MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Seventy-Second Session
February 26, 2003
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:27 p.m., on Wednesday, February 26, 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
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Harry Mortenson (excused)
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Erin Channell, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Pamela Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Nevada Division of State Lands; Administrator, Division of Conservation Districts
Kevin Piper, Dayton Valley Conservation District
Heather Dye, Executive Director, Future Farmers of America
Andrea Paris, Nevada Future Farmers of America
Ronald Levine, Nevada Motor Transport Association
Peter Krueger, Emission Tester Council
Joe Johnson, Member, State Environmental Commission; Representative, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Lloyd Nelson, Emission Control Program Manager, Department of Motor Vehicles
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Transportation
Neena Laxalt, Nevada Propane Dealers Association
Chairman Collins opened the meeting warning witnesses that they not only needed to sign the guest list but also, if they were planning on speaking, they needed to check the box that so indicated. He noted that the Committee would be hearing two presentations and one bill. The first presentation would be from Pam Wilcox of the Division of State Lands.
Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands; Administrator, Division of Conservation Districts, explained why she was running two state agencies. In 1980, she was Administrator of the Division of Conservation Districts and in 1983, when the state was going through a budget crisis, she had been asked to run both divisions, so from 1983 to the present, that was what she had done.
Ms. Wilcox began her presentation by first discussing the Division of State Lands which was the state of Nevada’s land agency and real estate agent. The Division bought land the state needed, held title to those lands on behalf of the state, sold land that was excess to the state’s needs, and negotiated easements, leases, permits, and authorizations. Ms. Wilcox indicated that five land agents worked on those programs and took care of almost all of the state’s land needs, with the exception of the University and Community College System and the State Department of Transportation. The highway system, she explained, was separate, and the Board of Regents were responsible for the University and Community College System’s own lands.
Ms. Wilcox mentioned that there had been a state land office functioning since statehood, and that the kinds of lands the state held title to included lands used by state agencies, the state’s remaining school-grant lands, and the beds and banks of navigable bodies of water. She added that, since the 1980s when voters passed a bond issue to acquire sensitive lands at Lake Tahoe, the Division had also been administering the state’s programs at Lake Tahoe. The programs at Lake Tahoe were intended to make certain those sensitive lands would not be built on, and also to relieve the owners, who were unable to build on the lands but were paying property taxes on them, of that financial burden. Approximately 500 parcels had been purchased at Lake Tahoe, Ms. Wilcox explained.
Nevada was not a state that owned much land, Ms. Wilcox continued, only owning about 250,000 acres, which was less than 1 percent of the land within the state. Most land in Nevada was owned by agencies of the federal government, she pointed out, which resulted in 87 percent of the state being managed by federal agencies.
Ms. Wilcox added that the state land office was the archive for the state land records, and did a lot of business providing land title research services for people. Speaking of recent land transactions, she indicated that the Division of State Lands had acquired the old Employers Insurance Company of Nevada building in Carson City, and was currently selling, on behalf of the Division of Wildlife, its old Elko office. Ms. Wilcox noted that soon the Division would be selling portions of a Yerington ranch, some office buildings, and one remaining large piece of school trust land in North Las Vegas.
Ms. Wilcox pointed out that the Division also did a lot of state land use planning work and had two different programs, each with one staff person. She explained that state statutes provided for the Division to give technical planning assistance to local governments. Ms. Wilcox noted that the planning assistance was basically a rural Nevada program, because many rural counties had no planning staff, and this allowed them to provide master plans and zoning in order to encourage economic development. One of the positions, a circuit planner, worked with local governments on those issues, but only when asked, because, she emphasized, the state had no authority over land use planning.
The second position, Ms. Wilcox explained, worked on federal land issues, because there were so many of them. The Division tried to monitor those issues for the state and shared that jurisdiction with other state agencies. Ms. Wilcox mentioned that one of the big programs the Division was currently working on was the Black Rock National Conservation Area with its ten attendant wilderness areas. The Division was concentrating on making plans that were currently underway as sensitive to the needs of the state and local governments as possible.
She also mentioned considerable involvement in sage grouse planning efforts and the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, where the state had a seat on the working group that reviewed nominations for the use of that money. Ms. Wilcox invited Committee members who wanted additional information about any issues she had mentioned to call, and she assured them that the Division would try to help provide that information.
Assemblyman Carpenter mentioned that the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act was being expanded to include the northern part of the state and that the United States Forest Service was interested in buying approximately 35,000 acres in Elko County. Mr. Carpenter explained that one of the Elko County Commissioners had called with concerns about a meeting conducted by a member of Ms. Wilcox’s staff, at which the staff member had been unable to provide Commissioners with any answers about the use to which the land would be put, whether it would include mineral development, or whether grazing would still be allowed.
Ms. Wilcox replied that Elko County had invited the one staff person she had who followed those issues, Skip Canfield, to meet with them. She explained that Skip had only worked for the Division for a few months and had expressed some concern to the County about discussing issues he had little background on. However, he had met with the County and representatives of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service, and Ms. Wilcox had understood that the dialog had been “pretty constructive.” The Division, she added, had welcomed the Act because it made federal land available in Clark County, which had a great need for that land to be released. She cautioned that the Division had concerns about the expenditure of that money in rural Nevada counties that were already 90 percent federally owned. Ms. Wilcox added that she had expressed her concern from the beginning and continued to do so.
Ms. Wilcox explained that the Southern Nevada Land Management Act provided for lands to be sold in Clark County twice a year. Once a year, there was a process to decide how the money accrued should be expended. A list of “nominated” lands Ms. Wilcox had received only one month previously, included many more lands in rural Nevada that had been the case in previous years. Ms. Wilcox indicated that the Division was in the process of thinking through what purchase by the federal government of those lands in rural Nevada might lead to, how counties could most effectively respond and analyze the impact to them and could have an effective voice in the process. Ms. Wilcox agreed that she shared Assemblyman Carpenter’s and Elko County’s concerns. She added that she was surprised that the federal agencies had been unable to explain how they would use the land after purchasing it, and that she would help get that information.
Assemblyman Carpenter replied that if Ms. Wilcox would look into the problem, he and the Elko County Commissioners would appreciate it. He reiterated that the county commissioners were quite concerned. Mr. Carpenter noted that initial contact concerning the 35,000-acre land purchase had indicated the money would be put into a trust so it would not erode Elko County’s tax base. He emphasized that removal of 35,000 acres from the tax base would be a “big hit” on Elko County, especially if the land would not be available for grazing, mineral exploration, or other uses that stimulated an economy. Assemblyman Carpenter added that he would really appreciate Ms. Wilcox looking into the matter for him.
Ms. Wilcox replied that she would see what she could do.
Chairman Collins recognized some young people in the audience who were constituents of Assemblymen Marvel and Goicoechea. Mr. Collins welcomed them to the Committee meeting and hoped they were enjoying the presentations and the hearing.
Assemblyman Goicoechea, referencing money from Question 1, inquired how the Division would address those funds of approximately $67 million, the hearing process that would be used, and in which communities they would be held.
Ms. Wilcox reminded Committee members that Question 1 had been a $200 million conservation bond act approved by the Nevada voters in November 2002. The bond money was to be used for a variety of conservation and natural resource purposes. Of that money, she explained, $65.5 million would pass through the Division of State Lands and be granted to local governments around the state and to “non-profits” for a variety of conservation and open space purposes. Ms. Wilcox pointed out that this would be a whole new venture for the Division and the state, and that it was very important that it be done right. The Division wanted to ascertain how local governments wanted it to work and how their needs could best be served. Immediately after passage of the bond, she noted, the Division started holding meetings around the state and so far 11 workshops had been held in 11 different towns, plus about 6 other specialized meetings and workshops Ms. Wilcox had been invited to, at which she discussed the implications of passage of the bond.
Ms. Wilcox pointed out that the Division of State Lands was developing regulations and hoped to have them in place by July. They had also taken “tons” of notes about what the people hoped the regulations would provide so the Division would be able to meet the local needs. She emphasized that the enthusiasm had been tremendous. The state Treasurer’s Office planned to sell the first bonds in June so the first grants might be issued this fall, she said. The kinds of grants Ms. Wilcox was referring to included planning grants, especially for the smaller counties and habitat conservation planning, which she explained was especially important in rural counties where designation of sensitive species under the federal threatened and endangered species act could really tie rural economies “in a knot” if not done right. If local governments developed plans that would prevent those listings, she noted, a county could really benefit.
Ms. Wilcox explained that grant money for open space planning would also be available to the smaller counties, those with populations under 100,000. She explained that the open space planning money was important because one of the larger allocations of money the Division would be administering was $20 million for acquisition of land and water rights according to an open space plan. In order for a government entity to take advantage of that money, she said, it must have adopted an open space plan.
The Act also encouraged conservation easements, rather than fee acquisitions, which Ms. Wilcox said was important in rural Nevada, because the Division would not want to take any more land off the property tax rolls.
Assemblyman Goicoechea interjected that with the $20 million earmarked for acquisition, he assumed the acquisition would be from a willing seller.
Ms. Wilcox responded that the money would be granted to the counties, and that it would be up to them how they spent it. If there were an acquisition the county wanted to do, it could go to the Division and apply for a grant.
Assemblyman Goicoechea noted that in all likelihood, the land would be removed from the property tax rolls.
Ms. Wilcox replied that if the county bought a conservation easement, the land could stay on the tax rolls. It would be up to the county, she reiterated. She added that the program was a local program and that the Division was simply developing regulations to meet local needs.
Assemblyman Marvel inquired if any of the grant money would be used for capital improvements, adding that he had understood some of the money would be spent on improving the assets of the state of Nevada. He hoped the grant money would not all be spent on planning.
Ms. Wilcox explained that, of the $65.5 million that the Division of State Lands would be administering, $20 million was for open space acquisitions, $15 million was for acquisitions in cooperation with non-profits, and that the amount of money for planning was probably less than $1 million. The balance of the money included $10 million for Carson River restoration projects within the four counties along the river, $5 million for the Lake Tahoe path system that parallels the highways so one could ride a bicycle and not be on the highway, plus money for the construction of recreational trails and trailheads. Ms. Wilcox added that she would get an accurate list for Committee members.
Ms. Wilcox mentioned that since President Clinton’s visit to Lake Tahoe in 1997, the “affected partners” had agreed to save it within the next ten years. Nevada had committed to spending $82 million on a variety of environmental improvement projects and Lake Tahoe, with the Division of State Lands coordinating that program for the state, as well as making certain those improvements were completed. Every two years, the Division went to the Legislature, gave a report on past accomplishments, and asked for the funds needed for the next two years. Ms. Wilcox pointed out that the money was all bond money, and that, for the next year, the Division was asking for approximately $9 million. That appropriation was contained within S.B. 46, which she added would be coming before the Committee. Ms. Wilcox mentioned that it was a great program, with people from different agencies working on it together, and they were very successful.
Ms. Wilcox explained that the Lake Tahoe license plate program was another Division program. The Division spent money from sales of that license plate on projects to protect the Lake. She added that a bill to produce a similar license plate to protect Mt. Charleston had passed a previous legislative session and was finally available for purchase. If enough people bought those plates to generate money for projects at Mr. Charleston, the Division would also be administering that program, which would probably include trailheads and other similar projects.
Chairman Collins, noting Ms. Wilcox had already promised to provide Committee members with an accurate breakdown of where the Question 1 money would go, reiterated his interest in getting that information and Ms. Wilcox responded that she would get the information.
Chairman Collins wanted Ms. Wilcox to be aware that the people making the next presentation were interested in getting the Division of State Lands to sign over the deed to some property the state owned.
Ms. Wilcox replied that she had been talking to some of the people and that the Division had been in negotiations with the Future Farmers of America (FFA) to lease the Clear Creek Youth Camp to the FFA. She added that the Division was looking forward to having the FFA come in and run that property for their own use and that of the public and the state.
Chairman Collins mentioned that the Division held the deed to the youth camp but did not operate it.
Ms. Wilcox agreed that the youth camp had been operated by the Division of Buildings and Grounds.
Chairman Collins mentioned that there were electric meters on each of the buildings at the youth camp, but he had understood there had been some storm damage and wondered if Ms. Wilcox knew anything about that.
Ms. Wilcox answered that she did not know anything about that issue. She then moved on to a discussion of the Division of Conservation Districts, which she explained was an excellent program involving the state’s 28 conservation district boards, each locally elected, that worked on resource problems and various kinds of conservation projects in their local areas. The district in Clark County included all of Clark County and did extensive citizen outreach on water conservation, on how to garden and raise plants using minimum amounts of water, and on protecting water quality. The district had been involved in Las Vegas Wash issues for many years and in restoration projects along the Muddy Valley and Moapa Valley areas in the northeastern part of the county, she added.
Conservation districts statewide, Ms. Wilcox explained, included one at Lake Tahoe that worked on erosion control projects, plus lots of rural area conservation districts that helped farmers and ranchers maximize their soil productivity, minimize soil erosion, and maximize water conservation. The people were all volunteers, she pointed out, but they put in a lot of hours and worked very hard. Office staff that worked with the program included three people, two professionals and one clerical, Ms. Wilcox noted.
She also indicated there was a state Conservation Commission, and that it was one of her favorite programs. It was a grassroots program where local people made the decisions about what was important and worked on the projects with their own efforts and on their own time. Ms. Wilcox explained that the state provided small grants to the districts, and that the program had been so successful, that for every $1 of grant money the state had provided, the conservation districts had generated $15 additional dollars, which was a huge return to the state.
Kevin Piper, Dayton Valley Conservation District, provided a pamphlet to Committee members (Exhibit C) that included the number of districts within Nevada and the contact people for each one.
Assemblyman Marvel asked how badly “the reduction” would hurt the conservation districts.
Mr. Piper explained that one must look at the fact that there were 28 conservation districts, some of which were in urban areas, or in areas where they were able to generate sufficient matching revenue. Other districts, by contrast, out in the rural counties, depended heavily on those small $5,000 grants from the program because they matched those funds with county monies or other, smaller grants. He noted that, even though the grants only totaled $4,000 or $5,000, a 3 percent reduction was significant in the rural counties. He reiterated that there would definitely be an impact in some districts.
Assemblyman Marvel inquired why the Stillwater Conservation District had used up all their money.
Ms. Wilcox replied that Stillwater had been semi-inactive and had been considering consolidation with an adjacent district. She explained that the conservation district knew they could have wasted their grant money to secure those funds for the future; however, they had elected to allow the money to revert back. They did the right and honorable thing, Ms. Wilcox emphasized, so the money “went away and it is gone.”
Assemblyman Marvel opined that the result was that all the conservation districts lost a little money as a result.
Ms. Wilcox agreed that, over the long run, that was the result.
Chairman Collins pointed out that, if the people in the rural areas followed the Governor’s budget and increased taxes, they would be able to keep those agencies and programs. Chairman Collins thanked Ms. Wilcox and Mr. Piper for their presentations. He then introduced two representatives from the Future Farmers of America, who would be making the next presentations.
Heather Dye, Executive Director, Nevada Future Farmers of America Association, and FFA Foundation, introduced an agriculture education student, Andrea Paris. She highlighted Article 2 in the Constitution of the State of Nevada, Section1, under Education, that stated the Legislature should encourage education. She noted that one of the areas of encouragement and promotion was the area of agriculture.
Ms. Dye explained that agriculture education was taught in 17 different high schools throughout Nevada, and that FFA had 1,300 members across the state. She directed Committee members’ attention to her handouts (Exhibit D), which explained that Agriculture (Ag) Education included classroom instruction, supervised agricultural experience or work-based learning, and the FFA organization, and that each was important and integral to the entirety of agriculture education.
Ms. Dye emphasized the need for certified classroom instructors who could teach Ag classes, which were science-based. She indicated that a group composed of the Ag Teachers’ Association and business and industry representatives had voluntarily begun writing standards for the state school board. Ms. Dye explained that the state school board had already passed some of the standards including Agriscience 1 and 2, Agrimechanical Engineering and Technology, and Plant and Environmental Horticulture Science. Currently, she noted, animal science, veterinary medicine, and agribusiness systems were being developed, plus plans were in the works to write agricultural communications, natural resources, and mining standards. Ms. Dye explained that once standards were approved by the Nevada State Board of Education, the agriculture instructors would develop criteria so that all 17 state programs were alike. Ms. Dye mentioned that students who had taken Ag Science 1 and 2, as well as plant and environmental horticulture, received science credits for those classes and that work was underway to get credits for animal science coursework as well.
Ms. Dye next discussed the area of supervised agricultural experience, which she described as being “work-based” learning. Every student enrolled in an agriculture course in Nevada, she added, had to have a Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE). Ms. Dye explained that an SAE could mean a student raised an animal for a local fair, or a student worked in a floral shop, or a student developed his or her own business, such as a summer landscaping business. The teachers went out and visited their students’ projects, she pointed out, so the students were able to apply what they had learned in the classroom, including keeping complete records of their projects.
Ms. Dye noted that involvement in FFA was another area where classroom instruction and supervised agricultural experiences came into play. The students could take what they had learned and apply it to career development events. This was applied learning, she explained, and the students competed in different competitions at the chapter, zone, and state levels and could even go on to compete nationally. The contests included speaking contests, parliamentary procedures, competing on agricultural issues, as well as evaluating livestock.
Another strong part of FFA and agriculture education, Ms. Dye continued, was leadership and citizenship development. Students had an opportunity to learn how to speak in front of people and to get those people skills, which were important to their future, no matter what industry the student ultimately entered. Students did a lot of community work, she noted. Ms. Dye directed Committee members’ attention to one of her handouts that listed current statewide FFA activities that Ag students had the opportunity to participate in. Ms. Dye introduced a current Ag student, Andrea Paris, who would share with Committee members her experiences with her agriculture education.
Assemblyman Marvel asked what the FFA would do with the Clear Creek facility.
Ms. Dye explained that it would be awarded to the FFA Foundation, which would improve and market it. She added that they planned to use it for FFA camps, but also wanted to allow other groups who had been using the facility to continue to use it. Initially, she said, any funds generated by the facility would be returned to it to fix it up. Ms. Dye commented that later, funds might go back into the FFA Foundation to assist agriculture education programs throughout the state, start new ones, and improve existing ones. FFA would like to eliminate the need to ask the Legislature for funding, she added.
Andrea Paris, former agriculture education student at Elko High School, stated that she was currently enrolled as a junior at the University of Nevada, Reno, with a major in public relations and a minor in agribusiness. She explained that she had walked into the Elko High School Ag room over seven years ago, not knowing what a multi-faceted organization and curriculum she was stepping into, nor knowing any of the benefits or experiences she would receive. Ms. Paris emphasized the practicality of classroom instruction and explained that agriculture education put a lot of the core curriculum, learned in the core education plan, into practical use. Because of her four years in an agriculture education class she said, she could wire an electric circuit, cut up a chicken, evaluate range, run a greenhouse, start her own garden, vaccinate cows, close a sale, and use parliamentary procedure and public speaking skills. She pointed out that all those skills were practical lessons she had learned in the classroom.
Speaking about the SAE project, Ms. Paris noted that she was currently able to pay for college because of her project, which had involved beef and sheep production. She said that she had built up a herd of sheep and cattle, which she was still using and selling today and which would enable her to go on to graduate school without taking out any loans or borrowing any money. The SAE component, she emphasized, gave students a choice of projects they wanted to be responsible for.
To Ms. Paris, FFA meant fun and friendships while gaining lifetime experiences. She added that over the seven years she had been a member, she had developed communication, leadership, and teamwork skills, and she had also experienced victory and defeat, which were things one would experience in the real world.
Chairman Collins complimented Ms. Paris on the wonderful presentation. He asked how many FFA students went on to college.
Ms. Dye said that she did not have accurate statistics; however, she noted that most FFA students did go on to higher education, either to a two-or-four-year college or university, or to a technical school. She added that some students, because of the skills they had learned, such as welding, were able to go directly to work. She also noted that 91 percent of Ag students who had taken the state proficiency exam as juniors had passed that exam.
Ms. Paris commented that four years previously Purdue University had compared an average student to a student who had graduated from an agriculture education program. The report had indicated that the Ag students were more likely to go on to college and were also more likely to graduate from college with either a two- or four-year degree.
Chairman Collins complimented Ms. Dye and Ms. Paris on their presentations. He mentioned that the Committee members might want to see the Clear Creek Youth Camp, as it was only a few minutes away.
Assemblyman McCleary complimented Ms. Paris on a good presentation. He added that she had spoken better than 80 percent of the Legislators and that he wished that he could articulate as well as she had.
Chairman Collins, explaining that he had only finished high school because of the football program, stated that he knew there were people who were successful today because of the FFA. He also expressed the hope that the Legislature would support FFA, because it was a big part of Nevada’s future. Mr. Collins requested the Committee take a brief recess.
Chairman Collins called the meeting back to order, opened the hearing on A.B. 36, and turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Claborn.
Assembly Bill 36: Revises provisions governing program established by State Environmental Commission for regulation of smoke and other emissions by inspection of certain heavy-duty motor vehicles. (BDR 40-196)
Ron Levine, Assistant Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, explained that A.B. 36 and its proposed amendments, was generated through the Advisory Committee on the Control of Emissions from Motor Vehicles. Members of the Committee included representatives of various county and state agencies as well as private smog testing companies and the Nevada Motor Transport Association. Mr. Levine mentioned that there were three changes to A.B. 36 being proposed (Exhibit E). The first change would be to delete language that read, “that the program remain substantially similar to the program established in California.” He said it had been decided that, since Nevada did not have the same problems as California or the same resources, Nevada really did not want to run its program the way California did. Mr. Levine noted that it would not preclude the Director from recommending any relevant program from California, or any other state, that would benefit Nevada.
Another amendment proposed that all fuels be tested, Mr. Levine explained. He indicated that he had recently worked in the field with testing officers from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) who had discovered a violation of a 2002 tractor trailer with an opacity of around 90, which he noted was very high for a relatively new vehicle. Mr. Levine stated that the emissions should be very clean and that the high count was probably a result of poor maintenance. He added that the Nevada Motor Transport Association wanted to see all fuels tested.
Mr. Levine noted that there was currently a gap in vehicle emissions testing on vehicles between 8,500 gross vehicle weight (GVW) and 14,000 GVW. He stated that the Advisory Committee was going to address the issue, but had decided to only test between 8,500 and 10,000 GVW because of concerns over the cost effectiveness of the program. Mr. Levine stated that DMV statistics had indicated there were only about 2,500 vehicles between 10,000 and 14,000 GVW that would not be tested. He noted that the difference in implementing the program, which included buying the equipment and expanding the building to fit those vehicles, was close to $750,000 while the program to test vehicles weighing 10,000 to 14,000 GVW would only bring in approximately $13,000 annually. He indicated that the expense involved to test those vehicles at this time was not worth it.
Assemblyman Marvel inquired what “special fuels” were.
Mr. Levine explained the special fuels included diesel fuel, liquid petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural gas (CNG), or other alternate fuels.
Assemblyman Geddes said that, as he read the statute as it was being amended, it was motor vehicle fuel or “special fuel,” which was defined as any combustible gas or liquid used to power a motor vehicle, but not motor vehicle fuel as defined in Chapter 365 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Mr. Geddes explained that Chapter 365 defined motor vehicle fuel and then went on to state that the term did not include kerosene, gas, diesel fuel, LPG, et cetera. Assemblyman Geddes was concerned that since the definition of motor vehicle fuel excluded diesel, he did not believe the definition of special fuel included diesel. That was not clear, he reiterated, and suggested that an interpretation by the Legislative Counsel Bureau might be necessary.
Assemblyman Conklin agreed with Mr. Geddes and suggested the Committee get an interpretation about whether diesel fuel would be included, or whether, upon the recommendation of the Committee policy analyst, the Committee could move forward on the bill without an amendment.
Mr. Levine explained that it had been their intention to include diesel fuel.
Assemblyman Carpenter, referring to gross vehicle weights, asked whether Mr. Levine was speaking to A.B. 36 or to the proposed amendment.
Mr. Levine stated that the language concerning gross vehicle weight was in the proposed amendment.
Mr. Carpenter noted that the amendment spoke to vehicles provided for compulsory inspection in counties with a population of 100,000 or more and inquired whether that was his reading of the amendment also, and Mr. Levine replied that that was correct.
Vice Chairman Claborn asked where the amendment came from.
Mr. Levine stated that it was with the “original, but somehow it fell into the black hole” and had to be added later.
Assemblyman Collins commented that all the Committee members had were two pieces of paper stapled together with no name, address, phone number, or contact. He requested that the authors of the amendment identify themselves.
Mr. Conklin, noting that in both the proposed amendment to A.B. 36 and the original bill, the words “diesel fuel” had been stricken, said he wanted to know why.
Mr. Levine explained that, because the language referred specifically to vehicles that used diesel fuel, the Advisory Committee had wanted to include all fuels. He added that if, through interpretation, it turned out that diesel fuel was not included under the phrase “special fuel,” then it would have to be added in. Their interpretation, he stated, was that special fuel also included diesel. Mr. Levine added that the information for the amendment had come from the Advisory Committee on the Control of Emissions from Motor Vehicles and that Daryl Capurro from the Nevada Motor Transport Association had submitted it to the committee.
Assemblyman Geddes indicated that he had a proposed amendment to A.B. 36, which was being passed out to Committee members (Exhibit F) and to Mr. Levine, and inquired whether he was in support.
Mr. Levine explained that he had passed Mr. Geddes’ proposed amendment to other Advisory Committee members, and that no one had any problems with it, and that they would support it.
Assemblyman Carpenter noted that A.B. 36 amended NRS 445B.780 but that Mr. Levine’s proposed amendment amended NRS 445B.795. He suggested the two either be tied together or that one should “be repealed.”
Peter Krueger, Emission Testers’ Council, explained that the Council included owners and operators of Nevada’s smog stations in Clark and Washoe Counties. He indicated the Council was in support of A.B. 36 but wanted to clarify the sections of NRS that Mr. Carpenter had questioned. Mr. Krueger testified that NRS 445B.780 would delete the reference to California. It was his understanding that the two-page amendment from Daryl Capurro would add new language to the bill and that Mr. Geddes’ amendment would add even more language. He indicated strong support for the bill and the two amendments. He explained that the Council was strongly in support of raising the limit from 8,500 to 10,000 pounds, which would pick up diesel-powered vehicles currently on the streets but not subject to emission testing. The few vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds, Mr. Krueger stated, were primarily dual-powered wheeled vehicles and that to buy the equipment to test those vehicles would be very expensive.
Assemblyman Conklin wondered whether the proposed amendments should be adopted. He noted that, in the past, the Commission had been responsible for making the regulations it decided upon. Now, he pointed out, the Commission would be limited in what it could or could not do. Mr. Conklin opined that it might be better to stick with A.B. 36 and allow the Commission to make the regulations proposed in the amendment.
Mr. Levine replied that there had been an Attorney General’s opinion that the Commission did not have the authority to inspect vehicles weighing more than 8,500 pounds.
Joe Johnson, Member, State Environmental Commission, commented that Mr. Levine had adequately addressed Assemblyman Conklin’s concern. He stated that, as a member of the diesel sub-working group and as a representative of the State Environmental Commission, A.B. 36 was an “agreed upon document” by parties to its drafting. He added that, as a member of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, he also supported A.B. 36 with the inclusion of both amendments.
Assemblyman Collins inquired whether Mr. Johnson meant including both amendments or the equivalent of both amendments in one amendment, and whether that would address his concerns regarding diesel fuel and vehicle weights.
Mr. Johnson responded that Mr. Collins was “exactly right.” He added that it had been the Advisory Committee’s intention to include the Daryl Capurro language in the original bill draft; however, that had not occurred. Speaking of the second amendment, he said that would be fine.
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, stated that the Department supported A.B. 36 and the amendments. Referring to special fuel, Mr. Benzler noted that the Division also administered the tax provisions and that diesel fuel was included under “special fuels” for tax purposes.
Assemblyman Geddes commented that Mr. Benzler had answered the Committee’s earlier question concerning whether “special fuels” included diesel fuel. Mr. Benzler agreed that Mr. Geddes was correct.
Lloyd Nelson, Emission Control Program Manager, Department of Motor Vehicles, Chair, Advisory Committee on the Control of Emissions from Motor Vehicles, offered a suggestion to the proposed language in NRS 445B.780, regarding testing LPG-fueled, natural gas-fueled, or any other alternate-fueled vehicles. He noted that it had not been verified that there were any testing standards for those vehicles. Mr. Nelson explained that a study was currently underway and that nine states were testing alternate-fueled vehicles and diesel vehicles, and the Department was contacting those states to find out what standards they were using and if those standards were supported by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Department was also planning to contact the office of Transportation Air Quality of the EPA. As a result, Mr. Nelson requested an amendment to A.B. 36 that the Department would not start testing under registration enforcement until there were some certified standards.
Assemblyman Geddes commented that he was not entirely certain that the amendment proposed by Mr. Nelson was necessary; he stated that the bill was simply enabling the Commission to set standards when they “came online.”
Mr. Nelson replied that it had been his understanding that it would be a mandatory implementation and added that he was referring to 8,500 to 10,000 pounds.
Assemblyman Carpenter indicated that the original A.B. 36, with the amendments, stated that the Commission should adopt regulations for heavy- duty motor vehicles and then defined those as being 8,500 pounds or more. Referring to the proposed amendment, Mr. Carpenter noted that the Commission was to adopt regulations under NRS 445B.770, which was a mandatory inspection, and stated “motor vehicles with a gross vehicle rating from 8,500 to 10,000.” Mr. Carpenter commented that it looked to him as though 8,500 to 10,000 pound vehicles would be “taken care of” under NRS 445B.770, “and then if you go over to the other one where it is 8,500,” he believed there would be a duplication. Mr. Carpenter thought that the 8,500 should be changed to “more than 10,000” so that both would fall under the proper Commission regulations.
Mr. Benzler replied that he agreed 100 percent with Assemblyman Carpenter’s suggestion.
Mr. Geddes requested that the Committee Policy Analyst, Ms. Eissmann, take A.B. 36 and the three amendments back to bill drafting, and then come back to the Committee as soon as possible so that discussion could ensue on the bill in its entirety.
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Transportation, explained that the Department was neutral on A.B. 36.
Neena Laxalt, Nevada Propane Dealers Association, indicated that the Association had been neutral on the original A.B. 36; however, she was now concerned that there could be a mandate that the Commission establish a program for LPG when there were no set standards.
With no further business to come before the Committee, Vice Chairman Claborn adjourned the meeting at 2:52 p.m.
Erin Channell
Recording Secretary
Terry Horgan
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman
DATE: