MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining

 

Seventy-Second Session

March 12, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:27 p.m., on Wednesday, March 12, 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.

 

Note:  These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style.  Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.  Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.

 

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:

 

Alan O’Neill, Executive Director, Outside Las Vegas Foundation

Ron James, State Historic Preservation Officer, State Historic Preservation Office, Nevada Department of Museums, Library and Arts

Alanah Woody, Ph.D., Executive Director, Nevada Rock Art Foundation

Helen Mortenson, Citizen, Clark County

Barry Duncan, Government Relations Specialist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association

Larry Wahrenbrock, Citizen, Silver City

Alexis Miller, Manager, Government Affairs and Community Relations, Nevada Mining Association

Kaitlin Backlund, Lobbyist, Nevada Conservation League

Joe Johnson, Government Affairs Consultant, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club; Member, State Environmental Commission

Don Henderson, Acting Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture

Randy Bradley, Agricultural Programs Coordinator, Division of Plant Industry, Nevada Department of Agriculture

Deloyd Satterthwaite, Chairman, Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission

Joe Guild III, Member, Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission

Benny Romero, Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission

Bob Gronowski, Administrator, Division of Plant Industry, Nevada Department of Agriculture

Neena Laxalt, Government Relations Consultant, Nevada Propane Dealers Association

Lloyd Nelson, Emissions Control Manager, Management Services and Programs Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles

Daryl Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association Inc.

 

Chairman Collins:

The Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining Committee is called to order.  [Roll was called]  We have a quorum.  I want to ask the Committee to make sure that when Assemblywoman Ohrenschall comes in we all recognize her and welcome her back from being ill; we are happy to have her back.  Assemblyman Marvel will be leaving early because of a bill in another Committee and will return; make sure we excuse him for part of that time.

 

We have four bills today and a presentation; the presentation is currently taking place in the Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining Committee and will be here soon.  We are going to address the four bills we have out of order.  So far I have two people signed in to speak on A.B. 131; I believe A.B. 131 is Mr. Mortenson’s.  If you want to take the front anyone you want to bring with you, please feel free.  This is out of order as a courtesy to a legislator; don’t be offended by being delayed.

 

Assembly Bill 131:  Makes various changes relating to protection of cultural resources. (BDR 33-92)

 

Chairman Collins:

Mr. Mortenson, I don’t see anyone in opposition to this, but I understand there might be some friendly amendments.

 

Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, Clark County Assembly District No. 42:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining Committee.  For the record, my name is Harry Mortenson, representing Assembly District 42.  A.B. 131 is a bill that passed out of the Assembly last session.  Unfortunately, it died and didn’t get through the Senate.  A.B. 131 actually languished in Ways and Means practically through the whole previous session, until finally, at the zero hour, I asked Legal Division to take the fiscal note out so we could get it moving, and they did.  That is when it passed through the Assembly.

 

We have gotten a fiscal note on this, but there are some discrepancies and Mr. James will talk about that.  You do have before you one amendment (Exhibit C).  This bill actually had no protestors in the last session; however, I had a gentleman come to my office a few days ago and he was very unhappy.  He owns a home in the Comstock District, and therefore his house is a cultural resource and he was afraid there would be some unintended consequences of this bill.  People might snoop his property, some of the stewards, and he has a right to feel that way.

 

I have given you an amendment, which I hope you will consider.  It assures that we are talking about public property and not private property.  We do not want to inconvenience any individuals.  This bill will have volunteers, trained by the state, who will – and they will be trained by the state very carefully – monitor some of our cultural resources: the paleontological resources, the archeological resources, our rock art, those types of things.

Assemblyman Mortenson:

I have on my left Mr. Alan O’Neill who is Executive Director of Outside Las Vegas Foundation, a very fine organization in the south, which does a lot of good things; Mr. O’Neill will fill you in on that.  (Provided Exhibit D and Exhibit E, which were not discussed)

 

Chairman Collins:

Let me remind you that there is no one signed in in opposition to this bill and so as the rest of you come up to speak, be brief and not repetitive.  Also, there are two amendments proposed: one by the sponsor of the bill, and one I believe is from mining.  We want to give them time to present their amendments, and we will not take action on the bill today.

 

Alan O’Neill, Executive Director, Outside Las Vegas Foundation:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.  I’m going to paraphrase because I have written testimony (Exhibit F).  [Introduced himself]  I appreciate the opportunity to be here.  We are in strong support of the passage of A.B. 131 in terms of how it would help protect our cultural resources and establish a site-service program.

 

The Outside Las Vegas Foundation, for people who are not aware of it, is a private nonprofit organization that is made up of prominent community leaders, business leaders, and private citizens that support the stewardship of the public lands (Exhibit F).  Our mission is to connect people with their public lands through partnership efforts, with initiatives across a number of fronts.  We are really excited about this because, in addition to a lot of the natural resources in southern Nevada, we have 7 million acres of public land that surround Las Vegas, including eight Congressionally designated areas.  We have thousands of cultural resources, some very important, and we have a limited ability to provide the kind of monitoring and protection from the governmental organizations that we need.

 

For example, there are about 302 recorded rock art sites in Clark County alone:  the petroglyphs, pictographs, and geoglyphs.  They represent a long continuum of our history and there’s no written record for many of these cultures.  These cultural sites are valued for an assortment of reasons by different groups or individuals.  Some sites are increasingly sought out as points of destination.  These irreplaceable sites are the cultural heritage of our state and our nation, and deserving of protection through proactive management.

 

As you all are aware, Las Vegas has been the fastest growing urban area in the country over the past decade, with a resident population exceeding 1.5 million.  We have on top of that 37 million people that visit Las Vegas from out of state.  The 7 million acres of public land we are talking about receives about 18 million visitors each year.  When you look at the pressure from this kind of population explosion, the increasing visitor volume, and the urban encroachment on our public lands, they are creating tremendous problems for our public land managing agencies at the federal, state, and local level.

 

The fragile rock art sites are being directly and indirectly impacted by the increasing demands placed on the public lands for recreation and non-recreation use.  Once isolated and little known, the cultural resource properties are now easily accessed and widely recognized.  The escalating visitation and inappropriate uses at cultural resource sites have all too often resulted in adverse impacts, either accidentally or intentionally, through destructive actions.  Cultural resource sites situated near our urban areas or adjacent to travel corridors have suffered from different forms of vandalism such as target shooting, graffiti, damage by off-road vehicles, trash dumping, and artifact collecting.

 

There are a limited number of government employees; I came from the National Park Service, and I know when we counted how many governmental employees we have on the four federal agencies, there were just about 320 employees to manage 7 million acres and deal with the 18 million visitors (Exhibit F).  What we are finding is there are simply not the people on the ground to look at the kinds of damage that may be occurring to our cultural sites.

 

Chairman Collins:

Damage is not an acceptable word.  Thanks.

 

Alan O’Neill:

[Indicated understanding]  We think it is very important that the citizenry take a greater sense of responsibility and ownership for their resources.  The governmental agencies cannot do it alone; the citizenry needs to play a greater role (Exhibit F).  We think a lot of these resources will be lost in the future with the type of vandalism we’re seeing out there now, with these encroachments.  We feel it is very important to get the citizenry more involved in this program.  That is why we are supportive of A.B. 131; we think it sets up a very good framework on which we can do some good things locally. 

 

The partnership has put in for funding from the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management bill under the new conservation initiatives, to set up a Site Steward Program in Clark County.  The money would be used to hire a site steward coordinator, implement the training necessary, and other necessities associated with a good site steward program.  We are very hopeful the funding will be approved.  All the local partners, federal partners, and other local public agencies and land managing businesses are supportive of this program.

 

We are hoping that it [Site Steward Program] can get instituted, and that fits very well within the framework of this bill.  We are excited and hope you will act positively in passing this bill.  We think it is a positive step in getting the citizenry more involved in stewardship in a positive way, providing proper training to do an effective job in maintaining and protecting our cultural resources.

 

Assemblyman Marvel:

Who will enforce the program of protecting these cultural resources:  the land managing agencies?

 

Alan O’Neill:

The monitors are trained to be eyes and ears.  They return and fill out the report; it is the land management agency’s responsibility to follow up.  The monitors are simply additional eyes and they do not take enforcement actions.  The training very clearly sets out the limits of what they can and cannot do, and they are not in the law enforcement business.  The archeologists, other cultural people, who are employed by the agencies may never see some of these sites or may see them once in a blue moon.  The fact that someone trained is going observing and reporting back on what is occurring, we know what is happening with the resource and what follow-up actions might be appropriate.

 

Ron James, State Historic Preservation Officer, State Historic Preservation Office, Nevada Department of Museums, Library and Arts:

[Introduced himself]  The fact is that A.B. 131 cannot change the relationship that the federal government has with its resources, or with those who apply to use its lands.  It [A.B. 131] will not supersede any relationship that the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] or any other federal land managing agency has with a mining company, for example.  What it does provide is a mechanism to mobilize an interested public to get involved with public land management, and to assist federal agencies; they [federal agencies] just do not have the personnel to take care of these things.

 

This was not my bill.  It obviously came from one of your colleagues, but I can be very supportive of it because anytime you inspire the public to get interested in Nevada resources and help with the responsible management of those resources, I think that is a positive thing.  Additionally, we have realized we really need to have a southern Nevada office; this could provide the means to acquire that southern Nevada office.

 

When I first completed the fiscal note on this bill I was forced, because of circumstances, to say that the obligation would have to come from the General Fund.  At that time, there was considerable discussion between the White House and Congress as to whether funding for my program from the National Park Service would remain stable or decline dramatically.  In fact, it declined slightly, but remained relatively stable.  The White House has issued recommendations for the next several years that will perpetuate that stability.  I feel comfortable saying my office could provide federal funding for this position, at least over the next several years.  This can provide stability and acquire us a southern Nevada office to provide an essential service to a growing population that can be mobilized to help the federal agencies, and all of us, provide responsible management for cultural resources on public lands.

 

Assemblyman Marvel:

Mr. James, you said there is going to be federal funding which will alleviate the fiscal impact.  [Mr. James confirmed this.]  How long will that federal funding be available?

 

Ron James:

It [federal funding] is part of the annual grant that comes from the Department of the Interior, through the National Park Service, to the city.

 

Assemblyman Marvel:

One of the things we have to watch is that a lot of times we build programs with federal money, and then federal money is removed.  I think the understanding has to be that that position goes away.

 

Ron James:

I understand and everyone in my office knows that if this were to occur, we would lose the position.  The fact is, I have been concerned over the years as to whether the federal funding is going to be removed, and over the past two decades it has stayed.  I cannot say it will remain in the future, and obviously we cannot say anything about the fiscal circumstances of the state or federal government in the future.  We all take that risk and I will deal with the situation if the federal funding dries up.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Mr. James, what kind of cooperation do you receive, or expect to receive, from the Native Americans on their own tribal lands?  I see the bill calls to make an inventory.

 

Ron James:

Our relationship with Native American tribal governments has changed over the years; I think everyone has changed their interactions with the Native Americans.  This bill calls for a very prominent representation from the Native American community to ensure that their point of view is integrated.  In general, I would say we have had a very good relationships with Native Americans, and we would not want to help manage resources on Native American tribal lands that they did not want managed.  In fact, we can hope to mobilize Native American volunteers in the same way we would other groups.  I think this could be a very positive relationship to continue and enhance what has become a very positive relationship with Native Americans.

 

I should also point out that a good example of how that cooperation can work is at the Nevada State Museum.  “Under One Sky” is a remarkable, quality exhibit on Native Americans that integrates the Native American point of view, side by side with the archeological point of view.  That is a good expression of how our relationships have improved in just the past few years.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

What is the fiscal note without federal funding?  How much would it cost if you did not have federal funding?

 

Ron James:

It does not matter whether there are state or federal dollars: $83,539 in 2003, and $82,636 in 2004.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

On page 2, lines 23 and 24, you discuss threats of damage; that seems pretty broad and speculative to me.  Could you provide an example of what would be perceived as a threat?

 

Chairman Collins:

“Damage” is not going to be in the bill, if it’s processed.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Page 2, lines 23 and 24: “establish requirements for reporting damage, threats of damage…” I think that is a matter of perception; I can see where you would have problems.

 

Ron James:

Assemblyman Mortenson drafted this bill and I think he wants to answer that question.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson:

The mining industry would like to change that to “vandalism or threats of vandalism.”  That is much more specific; “damage” is vague and that is part of the amendment we are going to consider and probably pass.

 

I would also like to answer one other question about the Indian participation.  The first time this came before the Assembly, before that session began, we held meetings in Las Vegas at the Desert Research Institute.  We invited everyone that might have a stake in this, including American Indians.  We have gone over, line by line, to ensure everyone was happy.  I also had some Native Americans visit me up here last session, and we satisfied their concerns to the best of our ability, and to their satisfaction.

 

Alanah Woody, Ph.D., Executive Director, Nevada Rock Art Foundation:

[Introduced herself]  I am here to represent the volunteer’s side and represent a statewide perspective.  My organization focuses specifically on the documentation, preservation, and protection of rock art sites throughout Nevada.  There are other archeological sites that need to be protected; I do not want anyone to think that those are the only sites to get attention, because that is not the case. 

 

My experiences in the last year or so of our existence, has been once the citizens of Nevada are given an opportunity to participate in the protection of these sites, they rush to join in.  Once they receive guidance on how to participate and help protect the sites they love and visit already, they are eager and anxious to do so.  Our organization is growing fast and it is through people statewide; every town begs for more training, for more work to be done.  What more can you ask for, other than for people to ask, “Please let me do more work for the state of Nevada.”  That is the perspective I am here to share.

 

I think once you have a bill like this in place, it provides a framework for standardization.  I am a professional archeologist, and in the past we have had experiences trying to protect the sites we all love by keeping them a secret.  The sites are well known by many people throughout the state, with the majority of sites on public land.  They have every right to go out and look at them, to participate and grow from the experience.  No one would ever try to keep people from doing that.  What we want them to be able to do is, while they are there, monitor the sites, see what is happening, and see how the sites are impacted by other people visiting the sites in the same way.

 

That is what this bill would do: provide a framework by which people would get some training to know how to look at a site, how to not disturb criminal activities or vandalism, how to report back to the land managers, and how to participate in the process of protecting the sites.  That is what my organization is founded on – our mission, documentation, public outreach and education, and site stewardship.

 

Chairman Collins:

I have other speakers: Helen Mortenson, Larry Wahrenbrock, and Barry Duncan, if you would like to come forward.

 

Helen Mortenson, Citizen, Clark County:

[Introduced herself]  I have lived there for forty-some years.  I want to make an additional remark about the Native Americans.  Recently, on February 17, we had a national dedication of a conservation area for the Sloan Petroglyphs.  Those present included: Senator Reid, Senator Ensign, and Representative John Porter.  But most outstanding was the presence of a color guard comprised of members from Nellis Air Force Base and from the Native Americans.

 

We had a large contingent of Native Americans celebrating the dedication of the rock art site as a natural conservation area.  It will be adjacent to Red Rock Conservation Area and overseen as part of the Red Rock Conservation Area.  The Native Americans have been extremely involved in this from the very beginning with the offices of Senator Reid and Senator Ensign.  They are definitely a part of the site stewardship program.  Thank you very much and I hope you support A.B. 131.

 

Chairman Collins:

As I said, no one is in opposition, so please do not be repetitive.

 

Barry Duncan, Government Relations Specialist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association:

[Introduced himself]  We fully support A.B. 131 with the proposed amendments.

 

Larry Wahrenbrock, Citizen, Silver City:

[Introduced himself]  I was the gentleman who went and spoke with Mr. Mortenson (Exhibit G).  So far I agree with the proposed amendments, but no one has addressed the issue of the definition of “cultural resources.”  You addressed the issue of the word “damage” which I agree should be amended out of the bill.  But the definition of “cultural resources,” as it stands now, and its effect on existing legislation and how the state office performs its duty, is broad language.  I cannot think of anything that could not be included in that definition.

 

I have done some research with Mr. Mortenson on the program that Arizona has in place; it is basically the model program this one is based on.  They seem to have had a tremendous amount of success in monitoring sites on public lands.  They have 40 pilots from the Civil Air Patrol that patrol archeological sites from the air on a regular basis – phenomenal citizen involvement, very effective citizen involvement.

 

I am not sure we need a piece of legislation to do all this.  I think the private organizations can cooperate with the state agency, as it exists.  The state agency has existing legislation that allows it to enter into contracts and to support organizations.  Basically, it comes to a matter of money, and the fiscal note for $86,000 is what it all comes to.  I am a citizen activist, I know what it means to put in your personal time, have the ability to go to someone in a state or federal agency to talk to, and have staff on your side.  But frankly I am not sure we need to do this, with the current fiscal problem.

 

Chairman Collins:

Let me remind you that this is a natural resource and agriculture committee; if the fiscal note was $20 million it would not matter.  The monetary issues are dealt with in another committee, and if it has to be referred there because of an impact, then that is where it will go.  We only deal with the value of the culture, not the dollar amounts involved.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

On page 2 there is a definition of “cultural resources”; are you looking at that?

 

Larry Wahrenbrock:

Is that the one that reads, “objects, sites, or other information of historic, prehistoric, archeological, architectural, and paleontological, or traditional significance?”  “Objects” would be the word that appears, to me, to have a broad perspective.  The “cultural resources” term is a new term in the law right now.  Under the existing legislation, architectural resources and archeological sites are discussed; it does not say “objects.”  “Objects” is a very broad word, an inclusive word; it could include even a living human being.

 

Chairman Collins:

We have one last speaker and since no one else has identified or taken credit for this anonymous amendment (Exhibit H, provided by Alexis Miller) we’ll call Alexis Miller.  Is this your amendment, the 2 page anonymous amendment?

 

Alexis Miller, Manager, Government Affairs and Community Relations, Nevada Mining Association:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  [Introduced herself]  We would like to support the concept of A.B.131 in the prevention of vandalism and the volunteer program (Exhibit H).  However, we too have concerns with the word “damage” and in lines 23 we would like “damage” deleted and “vandalism” inserted. And the same for lines 24 and 28, delete “damage.” We are also concerned with “traditional” included as part of the definition of “cultural resources” and would like to see that deleted as well.  We would enjoy the opportunity to work with the sponsor on the drafting of the final language.

 

Chairman Collins:

Some of it is highlighted, some of it is not, so we were having trouble picking it out.  That is why I wanted you to clarify it.  Would you bring us a color-coded copy for the work session?  [Ms. Miller indicated she would].  Other speakers: Joe Johnson and Kaitlin Backlund.

 

Kaitlin Backlund, Lobbyist, Nevada Conservation League:

[Introduced herself]  I am appreciative of Assemblyman Mortenson’s efforts here and appreciative of the amount of language directed towards including tribal governments and people of native descent.  I am concerned that I do not see any Native people in the audience or testifying today, nor do I see representatives of the tribal governments here in support of the bill.  Perhaps there is some documentation indicating, in writing, their support of the bill.  I think we always walk a dangerous line when we have people of one culture trying to interpret what could be considered a “cultural resource” of another culture.  Perhaps, Assemblyman Mortenson, this is something that you would like to address further.

 

Chairman Collins:

Is that your only comment or do you have another?

 

Kaitlin Backlund:

That is my main concern, the support from Native communities and the potential of having their cultural sites misinterpreted by archeologists or people who are not of native descent.

 

Chairman Collins:

The Native Americans were here two years ago in support of the bill; we will ask the sponsor to do a better job of recruiting speakers.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson:

The Native Americans have lobbyists, and those lobbyists are supposed to be tracking that.  If the lobbyists were to find a problem with it, you would see the audience reacting.  So I think they are happy.

Joe Johnson, Government Affairs Consultant, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.  [Introduced himself]  We would like to go on record as supporting the bill, and also as expressing concern for the involvement of the indigenous peoples.  Thank you.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I think that in 3a [Section1, subsection 3a] there is quite a bit of difference between the amendment and what is in the bill.  The Mining Association representative did not mention that, and I was wondering if that is part of their amendment or not.

 

Chairman Collins:

I think she said she wanted to take out “cultural” or leave in “cultural,” that is why.  We want to thank Assemblywoman Ohrenschall for being here today.  I noticed that she had come in.  We welcome her back.  Ms. Miller, you are going to provide a better proposed amendment for our work session?

 

Alexis Miller:

Yes.  The amendment before you is a work in progress.  We will be working with the sponsor, and I will bring you a color-coded, stricken-through copy as soon as we have it finalized more.  Mr. Carpenter, where were you confused?

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

On 3 under “a,” lines 17 through 20 – your amendment is a lot different than “a” is in the original bill.  I just wondered if that was part of your amendment.

 

Alexis Miller:

It is part of our current amendment, and we will be working with the sponsor to draft a final version.

 

Chairman Collins:

I thank everybody who came and testified on this.  I think it is a bill we can process once the sponsor makes sure we take care of the Native Americans.  We will close the hearing on A.B. 131 and are now ready for Mr. Henderson.

 

Assembly Bill 75:  Revises provisions governing certification of organic agricultural products. (BDR 51-566)

 

Don Henderson, Acting Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture:

[Introduced himself]  We have three bills before you today, the remaining bills on your agenda, which are from the Department of Agriculture.  Hopefully they will go quickly.  The first one [A.B. 75] involves our Nevada Certified Organics Program (Exhibit I).  You should have a packet, which has been handed out, that includes a brochure that describes the program (Exhibit J), a fee schedule of the current fees associated with the program and for the program as it is proposed to be amended (Exhibit K), and finally a newsletter talking about the activities of the program (Exhibit L).

 

This [Nevada Certified Organics Program] has been a very successful program for the Department [Department of Agriculture].  There is some history I would like to briefly touch upon.  In 1990, the federal government passed the Organics Food Production Act, which allowed the federal government and states to certify organic agricultural products.  It has taken 12 years for the federal government to come to terms and develop regulations for the program (Exhibit I).  The Department was approached in the mid-1990s by several producers in Nevada, saying, “We really would like an organics program here in Nevada.”  The Department moved ahead and during the 1997 Session, this body adopted statutes for the Nevada Department of Agriculture to move ahead on our Organics Program.

 

We have 29 producers involved with this Program right now.  The producers involved are mostly in crop production-type products.  As of about a year ago, the federal government had finally promulgated their federal regulations.  This bill [A.B. 75] proposes to change our existing state statutes to place our Program in compliance with the existing federal program.  With that as an overview, I can go through, section by section, and describe some of them.  Mostly they are definitions where we used a different definition.

 

We established an Advisory Council as part of our state Program, and we are retaining that Advisory Council, and are we reducing the number of times a year they meet.  They are advisory to the State Board of Agriculture under this proposed bill.  The basic change is that we are using the federal regulations to establish what organic producers and handlers are.  That is our introduction and we would be happy to entertain any questions.  (Provided Exhibit M, which was not discussed).

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

Mr. Henderson, on page 3 at the bottom, it removes the standards for labeling of those products:  is that covered in the federal regulations?  I have not been able to cross-reference and am not sure if that is covered, or if it is covered with the seal of approval so labeling standards are not needed.

 

Don Henderson:

Mr. Chair, I would like to introduce Randy Bradley, who is a Senior Agriculturist with the Department and oversees this program, and allow him to answer Mr. Geddes’ question.

Randy Bradley, Agricultural Programs Coordinator, Division of Plant Industry, Nevada Department of Agriculture:

[Introduced himself]  Your question was about the labeling of organic products.  The labeling is now strictly covered by the federal rules.  We have no say anymore in how products are labeled. 

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

My question is, in the advisory councils that have been established, the words “shall” were all changed to “may” in three or four sections; why would you have a council if you can say, “Maybe you can do something,” rather than “shall?”

 

Don Henderson:

I will attempt a response, and if I do not get it, I will let Mr. Bradley respond.  When we started this Program [Nevada Certified Organics Program], we were working very closely with these producers because it was an evolving state program.  Now we have federal regulations in place and there is not much flexibility in our Program for change.  We cannot do much at the state level except through the federal process.  That is my belief in why the words “shall” have been changed to “may.”

 

Randy Bradley:

Now that we have to be federally accredited, there is a huge cost involved to us that was never there before.  We actually get audited once every five years, on‑site.  We have to go through another process every year, submitting materials to the federal government.  For the time spent reviewing that, we are charged a fee, and the main reason for changing the words “shall” to “may” was, if we ever got to the point where we were not able to collect enough money to support the Program anymore, we would not offer the Program.  That was the main reason.

 

Don Henderson:

It is the State Board of Agriculture that establishes our [Department of Agriculture] regulations and so forth.  Rather than putting us in a situation where we “may,” we would prefer to let the Board direct us and the Advisory Board to direct the actions that we need to take.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

On page 3, the State Board of Agriculture is on, they also changed that from “shall” to “may” on line 21.

Chairman Collins:

For clarification, the difference is that you do not have to have an Organic Program [Nevada Certified Organics Program]; this is why the word “may” is there.

 

Don Henderson:

Also built into using this terminology is the tremendous success of this Program.  But we do only have 29 participants in this Program.  If, for some unforeseen reason, we do not have a demand for the Program, I think one of the flexibilities we want to bring into the statute is the elimination of the Program if there is a lack of interest.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

You have repealed the certification mechanism, so I am curious how a determination is made for certification of agricultural products as organic or not organic and enforcement of, or compliance with, the Program.

 

Randy Bradley:

All compliance issues are settled at the federal level, as a part of the National Organic Program.  It removed our ability to levy fines, and penalties for non-compliance are dealt with at the federal level.  It usually involved the revocation or suspension of the certification process. 

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

For clarification, the Organic Program will fall under federal jurisdiction, completely, and we are creating this advisory board that “may” give direction.

 

Don Henderson:

There is some flexibility; the federal government is taking over the enforcement of it, but the important thing is the Department’s [Department of Agriculture] involvement in the Certification Program.  We are registered like a private individual; there are also private certifiers.  A producer has the option of certification through state staff or a private party.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

You do have the staff members who are qualified to certify the organic produce.  [Mr. Henderson indicated that they did.]

 

Chairman Collins:

Are there any other questions on this bill?

Don Henderson:

I would like to inform you that members of the Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission are present, if you would like to have their presentation before continuing with the next bill. 

 

Chairman Collins:

We are going to do that.  A.B. 75 requires a two-thirds vote for passage and the hearing is closed.  We will now take the Rangeland presentation, and then will return to the next bills and have a work session.

 

Deloyd Satterthwaite, Chairman, Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission:

[Introduced himself, Mr. Guild, Mr. Romero]  Ms. Bartlett is the secretary to the Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission.  This Commission was Senator Dean Rhoads’ bill, S.B. 310 of the 70th Legislative Session.  The bill assessed each permitee – rancher – in Nevada who had BLM [Bureau of Land Management] or Forest Service permits $0.10 per AUM [animal unit month].  The money collected by individual permittees was placed into S.B. 310 of the 70th Legislative Session, which designated how it could be spent.  The assessment applied to each AUM in Nevada.  At that time there was a clause stating that if an individual did not want to participate in the program, he can immediately ask for his money to be refunded.

 

The purpose of S.B. 310 of the 70th Legislative Session was to establish a commission for the benefit of the rangelands, public lands, and grazing in Nevada through education and support of other ongoing programs.  We’re going to list some our accomplishments, future projects, and ongoing projects.  We were selected by this Commission, and set by law, that members come from the various Grazing Boards statewide.  One was normally the President of the Cattlemen’s Association, the President of the Farm Bureau [Nevada], the President of the Wool Growers Association [Nevada], and the Grazing Boards throughout the state.  Names were submitted by individual groups, then the Governor selected the members of the Commission.

 

Some of the things that we’ve done with the money collected – we feel that being on the Board, it was something that was very much a challenge to us, because you’re dealing with the majority of these people, as myself and Mr. Romero; we’re ranchers and cattle and sheep people.  We have the assignment to try to get ahead of the curve with the things we’re doing on these public land issues.  We were very fortunate to have someone like Mr. Guild, who was President of the Cattlemen’s Association [Nevada], very knowledgeable, and the President of the Farm Bureau [Nevada], Mr. Hellwinkel, who had knowledge of advertising in the Farm Bureau system, to be on the Commission.

We felt we had a great challenge ahead, but we all felt very privileged that we had the opportunity.  We’re only one of two states in the United States that has a commission like this, the other being Idaho.  We have a program, paid for by the permittees, that we felt finally would get through some educational materials, and things that we wanted to do to get in front of the curve on these issues that confront public land grazing issues on a daily basis.

 

Some of the things we’ve done, other than the ongoing programs, we have tried to reach a lot of people through the Range Magazine, I’m sure you are all aware of that.  We’ve put ads [advertising] in the Range Magazine, we’ve paid for the supplements that go in the Range Magazine.  The reason we chose Range Magazine because on the one hand, you might think we’re preaching to the choir because it’s something probably read by all livestock people.  But we felt that the “choir” is paying the bill and we wanted those people to be aware of what we were doing with their money.  Since then, we have expanded our efforts and have gone to different things: we’ve tried to get into the school system with educating children; we’ve had a booth at the Nevada State Fair; we’ve hired a public relations firm, for three years, to advise us and help us to see if we’re on track, reaching the right people, and getting the biggest “bang” for our buck.

 

We are excited about what we’re doing.  We’ve taken this challenge – it’s been a challenge, but a rewarding challenge – because it’s one of the better things that has happened here in the state, to have a bill like this where it’s a self‑help bill where we can finally do something in order to help these public land users.

 

Joe Guild III, Member, Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission:

[Introduced himself]  We really appreciate the opportunity to make this report to you and your committee because this Committee had a great hand in creating this Commission in 1999.  I wanted to give you two examples of what we’ve done in the past, and an example of a project we are considering for the future, to give you an idea of what we’re trying to do to help public land ranching in the state, as Mr. Satterthwaite expressed.

 

In October of 2000, a group called RangeNet met in Reno.  RangeNet’s avowed purpose is to completely do away with public lands livestock grazing.  In other words, to forever prohibit and prevent cattle and sheep from grazing on public lands in the entire country, not only in Nevada.  They had a symposium in Reno and a lot of press publicity associated with it.  We were able to gather a lot of factual information and put together press packets and contact members of the media attending the Reno conference and other media outlets around the state who might have covered the deliberations of that group.  We were very successful, I think, in that the press reports coming out from that organization’s [RangeNet] meeting had a lot of information we provided to the media groups.  It wasn’t a one sided story.  In my lifetime, in the ranching industry, too often we see a one sided story, and that’s what this Commission [Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission] was set up to try to overcome.

 

Another example was, I had an opportunity to spend a couple of hours, two years ago, with the Western Liaison for the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.  Her office is located in Denver [Colorado].  We spent almost two hours talking about what Nevada had done with this Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission, in creating it.  It’s exactly what Secretary Norton, the Secretary of the Interior, is interested in; that being: that local groups get together, help themselves overcome some of the problems associated with these attacks on public lands ranching and grazing, and provide their own opportunities.

 

In my 35 years of association with the industry as a cattle rancher, a lawyer representing the industry, and past President – like Mr. Satterthwaite and Mr. Hellwinkel – of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, too often what I saw was that we were never able to tell our story.  The primary reason for that, which I could identify, was we didn’t have enough resources.  Ranchers and farmers work hard and provide a good living for their families, but there’s not a lot left over.  This is an opportunity to spend some ranch-raised money to overcome some of the attacks that we have seen so often against our industry.

 

I would say that unfounded, and often times untruthful, attacks.  I think we have a truthful, factual, and good message to tell, but we just haven’t been able to do that in the past.  We have advertising programs and educational programs.  One of the other charges in the bill [S.B. 310 of the 70th Legislative Session] is to do research projects which we can turn around and use in our industry to show that we are doing a good job on the public lands and that we are grazing in a responsible way and actually protecting and enhancing the resource.  One of the things the Commission is going to be considering in a future meeting is a research project dealing with sage grouse and the relationship between sage grouse and man’s hand in agriculture in the Great Basin.  I hope we’ll be able to report to you some good results from that, several years from now.  I’d be happy to answer any questions when Mr. Romero is done, and again thank you so much for the opportunity to report back to you.

 

Benny Romero, Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission:

[Introduced himself]  In Nevada, where 9 out of every 10 are managed by the federal government, and grazing takes place on these public lands, it is vitally important that we get our message across out there to those people who do not understand or who are unfamiliar with grazing on public lands.  The Rangeland Resources Commission, like Mr. Guild and Mr. Satterthwaite mentioned, it’s been very important to us because it finally gave us a vehicle to get that message out.

 

When we first began Range Magazine, we needed to get the word out there, and at the time I felt that somehow or other the message needed to be sent out across our nation, to let people know how grazing on public lands is a benefit to the general public as well as to the land.  It’s always been a strenuous process to be able to create enough funding to be able to get the message out.  With the creation of the Rangeland Resources Commission, it has definitely been a step forward to be able to get this project out there.  I’ll entertain any questions or comments.

 

Assemblyman Marvel:

How many people have asked for a refund?

 

Deloyd Satterthwaite:

This year we sent out 586 individual billings; this year, I’m sorry to report, 29.7 percent asked for a refund.  When we started in 2000, we had 20 percent ask for a refund; in 2001, 17 percent asked for a refund; this year, 29 percent asked for a refund.

 

Assemblyman Marvel:

Is that because of market conditions?

 

Deloyd Satterthwaite:

You read the statements that come back, and the letters and notes they send you, and most of them deal with the fact that they’re in a drought; they had to buy additional hay; fire has taken part of their AUMs [animal unit months] therefore, they’ve reduced their cattle.  It’s just a tough time out there this year.

 

Assemblyman Marvel:

How much money does this generate?

 

Deloyd Satterthwaite:

So far, with the billings we’ve had in this year, we’ve generated over $116,000.  Now in the three years, 2000, 2001, and 2002, we’ve generated approximately $405,000.

 

Assemblyman Marvel:

It would help the General Fund.

Joe Guild:

It’s producer-generated money, Assemblyman Marvel, as you well know.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I just want to congratulate the people that have been involved in this.  It’s a tough deal to get any bunch of cowboys and sheepherders together, but I think you’ve done a remarkable job and I do like your TV [television] ads [advertising].  I’m sure that when condition improve out there, you’re going to get a 90 percent participation.  Thanks a lot.

 

Deloyd Satterthwaite:

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter.  Mr. Romero had a comment, if you don’t mind Chairman Collins.

 

Benny Romero:

I would just like to ask the Assemblymen, how many of you have had the opportunity to see Welfare Ranching.  It just came out last fall sometime.

 

Chairman Collins:

That could be arranged for us to have to look at it.

 

Benny Romero:

Very unbalanced information; this is the kind of work that we need to do to get the truth out there.

 

Chairman Collins:

We just went on a tour to ranches, dairies, recycling materials, other products, and the other operations that the ranchers were doing in order to help keep their ranches whole.  We’re getting more acquainted with the natural life and not just city life.  I guess one of you is going to volunteer to make Welfare Ranching available.

 

Joe Guild:

We can make a copy available to the Committee, Chairman Collins.  What I’ll do, with your permission, is provide the Committee a copy to review.  It’s actually a fairly expensive book; at the same time, we’ll deliver the Committee a copy of Range Magazine so they can compare a truthful statement with an untruthful statement about public lands livestock grazing.

 

Chairman Collins:

We just would want to have it on loan; we’ve [the Committee] got some other books on loan during session, so that would be wonderful.  More questions?  Thank you, we appreciate it.  We’re going to go back to legislating, and open A.B. 91.

 

Assembly Bill 91:  Revises provisions governing regulation of pesticides. (BDR 51-568)

 

Don Henderson, Acting Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture:

[Introduced himself]  I have with me Mr. Gronowski, who is the administrator of our Plant Industry Division.  This is bill has to do with our pesticide programs.  The primary intent of A.B. 91 is to change the manner by which the Department [Department of Agriculture] registers and collects registration fees for pesticides authorized for sale in the state (Exhibit N).  As you know, the Department has existing statutory authority to analyze pesticides submitted for state registration, for proper labeling, and registration status with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  This authority also includes the ability for the Department to test pesticides registered for sale in the state to ensure the accuracy of the label’s stated contents.

 

This existing state program is fully supported by the resulting pesticide registration fees, for those pesticides registered for sale in Nevada.  Currently, this pesticide registration fee is $60 per product; this registration is based upon the formulation of the pesticide in question.  This is the point we want to address here with this bill draft.  NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] 586.250 provides a registration fee exemption for pesticide products that have the same formulation and are manufactured by the same person or entity.  As you go to the hardware store or Home Depot, when you pick up your pesticides, often times you’ll see the same product, marketed by the same manufacturer and is basically the same thing, under a different label.

 

Our current statutes allow an exemption for those registrations if it’s the same formula and if it’s manufactured by the same person or entity.  The problem with this process is that it’s very costly and time-consuming for the Department to do the analysis work to make sure we are dealing with the same formulation.  What we’re proposing to do in A.B. 91 is to, rather, establish the fee for registration of pesticides by the brand.  If there’s a brand by a certain manufacturer, they would need to provide for that registration fee.  I think the point to you, the possible impacts associated with this change of strategy, there’s only 1.2 percent of our current 8,000 pesticide registration that falls under this exemption of “same formulation, same manufacturer” (Exhibit N).

 

We’re giving about 168 registrations away for free, because they fall under this exemption.  We don’t anticipate that it’s going to matter much; it’ll make things much easier and more efficient on our side by this proposed change.  Sections 1-4 in A.B. 91 address this change in registration by brand and is mostly wording changes through the existing statutes.  The second primary revision offered in A.B. 91 is found in Section 6.  In addition to supporting the program costs, currently pesticide registration fees are also authorized for use in the Department’s [Department of Agriculture] pesticide disposal program.

 

An equally important Department function is the monitoring and detection of pesticide residues in state waterways.  This latter program is currently funded by an annual grant from the U.S. EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency].  The proposed amendment, in Section 6, would allow the excess funds from the pesticide disposal fund to be used to assist in paying the costs associated with the Department’s existing water quality monitoring program.  Under this program, the states’ waters are monitored for early detection of pesticide contamination.  If pesticide contamination is detected, restrictions can then be placed on that pesticide by the state to prevent further contamination of those waterways.  With that brief introduction, we would be happy to entertain any questions.

 

Assemblyman Marvel:

How much does this bring in per year?

 

Don Henderson:

It would be 8,000 times $60 each; that would come out to $480,000.

 

Assemblyman Marvel:

Does that pretty well carry the program, with the federal money?

 

Don Henderson:

Yes, it does.  It allows a little bit of extra money for our pesticide disposal program, and we anticipate that there may be some additional funds to help us in our groundwater-monitoring program.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Mr. Henderson, that includes any label, and if it requires a certified applicator, when you’re talking brands here.

 

Bob Gronowski, Administrator, Division of Plant Industry, Nevada Department of Agriculture:

[Introduced himself]  It is, specifically, by the brand name that we would register it under, that would be whether it’s restricted or whether it’s general.  There’s not so many variations of brand names in restricted use pesticides as there are variations in the names in the general use pesticides. 

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

So the majority of these would be household pesticides that you’re buying at Wal-Mart or a hardware store.  [Mr. Gronowski agreed.]

 

Chairman Collins:

Assemblyman Claborn wants you to explain brands and how important they are.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

On page 2, Section 4, lines 10-11, and you have lines 12-17 marked out.  Is that why that is deleted, for the simple fact that you don’t need that any more, we would go by brands instead of by formula?

 

Bob Gronowski:

That is why we struck lines 12-17 out; we are going to register by brand instead of by formula.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

And that two paragraphs: “Such a registration of a brand of pesticides must be…” That’ll handle the problem?

 

Bob Gronowski:

Yes, it will, because then it will be able to be registered by it’s brand name and not spend the hours of research to determine whether it is the same product or not.

 

Chairman Collins:

In researching by hours, and getting the chemical formula, which is a brand –

 

Bob Gronowski:

Let’s say I’m “ABC” pesticide, we would still review the label to ensure its accuracy, but we wouldn’t have to sit there and compare label “a” with label “b,” read every line, and see if there’s any minor variance that would knock it out of being the same formulation-type of pesticide.  It just saves a tremendous amount of time and effort that could be spent on analyzing the label for correctness.

 

Chairman Collins:

Since the bill [A.B. 91] addresses the word “brand” so many times, explain how important a brand is.

 

Don Henderson:

I just want to make it clear that we’re dealing with livestock brands now, and not pesticide brands.  There’s a state law in effect, since we are a public land grazing state, and most of our livestock cattle production and sheep production occurs in a range setting and on unfenced land.  To run cattle or sheep, or hogs or anything else out on these public lands, they need to be branded so you can identify them.  It’s not much different than having a license plate on your car.  They have to be branded to be lawfully out there.

 

We have a Division of Livestock Inspection that records brands.  We have to make sure that we don’t have two license plates for the same brand, so we make sure we have distinct brands.  I think there are about 4,000 brands registered in the state, give or take.  In addition to that, when livestock move out of the state, all livestock have to be checked to make sure they are with the right owner and they have the right paper; the brands division handles that.  This whole brands program is another program that’s funded by fees, by the industry, and does not include any General Fund moneys.

 

Chairman Collins:

Any last questions on this bill?  Only those signed in to speak are at the table; we’re going to close A.B. 91 and move to A.B. 130.

 

Assembly Bill 130:  Makes various changes relating to State Department of Agriculture. (BDR 50-569)

 

Don Henderson, Acting Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture:

[Introduced himself]  At the table, besides Mr. Gronowski, is Mr. Gimlin who is our Administrative Services Officer for the Department [Department of Agriculture].  This is more of a financial and housekeeping bill for the Department.  In 1997, the Department was audited by the Legislative Counsel Bureau [LCB], and one of their findings, which we took to heart, was that we needed to have some guidelines, policy, on revenue fundings for our various programs (Exhibit O).  We run 74 programs across three titles in the state statutes.  We took that to heart and developed that, at the direction of LCB.

 

Simply put, this agency policy funding states that the entity benefiting from the service provided by the Department should be paying the full costs of that service.  If the public is the primary beneficiary, such as food product testing or pesticide regulation, then this policy dictates that the General Fund should pay for the service.  If an individual, business, or business sector benefits from a particular service provided by the Department, then it’s our policy that that entity should be paying for the costs associated with this service.  An example of that is our livestock brands program, which I’ve just discussed with you.

 

The past couple of sessions, we’ve been moving along implementing this policy and that’s the intent of A.B. 130.  Basically, we have several services that we provide to private individuals, businessmen, and so forth that because we do not have direct statutory statements – in other words, the statutes say we cannot collect a fee – we’ve been unable to collect a fee for these areas.  I’ll just give you a brief example of some of those things that we do now, for free, and we don’t recover the cost.

 

One is the certificate of free sale for commercial shipment of products to a foreign country; certification of veterinarian inspection, which needs to follow livestock as they are moved out of the state into other states; certificate of origin, which some states and foreign countries require for shipments or products from Nevada that are moved into their area; field inspection report, which buyers of product request when they buy produce from Nevada; and Christmas tree inspections, which is becoming more important because there are various diseases that can be passed along to trees that grow in our state that come in on Christmas trees that are produced someplace else.

 

That gives you a flavor of some of the things that we cannot charge fees for at this point.  The new statutory language proposed in Section 1 of the bill [A.B. 130] is designed to provide the department the authority to charge and collect fees for rendered ancillary services once the public process to establish the corresponding regulations has been completed.

 

Another primary change proposed in A.B. 130 relates to the new wording found in Section 3 (Exhibit O).  This proposed wording permits the expenditure from the agricultural registration and enforcement account to carry out the provisions of the pesticide control operators’ licensing, the inspection of these license operators, and the enforcement of the regulations that follow this program.  The fees collected for licensing pest control operators, under NRS 555.310 need to be transferred to our current Budget Account 4540 to provide funding to carry out the enforcement of licensing, inspection, and monitoring program associated with the pest control operators program.  The proposed wording achieves this end.

 

With that broad overview, those are the two primary actions involved with A.B. 130; we’d be happy to answer any of your questions.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

When we talk about licensing a certified pest applicator – I believe Chuck Moses is a state employee, but he’s actually paid by the federal government.  Is he not a federal, or at least grant-funded, employee?

Bob Gronowski, Administrator, Division of Plant Industry, Nevada Department of Agriculture:

Yes, our EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] contract pays for our employee, Mr. Moses, and several other of our environmental protection employees who enforce the Environmental Protection Agency laws here in the state.

 

Don Henderson:

I think we need to clarify that response; we also have other staff who work under the fee-based programs to register pesticide operators.  Mr. Moses is one employee that works for the EPA under this program; we have others who are state-funded.

 

Assemblyman Marvel:

Section 5, subsection 3 has to do with the agreement with school boards.  What the rationale for that?

 

Bob Gronowski:

When violations of the pesticide laws occur, a fine is assessed against them.  An opportunity to use these fines, under the encouragement of the Environmental Protection Agency, along with the staff, is that the school district could contract with the Department to use these fines for an integrated pest management program in that school.  The object of an integrated pest management in the school is to reduce the uses of pesticides and exposure to those pesticides to the children who attend that school.

 

Don Henderson:

The current statutes, I believe, require that if we have a fine relative to pest control operators, that is deposited with the school district within that area.  That becomes programmatic for us; in fact, we have some authority issues with that that Legislative Council Bureau has brought to our attention.  What we’re proposing here is that, for those school districts that are interested in working with the Department [Department of Agriculture] to develop a pest control program, that if we have these violations, we can apply these fees to work with them to develop the plan, and to implement the plan.  If they’re not interested in using this funding, which is sporadic and not that much money, then the proposal here, as I understand it, is that the money would be deposited in the General Fund.

 

Assemblyman Marvel:

Who designs the program, the Department?

Don Henderson:

In working with the school district in the agreement, yes.

 

Chairman Collins:

Any other questions from the Committee?  This bill, like the others, requires a two-thirds vote.  We’ll close the hearing on A.B. 130.  Committee, is there anyone that has any heartburn about voting on the three bills we’ve heard from the Department of Agriculture?  A.B. 131 will not be voted on today.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

On A.B. 75, I have a problem on page 3 where they say: “…the State Board of Agriculture…” changing from “shall” to “may” “adopt the appropriate regulations…” I believe that is why we have the State Board of Agriculture, so they can actually adopt these regulations and get input.  I really don’t see a reason for changing it from “shall” to “may” and if some of these programs – if we lose the money in that, if they want to come back to the Legislature, we can eliminate them.  I just think the State Board of Agriculture is there to look at these regulations, to adopt them, to give their input because they have a wide diversity of knowledge on that State Board, and I think that that should remain “shall.”

 

Chairman Collins:

I think the answer was, if you put “shall” they have to have a program; if you have “may” they can drop the Program, someday, should organics become obsolete.  I think that was the reason Mr. Henderson gave; yes, they should have a program, they plan to have a program, they currently do have a program, but should some day, that no one in Nevada wants – when it’s all asphalted over and there’s 9 million people – if you want to vote no, that’s okay.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I don’t really have a problem with it, but I would like to respond to Assemblyman Carpenter, and I think that’s where I was headed when I was talking to Mr. Henderson about the federal involvement in all these programs.  I think you have to understand that, in most cases, our Department of Agriculture is a state department of agriculture but we have subordinated to the federal level, whether it be the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] or the organic act, we have subordinated already to the federal government.  We do take federal funds to offset the cost to our programs.  I think we’re out of the driver’s seat, unless we’re going to fund it and bring it back.

 

Chairman Collins:

That’s a more accurate answer, we are under federal law.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

It says that the “Director establishes a program for the certification of producers and handlers of organic agricultural products, pursuant to…”  It’s an NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] statute.  It doesn’t say anything about the federal, and so I think if this program is established pursuant to an NRS statute, that then the State Board of Agriculture should be involved in it, and that it should be a “shall” and not a “may.” 

 

Chairman Collins:

Mr. Henderson, it says: “If the Director establishes a program…” he “may” adopt, rather than “shall” adopt.  So if you choose –

 

Don Henderson:

I’ll attempt it.  Basically, I think the statutory authority for having a certified organics program is currently in here and maintained by this current bill [A.B.75].  The statute is not changing, we have the option of having it.  What this particular section does, Section 5, the Director may establish a program of certification of organic.  We have statutes on the books; most of those statutes are being followed and are involved in the program.  I’m not saying within the Department of Agriculture, but across the state government, we do have statutes on the book that there isn’t necessarily a program in place and regulations in place.  If there’s a friendly amendment proposed here, I don’t see any threat by retaining “shall” as opposed to “may” here.  We were looking for increased flexibility that if, sometime, the demand from the producers of not maintaining regulations on organic, if they didn’t want a program, then we would not have to maintain regulations for the program.  That was our intent.

 

Chairman Collins:

Does that clear it up, Assemblyman Carpenter?  Do you want “shall” in there?  Do you want to amend it?

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Yes, I want to amend it.

 

Chairman Collins:

The Chair will accept a motion from Assemblyman Carpenter.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I would make a motion that we amend and do pass A.B. 75 and the amendment would be on page 3, line 21, that “shall” would remain and not “may.”

 

Chairman Collins:

So leave “shall” and remove “may” that’s been proposed.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B.75.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was absent for the vote.)

 

Chairman Collins:

A.B. 91 again takes a two-thirds vote; anyone have a problem, issue, or concern?

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 91.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was absent for the vote.)

 

Chairman Collins:

Now, A.B. 130; Assemblyman Conklin you have a question about this bill? [Assemblyman Conklin indicated he was fine with this bill.]  Page 3, line 32-35, are you okay with that, Assemblyman Conklin?  [Assemblyman Conklin again indicated satisfaction.]  The Chair will accept a motion.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B.130.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN VOTED NAY.  (Ms. Ohrenschall was absent for the vote.)

 

Chairman Collins:

We do have a majority to pass this bill, two-thirds.  Ms. Eissmann would you like to now hand out your mock-up proposed amendments to A.B. 36, which we will now discuss.  We’re in work session.  We’re going to take a three-minute recess while she’s handing those out.  [Recessed at 3:05 p.m.]

 

[Reconvened at 3:12 p.m.]  Before we get into the work session, I’m going to add that Assemblyman Mortenson and myself will hold a Subcommittee on A.B. 131 at approximately 1:00 p.m. Monday, prior to our next meeting.  If people don’t have time for amendments, then, we might not amend; we want to get on with the show.  We’ll go into work session on A.B. 36.

 

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)

 

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst:

Before I begin talking about the amendments for A.B. 36, I wanted to answer a question that the Committee asked of me when we had a hearing on this bill; and that was whether or not diesel fuel is considered a special fuel.  I looked into it myself, but then I also ran the question past the Legal Division, and we came to the same conclusion.  The bottom line is yes, diesel fuel is considered a special fuel.  The reason is because in NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] 366.210, it clarifies that the taxes imposed in Chapter 366 are in lieu of the taxes imposed in Chapter 365.  It makes sense that if 365.060 [NRS] defines motor fuel as not including diesel fuel, it would then leave 366.060 [NRS] to include diesel fuel.  It’s a bit of a double negative, and a little circular, but the conclusion was that, yes, diesel fuel is a special fuel.  I see Assemblyman Geddes is pleased with that.

 

Having said that, you should have in front of you a mock-up of A.B. 36 with the amendments that were proposed when we heard this bill (Exhibit P).  The Committee will recall there were several amendments proposed that day, and if you flip through these pages, you will see that the new language is shown in green, and any proposed deletions of language are also shown in green with the double strike through.  Off to the side, in the margin, I put in the text box who proposed each of those amendments.  All of the amendments are shown on here, and you can see from the text box which amendment is associated with which sponsor of those amendments.

 

I will add that there was one amendment discussed, I think Assemblyman Carpenter brought it up, and in further conversation with those involved, we realized that that amendment wasn’t actually needed.  That would have been changing the pound-weight for the definition of heavy-duty, which is found on page 2.  We talked about changing that from 8,500 pounds to 10,000 pounds.  After discussion with people, we found that that was not necessary.  In fact, I think it’s federal regulations that defines that, so it didn’t need to be changed by us.  That’s not shown on here.

 

You will recall that the Nevada Motor Transport Association had suggested an amendment that would have added two new sections to the bill.  The new sections of the bill are shown as highlights in yellow; those are Sections 2 and 3 with the amendment from the Nevada Motor Transport.  That’s why those sections are highlighted, because those would be new to the bill, and then you can see the revised language to those sections of statute shown there.

Assemblyman Geddes also had an amendment that would have added yet another section, and that is Section 4, to the bill.  That’s why those sections are all highlighted in yellow.  If you flip back to page 2, at the top of page 2, there were two other amendments that were mentioned that day, but specific language had not been handed to us, but was given to me subsequently, and that’s what I added.  Those two amendments would add two subsections to Section 1.  Those would be Subsections 2 and 3.  Subsection 2 was proposed by Lloyd Nelson from DMV [Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles] and that regarded testing versus regulation and whether or not there should be testing before the regulations are in place; that’s subsection 2.

 

Neena Laxalt, from the Nevada Propane Dealers Association, had suggested an amendment, and that is shown in subsection 3; that has to do with standards for LPG [liquefied petroleum gas] in particular.  I did attempt to show this mock-up to as many of the interested people as possible.  I will be honest, Mr. Chairman, I did not necessarily hear back from everyone, so whether or not everyone is in agreement with all of the amendments, I can’t say.  But I believe that they’re in the audience if you have questions of them, or if you have technical questions of them as well.

 

Chairman Collins:

Are there any questions from the Committee?

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

I have a little concern about the amendment brought forth by the Propane Dealers Association.  I think, that if we’re going to discuss that the Commission shall not establish emissions standards, I don’t think we should limit it to LPG [liquefied petroleum gas], but I think we should say for all special fuels, until federal standards have first been established.  Top of page 2, subsection 3 – I would just feel more comfortable if we weren’t just excluding LPG, but we were excluding all special fuels for which federal standards did not exist.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

That was my question.  Along the same lines when will the effective date of this legislation be and what’s going to drive that?

 

Linda Eissmann:

The effective date of any bill, if it doesn’t specifically say, is October 1.  That is our default effective date; unless it says otherwise, assume it’s October 1.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

That brings my next question.  Will we have the guidelines and the criteria in place by October 1?

Chairman Collins:

No, that’s part of the reason for the request; so far we’ve not been able to discover if there are federal standards.  There’s one consideration to allow our state to sets its own standards, the other consideration is to wait for federal standard.  That’s for the Committee to consider: we can either allow our own state DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles] people to set the standard, or we can let them wait for federal standards with that amendment.

 

I wanted to let the Committee get all their bugs out before we had any questions from the audience.  This is not a public hearing, this is just a work session.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson:

We can set our standards and they will be established if they are slightly more strict or equal to the federal, right?

 

Chairman Collins:

Right, but currently there are no federal standards.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

If in fact we accept what Assemblyman Geddes said, instead of just talking about just LPG [liquefied petroleum gas] and we put all special fuels in that, that would imply that this legislation would not take place until the federal standards have first been set.  Correct?

 

Chairman Collins:

Correct, the portion of this bill that we’re affecting would not take effect until the standards were in place.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

If we say “special fuel” that’s going to include diesel also.

 

Chairman Collins:

It is regulated; no?  We have about three questions we need answered so far.  Anybody else?

 

Joe Johnson, Member, State Environmental Commission:

[Introduced himself]  I will represent as a member of the Commission, not the Commission’s position on this.  I think Assemblyman Carpenter asked the question:  with the expansion of the definition of special to include diesel, you’ll obviate the whole purpose of this bill because you would do away with the Commission’s ability to regulate diesel.  What has driven this whole bill is to expand the rather cursory regulation and testing that we have presently.  The federal standards on opacity are simply guidelines and recommended; they are not hard.  We just, this past summer, adopted, expanded the opacity standards.  As a matter from the Commission, we would say that including all special fuels for federal standards – and of course, this is your policy decision – would include the diesel standards that are presently existing.

 

Chairman Collins:

Does that help everybody?

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I still have a problem with it because under the fuel type side of it, diesel is a special fuel.  We’re going to put that in here, but we’re going to conflict it in another statute.

 

Joe Johnson:

Presently, diesel is a special fuel, and that’s all right; we regulate it and pass standards upon the basis that the state has the ability to pass those standards.  Presently we don’t have to have it tied to federal standards.  That’s the nexus here, is what you call special fuels.  If you’re going to require that all special fuels be tested to federal standards, then you’ll no longer have the ability to test diesel.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

We do have standards in place.  There’s no use in talking about the light vehicle at 8,500 because we’re going clear to the top with this, the way I read the bill.  Is that not correct?  When you say “heavy-duty motor vehicles,” it’s 8,500 pounds or more.

 

Chairman Collins:

The purpose of the bill is to take out the California standard and to accept our own standards as well as federal regulation as they come.  Isn’t that the intent of the bill?

 

Joe Johnson:

Yes, that is the intent of the bill, is to take out the reference to the California standards and, obviously, to adopt federal standards as they come.  But, I personally would not like to see us relinquish the right to set our own standards based upon what we think is in the interests of public safety.

 

Chairman Collins:

That is in the area of diesel, not liquid petroleum, or all special fuel?

Joe Johnson:

I’m addressing diesel and have essentially not taken a position on special fuels, the other special fuels.

 

Chairman Collins:

Special fuels, excluding diesel.  [Mr. Johnson agreed.]  Any other questions from the Committee?  So the bill is removing the California standards, which would still let us keep our existing state standards.  One of the amendments being discussed is leaving LPG [liquefied petroleum gas] out of, being excluded from the bill until federal standards come along.  Ms. Laxalt, say yes or no for me.

 

Neena Laxalt, Government Relations Consultant, Nevada Propane Dealers Association:

Yes and no.  Following this initial amendment, I followed up with one from the DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles] that they reworked, which was a little bit clearer than mine, and also included CNGs [compressed natural gas] for the same purposes (Exhibit Q).  I brought a copy, but I didn’t know you were doing this work session until three minutes ago so I can read it into the record.

 

Chairman Collins:

Clarify that you and DMV – who’s here from DMV?  Would you come join her for concurrence on this language?

 

Neena Laxalt:

I received this by e-mail from Mr. Benzler, a while back, and I thought I had forwarded it that same day to your staff; apparently that got lost in the shuffle.

 

Chairman Collins:

So that’s not the one you had a couple of days ago you showed me?

 

Neena Laxalt:

Correct.  What this would say, it’s basically saying the same thing, but it’s a little bit clearer.  It says:

 

Regulations adopted pursuant to subsection 2 related to the testing of vehicles powered by liquefied petroleum gas or compressed natural gas shall be in conformance with federal standards and guidelines for testing of those vehicles.

 

So it was a little bit lighter than “shall not develop regs.”  It was “shall be in conformance.”  It was for CNG inclusive.

 

Lloyd Nelson, Emissions Control Manager, Management Services and Programs Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:

[Introduced himself]  The Department [Department of Motor Vehicles] would be satisfied with having the Commission set standards for all special fuels in a consistency manner.  We would not like to exclude LPG [liquefied petroleum gas] alone; we would prefer having the language as we submitted, subsection 2, to where the Commission would set standards for all special fuels.

 

Chairman Collins:

On page 2, Section 2, “Commission shall by regulation develop testing…”  Section 3 is a proposal from the natural gas people, which is not most current because you’ve got a new one.

 

Neena Laxalt:

Right, which was actual language submitted to me by Mr. Benzler.

 

Chairman Collins:

The Committee hasn’t gotten that.

 

Lloyd Nelson:

The language that Mr. Benzler drafted was in subsection 2.  I worked with Mr. Benzler on drafting this language, earlier in the week.

 

Chairman Collins:

Do you have these four pages that we’re looking at? [Mr. Nelson indicated he did.]  So lines 5-7 are not part of yours?

 

Lloyd Nelson:

No, I was not aware of this until I arrived today.

 

Chairman Collins:

Any questions by the Committee so far?  It matters whether or not we allow the last three lines of Section 3, submitted on the LPG [liquefied petroleum gas] as far as this section goes, or accept her new amendment we haven’t seen yet.

 

Neena Laxalt:

I am almost positive I e-mailed this to everyone, and I just showed the DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles] a copy that his boss e-mailed to me that I could submit for the record if you would like, which approved the amendment that I just spoke about, and it was actually his language that I suggested this time (Exhibit Q).

 

Chairman Collins:

The Motor Carrier sponsored bill, Mr. Capurro, would you like to come up?

 

Daryl Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association Inc.:

[Introduced himself]  As you indicated, we are the initial sponsor of the bill.  We worked at some length with the Division of Environmental Protection on the language in this bill.  The language that’s on page 2 – when the bill was drafted Section 2 was basically left out; you only had Section 1 in it. 

 

Chairman Collins:

Excuse me, subsection 2 of Section 1, or Section 2 all together?

 

Daryl Capurro:

Section 2 all together, was language that had been agreed to by the Environmental Division [Nevada Division of Environmental Protection] and us, and others involved, but it just had not gotten drafted in the original bill.  That’s where we had proposed the amendment.  As far as I know, they are okay with amendment.  I have not heard from Jigurd Jaunarais.  My understanding is they’re okay with Section 2.  I would like to say, right off the bat, that I think Ms. Eissmann did a tremendous job in pulling all this together and putting it in front of you.  We do have a problem with page 2 of the mock-up, subsection 3; basically, in my opinion, that guts the intent of the bill.

 

The intent of the bill is to make sure that testing for emissions is not specific to gasoline and to diesel.  That’s the whole purpose of the bill; to exempt LPG [liquefied petroleum gas], which is only one of a number of special fuels – understand, special fuels is everything but gasoline, which is defined as motor vehicle fuel.  A55, ethanol, any of the hybrids that we might have are, and will be, classified as special fuels, by definition in the current statute. 

 

Chairman Collins:

More specifically, we’re dealing with only those vehicles between 8,500 pounds to 10,000 pounds.  [Mr. Capurro agreed.]  If it’s under 8,500 pounds or over 10,000 pounds it’s not in this bill.

 

Daryl Capurro:

No, they are already covered.

 

Chairman Collins:

I wanted to make sure we got the bill sized down to where it really is.

Daryl Capurro:

Frankly, I would agree with Assemblyman Geddes, rather than exempt only one or two classes of special fuels, exempt – just substitute special fuel for liquid petroleum gas.  Basically, what you do is gut the bill. 

 

Chairman Collins:

Ms. Laxalt, why would we exempt?

 

Neena Laxalt:

We were not asking for an exemption.  What we were simply doing – we have no problem going along with emission testing for our vehicles.  What we were asking is that we wait until some federal guidelines are established, prior to implementing them here in the state.

 

Chairman Collins:

Do you have any information on when that might happen?

 

Neena Laxalt:

No.  As a matter of fact, I wasn’t even aware of that until it was the DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles] that got up in Committee and said that they were concerned that there were not yet any standards or guidelines established, for CNG [compressed natural gas] or LPG [liquefied petroleum gas].  Up until that point I was neutral on this bill [A.B. 36] until I heard that.  I was a little concerned that I didn’t think NDEP [Nevada Division of Environmental Protection] would have the qualifications to establish guidelines for something that could possibly – and I believe, with this one, and I’m not sure about this, but I believe that initially there were some guidelines that were followed, from either California or nationally, and that’s what was implemented in this state.  But I’m not positive about that; there was something out there.

 

Chairman Collins:

Mr. Johnson, would you come back up here for a minute – we’re going to lose some members here in a minute to the Education Committee, correct?  I apologize for going overtime.  Mr. Johnson, I just want to ask you, what would it take for the Commission: specialties, hire someone qualified, or what?  Clarify this concern.

 

Joe Johnson:

My understanding that this was permissive, that the Commission and NDEP might, indeed, not have any interest in setting standards on LPG or otherwise.  We took a number of years to adopt more stringent standards on diesel.  We heard on testimony that there are a number of states, DMV testified, that had been considering adopting standards and in more particular, the state of California has the resources.  Generally we would follow guidance from other states where it has been documented.  It would not be my interest to hire people and establish standards, and I wouldn’t anticipate that.

 

Chairman Collins:

This bill would only affect Clark County?

 

Daryl Capurro:

Clark and Washoe Counties; the fact of the matter is that there are no more standards on diesel at 8,500 to 10,000 pounds than there are on LPG [liquefied petroleum gas] or anything else.  There are, however, at least eight states that cover all the fuels.

 

Chairman Collins:

Ms. Laxalt, in Clark County, the Environmental Protection Agency and Health Department, address, credit, and recognize that there are tax credits for going to the natural gas, LPG, and CNG [compressed natural gas] in those vehicles already.  Are there no standards that go along with that which would allow them to reach those credits, is that correct?  Or do you know?

 

Neena Laxalt:

I’m not sure about that, and the other thing that I was concerned about is that I believe that testing equipment, that may be different for these vehicles as well.

 

Chairman Collins:

We’re not going to take any further action on this bill.  I’ve got some minutes to hand out for these Committee members to read.  Before we bring this bill up again, I’d like to have information regarding Clark County, and if Washoe has the same, on the credits given in the natural gas, LPG, CNG people from Clark County on the fact that for some reason they get credits because it’s supposedly cleaner burning, or less polluting.  I think that only deals with cars, anyway, that should be covered somewhere else, so I’m not sure how many vehicles is between 8,500 to 10,000 pounds run on this fuel.  Maybe you could bring that information as well.  Are there any other questions the Committee would like to ask of these people, or have brought before the Committee before we hear this again?

[Chairman Collins]  I have minutes to be checked for Assemblyman McCleary, Assemblyman Geddes, Assemblyman Goicoechea, Assemblyman Christensen, and we’d like these back within seven days.  Any other business that needs to come before this Committee today?  We’re adjourned.  [Adjourned at 3:38 p.m.]

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Erin Channell

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman

 

 

DATE: