was similar to the Quarter Horse Association or the Arabian Horse Association.  This Foundation provided for registration of adopted horses, encouraged nationwide shows, and developed a show point system.  The second study created the Comstock Wild Horse Training Program, a prison program with the Department of Agriculture.  Ms. Barcomb referenced the prison training programs that were run by Colorado and California.  The programs provided rehabilitation to the inmates through job training and opportunities for emotional interactions while working with horses to learn to control and manage anger and rage, as well as gaining a sense of pride in accomplishing a task. 

 

Ms. Barcomb stated that every quarter the prison program held an open house and adoption.  The inmates provided a horse show with the horses they had gentled and trained.  The public then had the opportunity to bid on the horses for adoption.  In Texas, the adoptions of Colorado prison-trained horses averaged around $1850 each.  The program also allowed trained horses to go to private homes.  She mentioned a holding center affiliated with the prison program could bring in to the state a revenue of $300,000 every two years for holding Bureau of Land Management (BLM) horses.  She then mentioned that the inmate program took in a BLM horse from the Marvin Piccolo School, gentled it, trained it for a therapeutic horseback riding program, and presented it back to the school.

 

The Wild Horse Preservation Commission was also working with an equestrian drill team out of California that competed nationally on Nevada mustangs.  This program was a partnership between the BLM, the state of Nevada, and the prison program.  The horses were adopted from the BLM, were trained at the prison, and then awarded to the team.  Ms. Barcomb then mentioned a planned event called the Western States Wild Horse and Burro Expo (Exhibit F) which was the first of its kind, with a similar event planned for 2004 for eastern states.  Also planned was a national finals expo and show for 2005 in Oklahoma.

 

Ms. Barcomb said that all of the work done with the National Wild Horse and Burro Foundation was to create more interest in the adoption program, in showing the horses, in education, adoption, and marketing to improve the horse program.

 

In conclusion, she said they tried to promote the adoption program and get the horses moved through the corral system to ease the burden on the BLM.  The Wild Horse Preservation Commission was also reviewing the documents about what BLM had done on public lands to ensure the safety of wild horses, wildlife, livestock, and habitat. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked how much of the funds from the Heil Trust Fund were left.

 

Ms. Barcomb stated that the Legislature had previously authorized that the Commission and the BLM expend $400,000 in a joint effort, for a total of $800,000 for the establishment of the Foundation.  She continued that they had used $206,000 to date, and that she thought they had just under $900,000 in the account.  They were using it slowly to gain interest income. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel interjected that before the inmates were involved in the program, Freeman Johnson used to break in all the horses.

 

Assemblyman Christensen asked for clarification on the relationship between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Corrections on the prison training program.

 

Ms. Barcomb responded that each Department had jurisdiction over different types of horses, Department of Agriculture over estray horses and The Wild Horse Preservation Commission over the wild horses.  The state was troubled by public sentiment for the horses, because of the horses leaving the Virginia Range, where the horses caused problems by entering the foothills and subdivisions and getting into traffic.  The public did not want them getting killed by traffic, or by being taken away and destroyed.

 

She said the state tried to resolve the issue through the establishment of a program to place the horses into good homes.  Between the Department of Agriculture, the Wild Horse Preservation Commission, and the prison system, the wild horses were chosen, then placed in the inmate program where they were gentled, saddle-broke, trained for different activities, and placed for adoption; the process took about three months.  About half of the horses that went through the program were estray horses and the other half were wild horses; both programs were promoted at the same time to place the horses in good homes and to benefit the inmates.

 

Assemblyman Christensen asked how many correctional facilities were involved with the program.

 

Ms. Barcomb indicated that they were trying to expand the program.  A grant request had been submitted to the National Wild Horse and Burro Foundation to help fund a program expansion, especially to southern Nevada.  She also addressed the possibility of a rescue program for orphaned foals which would be established in northern and southern Nevada prisons.

 

Assemblyman Conklin asked if there was an expanding or dwindling population of wild horses that needed to be controlled and what the rationale was behind rounding them up and placing them into homes. 

 

Ms. Barcomb responded that the population was currently around 20,000 wild horses within Nevada; the annual increase in population was estimated to be around 18 percent.  Differences were possible between northern and southern Nevada because of different conditions, such as foaling periods, roundup efforts, and the carrying capacity of the habitat.  Based on this information, the excess horse population was gathered and placed in the adoption program.  The demand for horses adopted from the program depended upon the economy.  A slow economy meant that horses needed to be held longer before they were adopted.  She did not feel that there was a danger of losing the horse population.  They were maintained in herd management areas where the horses were found at a particular time.

 

Assemblyman Conklin inquired if the horses were ever destroyed as a part of the process.

 

Ms. Barcomb stated that they were not destroyed while under Bureau of Land Management ownership because the law prohibits the horses from being sent to slaughter; the exception would be if an animal was damaged.  It was a part of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burro Act, Public Law 92-195, but Congress did not fund that portion of the Act every year because of public sentiment.  Sanctuaries did exist throughout the United States in states like South Dakota and Oklahoma, where older animals could stay in long-term holding for the rest of their life spans.

 

Chairman Collins asked if there were any other questions; seeing none he thanked Ms. Barcomb for her presentation.

 

Chairman Collins then added that within the Wild Horse Preservation Plan (Exhibit E) there was a variety of information on the original Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and the allotment circles which were drawn without regard to circumstances like food and water availability.  Other problems were created as well, including a provision for selling the horses; Congress stipulated that no funding was allowed without the condition that the horses would not be sold for slaughter.  He also pointed out that under the Act, at least 50 percent or more of the horses in the program nationwide were in Nevada; unless the animal was diseased or damaged, it was not destroyed.

 

Ms. Barcomb added that with regard to the allotment circles, one problem that arose was that they had not managed wild horses prior to the Act, and once they were mandated to manage them where they were located, they flew around the west and drew circles where the populations were located.  The allotment circles did not account for issues like seasonal movement, water needs, or land development.  This created land management problems for the state of Nevada, because “the horses did not recognize that there was an area they were supposed to remain in, even if water was not available in that region.”  Within the state of Nevada, three allotment areas did not have water within their borders.

 

Assemblyman Claborn requested an explanation about those horses that did not qualify for the adoption program and about the age of a horse in order to qualify.

 

Ms. Barcomb said that prior to several years ago, any horse over the age of nine would have been sent to a sanctuary, and those younger than nine remained eligible for adoption.  They were also trying to enter the older horses into the prison programs.  There were too many horses to be accommodated, so with the changes in water conditions and environmental conditions, more horses were entered into the holding program.  The newer policy was that horses older than four years went to a sanctuary.

 

Assemblyman Claborn said that just two years ago there were 26,000 horses roaming the lands, so according to the numbers Ms. Barcomb had provided, the horse population had decreased.  He said that this was an important factor for the Committee to remember.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea responded to Mr. Claborn that while many of the horses had been removed from the range, many of them were placed in long‑term holding facilities.

 

Chairman Collins stated that the latest numbers indicated that the Bureau of Land Management spent around $25,000 per day to feed horses in Nevada, which did not include other treatments and related activities.

 

Ms. Barcomb stated that she did not know the exact figure that was spent.

 

Chairman Collins thanked Ms. Barcomb again, then asked if the Committee members knew the difference between an estray and a wild horse, and he said that it was explained in Exhibit E.  Basically the difference was based on the ground that they covered.

 

Chairman Collins clarified the purpose of the folders provided was that since the room was still to be remodeled, the accordion folder was to be used for documents that the Committee members want left in the room, and that the folders would then be kept in a secure place.  He also clarified that the notepad folders he provided were paid for by himself, so they did not have to declare them.

 

Chairman Collins said that he would be e-mailing the members notices of events in the local area, such as livestock auctions and sales, meetings, and other points of interest.  A piece of trivia that he provided was that Assemblyman Atkinson’s district contained the largest hog farm in Nevada.  He reminded the members that mining and agriculture could be found in places that might surprise people.

 

Chairman Collins also told the Committee that in his office he had a brand book, and that he wanted the members to look through the book and find what their brand would look like if they were in the livestock business and had a brand.  He requested that they present a copy of it to him with their names.  The hope was that the exercise, although they were not going out and digging rocks and prospecting to accomplish this, was to introduce them to the wider concepts of what they would be dealing with, which was what the e-mails would also address.

 

Assemblyman Claborn asked if rodeos were mandatory.

 

Chairman Collins responded that they would not be mandatory, but the hope was that they would understand the events and know the differences between them.

 

Chairman Collins drew attention to the signs posted about signing in, and that if someone wanted to speak but had not signed in, it would be considered a discourtesy to the Committee.  He said that when bills were presented to the Committee, he planned on having the sponsor of the bill or agency representative or group representing the bill be the first speaker.  Then he would let those in favor of the bill speak, followed by those opposed to the bill.

 

Chairman Collins did not plan on letting the testimony drag out and would determine a time limit for each side’s presentations, such as ten minutes for those in favor and ten minutes for those opposed.  If that did not clarify the issue enough for the Committee members, then he would allow the witnesses to present written testimony to the Committee.  The Committee vote on a bill would not necessarily take place on the same day as the bill was heard, which would allow the opportunity for someone to present written testimony.

 

He covered some general courtesies, such as being consistent with casting one’s vote.  If a Committee member voted in favor of a bill in Committee, then Chairman Collins expected the same vote on the floor, unless declared in advance of the vote; or that member was to personally tell the Chair prior to the Floor vote that the Committee member would be voting a different way.

 

Chairman Collins said that out of courtesy, he would also like to know about amendments prior to the amendment being presented.  He also said that the veteran Committee members had a variety of experience with which to help the freshman Legislators.

 

Chairman Collins asked if there were any questions from the guests or the Committee members.  Seeing none, he thanked the Committee.

 

Chairman Collins recessed the meeting to the Call of the Chair at 2:24 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                                                           

Erin Channell

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman

 

 

DATE: