MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources,
Agriculture, and Mining
Seventy-Second Session
April 14, 2003
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:32 p.m., on Monday, April 14, 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. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Marcus Conklin
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson, excused
Mr. Bob McCleary, excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Erin Channell, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Don Henderson, Acting Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture
James E. Connelley, Chief, Agriculture Enforcement Unit, Livestock Identification Unit, Nevada Department of Agriculture
Dawn Rafferty, Weed Specialist, Noxious Weeds Program Coordinator, Division of Plant Industry, Nevada Department of Agriculture
Karen R. Grillo, Director, Agriculture Promotion and Marketing, Nevada Association of Counties
Pam Robinson, Legislative Liaison, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Janine Hansen, representing the Nevada Livestock Association and Nevada Committee for Full Statehood
Chairman Collins called the meeting to order and welcomed a presentation by the Nevada Department of Agriculture (NDOA).
Don Henderson, Acting Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture, stated that he appreciated the opportunity to highlight three priority programs for the NDOA. The three NDOA programs the team would address were:
James E. Connelley, Chief of the Agriculture Enforcement Unit and of the Livestock Identification Unit, NDOA, said he would speak to issues related to agricultural law enforcement in Nevada. He submitted a written copy of his testimony (Exhibit C), and a Division of Livestock Industry brochure (Exhibit D). Mr. Connelley said it was not well-known that there was a viable agriculture industry in Nevada, and it was not just cattle and sheep. It was true what the bumper sticker (Exhibit L) proclaimed, “People Grow Things Here!” He presented a list of some of the crops grown in Nevada, including cantaloupes, turf, nuts, mint, melons, and other items not normally related to Nevada agriculture.
The mission of NDOA was to promote, protect, and enhance Nevada’s agriculture and livestock industries. The Agricultural Enforcement Unit was divided into 5 primary divisions:
A.B. 560 of the 71st Legislative Session amended Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 289.290 in an attempt to stop Nevada from becoming a dumping ground for substandard, diseased, or infested nursery stocks, crops, livestock, and other agricultural products and commodities. Mr. Connelley commented that the bill charged that the Agriculture Enforcement Unit (AEU) officers would have peace officer powers for the purpose of enforcing all the laws related to agriculture and livestock in Nevada.
Mr. Connelley said that action by the 2001 Legislature was very timely, in retrospect, because the attacks of September 11, 2001, a few months later brought forth a whole new perspective on America’s and Nevada’s vulnerabilities. The new Secretary of Homeland Security, Thomas Ridge, had since declared that agriculture and the nation’s food supply were the number one priority for homeland security.
The mission of the AEU was to protect the people of the state of Nevada and its agriculture industry from the illegal or intentional importation of plant and animal diseases, pests, noxious weeds, defective livestock, and unfair agriculture business practices.
Agricultural enforcement agents conducted the following kinds of activities:
· Patrolled routes where agricultural commodities were being transported.
· Intercepted vehicles for inspection, including vehicles for all modes of transportation per NRS 289.290 which stated that agents could stop any vehicle.
· Maintained a presence at all Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) commercial check sites, and every check sites they could get them to, to inspect trucks hauling agricultural products, commodities, and livestock. As trucks came past the point man, anything with any agricultural product or commodity was sent to their lab.
· Investigated illegal importation, including efforts to cooperate with other states to promote clean shipments of agricultural commodities.
· Cooperated with California, Arizona, Utah, and other neighboring states, some of whom had permanent inspection sites. As part of an annual National Transportation Safety Board statistical survey, an around-the-clock, 72-hour check site would stop every commercial vehicle on Highway I-15 in June.
· Federal quarantine regulations required Agricultural Enforcement Officers to enforce 30 different quarantines actions. The Nevada State Board of Agriculture recently adopted federal quarantines as state quarantines, which meant that Nevada could enforce federal actions under state law, rather than having to hold vehicles or products until federal agents were free to investigate.
Mr. Connelley said invasive species, such as fire ants, were a major priority. Fire ants would ride in on new trees planted on the perimeter of the ballparks and football fields; soon the whole field would be invested. When fire ants infested soccer fields and baseball fields, kids would soon abandon those fields. They were currently traveling across the southern tier of states, and there were some in certain counties in California. The Texas Department of Agriculture estimated that their cost for managing imported fire ants, alone, was $526 million per year, which amounted to $150 per house.
The impacts of invasive species could be tremendous. Tall whitetop weeds, for example, had almost taken over all the old meadowlands of the Truckee and Carson Rivers. Cheat grass, which originated in Eastern Europe, caused cycles of intense wildfires. Another example of an invasive species, tamarisk, or salt cedar, robbed all natural desert plants of their water and took over the landscape.
Some pests, including Japanese beetles were highly destructive and costly to control. They could arrive from overseas in pallets and on other types of plants, and were very hardy. They attacked the foliage, the flower, and the fruit of over 300 different ornamental and agricultural plants and crops. The cost of control in California was estimated at $6 million per year, in Oregon at $20 million per year, and in Las Vegas, where there were huge investments in ornamental horticulture around the different clubs, golf courses, and recreational establishments, they estimated over $300,000 per year.
Potato late blight could potentially devastate Nevada’s $15 million potato industry, as well as all tomato plants. Just two weeks ago, an Agriculture Enforcement officer noticed some sick-looking tomato plants while inspecting a nursery in the Carson City/Reno area. He tested them and identified potato late blight. The plants were quarantined, and over 5,000 infected plants were pulled off the market and destroyed. Many people from Winnemucca regularly came to the Reno area to pick up plants in spring. Had the sick tomato plants been distributed across northern Nevada and infected the potato industry, the disease could have devastated the industry.
Chairman Collins said if the Nevada Department of Agriculture had a “bug station,” the disease could have been stopped at the border.
Mr. Connelley agreed. He added that Africanized honeybees, or “killer bees,” had been moving north from southern Nevada since they were released in 1956 by accident in Brazil. They had been identified as far north as Beatty, and had reached the frost zone. Mr. Connelley said it would be interesting to see if they survived the cold temperatures.
Mr. Connelley said the bees probably traveled by flying in swarms, but many of the pests came in on some kind of plant or agricultural commodity. The European Pine Shoot Moth in the Sierra Nevada Mountains could be devastating, and they were often found in imported trees and nursery stock.
Assemblyman Claborn said he understood the Africanized honeybees were being acclimated as they traveled from south to north. He asked Mr. Connelley if that was true.
Mr. Connelley said that the experts suspected that was true, but they would not know for sure for a couple years. He added that insects had a great propensity to adapt.
Mr. Connelley said that the NDOA’s (Nevada Department of Agriculture) biggest problem with disease was with infected plant shipments to wholesale and retail nurseries, landscapers, and developers. There were over 800 nurseries in the Las Vegas Valley alone, not counting developers and landscapers. He said that NDOA did not have the staff to inspect them all on a regular basis. Instead, they licensed every nursery and landscaper, and inspected the businesses for compliance with the plant laws in NRS Chapter 555.
Chairman Collins asked how they inspected when the products were brought directly to a development, and if the developers notified NDOA.
Mr. Connelley said that developers were not required to notify the NDOA, but they were required to have a nursery license if they bought and kept wholesale nursery products for longer than 60 days, or if they resold them. The question was, “When you buy a landscaped home, were you buying the plant as a resale from the developer, or not?” Mr. Connelley said AEOs (Agriculture Enforcement officer) would drive through new developments and would inspect plants brought in by developers. However, staffing was always the problem. Mr. Connelley said they attempted to make annual inspections of nurseries and wholesalers and issued certificates for all out-of-state shipments. During the inspections of nurseries, the AEOs would read labels on pesticides, looking for illegal contents, and spot-checked them to make sure the labels accurately reflected the contents.
Since September 11the importation of devastating foreign animal diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease, tuberculosis in dairy cattle, and anthrax had become a big concern. All animals moving into Nevada were required to have a health certificate from an accredited veterinarian, as well as proof of ownership in the form of a brand inspection, should they be from one of the brand inspection states. Brand inspection of livestock had achieved a much more important role with regard to homeland security and agricultural security. If a foreign animal disease outbreak should occur, the only viable way to track the recent locations and contacts of the animals in question was through the brand inspection program. Brand inspections, certificates, documents, changes of ownership, and out-of-state episodes were recorded.
Mr. Connelley said that the NDOA (Nevada Department of Agriculture) part-time brand inspectors, who were Peace Officers’ Standards and Training (POST)‑certified, were charged with keeping invasive species, diseased or infested plants, agriculture products, commodities, or livestock outside of 109,788 square miles of the state of Nevada. AEOs (Agriculture Enforcement officer) were POST-certified law enforcement officers, able to perform vehicle stops and investigations, serve warrants, search and seize property and, if necessary, make arrests. They used army surplus weapons and highway patrol vehicles. A good vehicle was anything running with less than 100,000 miles.
Since becoming operational in January 2002, the Agriculture Enforcement Unit (AEU) had stopped and inspected independently close to 5,000 vehicles, written over 500 citations, given numerous warnings, both verbal and written, inspected nurseries, and landscapers’ wholesale and retail outlets. A recent compilation of the violations both written and verbal showed a 21 percent violation rate.
Chairman Collins asked what were the chances of catching dairy farmers from California, if they tried to dispose of their sick dairy cattle in Nevada.
Mr. Connelley said that, with their small staff, the chances were not good unless they happened to be stopped at a check site, or an AEO spotted them on the road as they came into Nevada. He explained that they only had 4 full-time AEOs plus 2 full-time AEOs in Las Vegas, who had other duties besides agricultural enforcement. The rest of the AEOs were part-time. He added that two brand inspectors checked paperwork at the commercial sale yard in Fallon. If the hypothetical dairy farmers had indicated they were from out-of-state, the brand inspectors would have asked for health certificates.
Chairman Collins said if you transported cattle from Nevada into Utah, on the way to slaughter in Cedar City, no health certificate was required. He asked if Nevada required a health certificate to bring cattle into the state for slaughter.
Mr. Connelley said if they were going to sell at the sale yard, AEOs (Agriculture Enforcement officer) would not know if the cattle were going for slaughter, but there were no commercial slaughter plants in Nevada. If California cattle were going to be slaughtered, they would most likely go to Los Angeles.
Chairman Collins asked if animals tested positive for tuberculosis, if they would be destroyed – not butchered, but destroyed and buried, or burned.
Mr. Connelley answered that they would be in Nevada, but he did not know about California.
Assemblyman Marvel asked what kind of training was provided to employees to help them recognize all the various kinds of pests.
Mr. Connelley replied that the program was authorized by the Legislature two years ago, and operations began about a year ago. Most of the first year of the program was spent being outfitted and trained. It was very difficult to train brand inspectors to recognize potato late blight, bugs, and diseases. Most of the training provided was in-house and they sometimes brought in experts from outside to teach their employees.
Mr. Connelley said they realized that not all their staff would become plant biologists, but they taught them what to look for that might indicate a problem, how to bait for certain pests, such as fire ants, and whom to contact. AEOs were authorized to stop shipments, and to seal, hold, quarantine, destroy, fumigate, and to have the subject plant or animal evaluated by an expert. They did not expect the AEOs to be plant biologists in the field or to recognize every disease or every pest.
Assemblyman Mortenson said that Mr. Connelley had mentioned that if fire ants infested a soccer field, kids would not play there anymore. He asked what specifically could be done to try to eradicate the fire ants, in that situation.
Mr. Connelley said that fire ants were becoming a problem in southern Nevada, and they were being watched very carefully. With the warmer weather, they would be inspecting known areas of infestation, and then trapping and/or treating the area to reduce the population. He said they had a very intense eradication and control program in southern Nevada. He did not know how fast they were spreading, but they would be treating the nests as they were discovered.
Assemblyman Mortenson asked about the treatment.
Mr. Connelley said they poured a chemical into the nests.
Mr. Henderson added that Mr. Marvel’s earlier question was an excellent one. He said that they had tried to meld the Plant Industry Division with the Livestock Inspection program. For the two divisions to work together required a dual-function approach to cross training. He said integrating the two separate programs had been quite successful to date. One key to that success was that they realized from the beginning that it was not possible to hire POST-certified personnel and expect them to know these things. Training someone to perform adequately was quite an investment for the NDOA. They tried very hard to keep their employees after such an investment.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if nurseries had personnel who were trained to recognize pests.
Mr. Connelley said that they did. He said they tried to inspect every nursery in the state annually, and that the larger nurseries had trained personnel. Nurseries did not want to purchase infected or diseased plants, so they were usually vigilant.
Mr. Connelley said that the nurseries that did not have trained staff were the retail and wholesale outlets, such as home improvement stores and garden centers. They had employees who sold nursery stock, but not experts who were trained to identify diseases and pests. When the officer found a diseased tomato plant in that kind of facility, the business owners were very cooperative. They offered their own truck and a driver for two days to haul away the plants. They were very helpful and appreciative.
Chairman Collins said that Mr. Connelley had reported 21 percent noncompliance or in violation. He asked what that generated in fines, and if the fines help the program budget.
Mr. Connelley said the fines did not go to supporting the budget, unless there was some kind of restitution. The proceeds from fines went to support other programs.
Chairman Collins asked if the new legislation might better direct where those funds were deposited.
Mr. Henderson offered that it was S.B. 172, which would be heard in this Committee soon.
Mr. Connelley said some of the fines were substantial, and they varied from $600 to $6,000.
Chairman Collins asked what they spent on fire ants in southern Nevada.
Mr. Connelley said they were relying on the landowners to take care of the problem. The NDOA (Nevada Department of Agriculture) would consult and work with them, but they were in charge of the treatment once an infestation was discovered. For the last 2 years, they had conducted an intensive sampling program in southern Nevada. Last year they set 750 traps throughout the greater Las Vegas area, and from those samples, determined there were three infected sites. They worked with landowners to eradicate the fire ants on those sites. So far, that had been a successful approach. He said that treatment for fire ants was not easy, and perseverance made the difference between success and failure. He said they did not clear a site until it had been clean for 2 years.
Dawn Rafferty, Weed Specialist, Noxious Weeds Program Coordinator, Division of Plant Industry, NDOA, provided a PowerPoint presentation handout (Exhibit E), an Invasive Weeds flyer (Exhibit F), and a Noxious Weeds Brochure (Exhibit G). Ms. Rafferty stated that she wanted to clear up the misconception that weeds were just dandelions or other weeds that grew in the yard. She said that weeds were not just an agricultural issue anymore. Noxious weeds were essentially weeds that had arrived in the United States from other continents. Although there were conditions, pathogens, herbivores, and other species that had kept the populations in check in their native locations, these plants were now growing and propagating uncontrollably in the United States, in the absence of those restrictions.
Ms. Rafferty said that noxious weeds were now affecting more than just agriculture, and were having a negative economic impact in Nevada in many ways. For instance, recreation areas were affected. She showed a sample of the yellow star thistle that had taken over 22 million acres in California, and lands infested with it had been abandoned and taken off the tax rolls. The thistle had 1 to 2 inch spines that precluded hiking in what were once recreational areas. She said that it was currently coming over the borders into Nevada.
Another impact was in the reduction of available water. For example, the tamarisk, or “salt cedar” plant, was getting a great deal of attention in the southwestern states because of its impact on water availability. One tamarisk plant might have a tap root that reached 50 feet down into the water table, and it could use up to 300 gallons of water per day. New Mexico recently received $5 million to control the tamarisk plants because of that same problem.
Assemblyman Marvel asked how she would eradicate the tamarisk plant.
Ms. Rafferty replied that it depended on the size of the infestation. She said there were several approaches. If the tamarisk were the size of a tree, the best way would be to “cut and stump,” which meant they would cut the tree down and apply an herbicide, which could keep the sprouts from being a problem. If the infestation was large, they would spray with herbicides. In some areas, the infestation was so great that the best approach would be a biological agent. In this case, that would be a beetle imported from Asia. Four sites in Nevada were currently testing the beetle to verify its effectiveness. The negative news was that biological controls took many years to achieve control.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if greasewood was a water-user, too. Ms. Rafferty replied that greasewood was native.
Mr. Henderson answered that it was a water-loving plant, and could be found in flood plains with a high water table, but was not considered an invasive plant.
Ms. Rafferty said that another impact was on the native habitat, meaning that Nevada was facing the potential loss of native plants and insects, and of creatures that lived on them or within a certain habitat. She showed a photo of knapweed infesting into a burned area of sagebrush. She said that tall whitetop had been a considerable problem in northern Nevada, and was now in the southern Nevada. They recently found 500 acres of tall whitetop in the Las Vegas Wash. They were trying hard to eradicate the weed because they did not want their wash to look like the Truckee River. Tall whitetop did not hold soil well, so a flood would cause much erosion and loss of soil.
Other impacts of noxious weeds, such as dalmatian toadflax, were loss of livestock and of wildlife forage. Hunting and fishing were seriously affected by the dalmatian toadflax. UNR economists estimated a loss of $25 million to $35 million over the next 5 years from the loss of wildlife-related recreation.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked what could be done to eradicate tall whitetop.
Ms. Rafferty said when a person had a large infestation; the best thing to do was to remove one section at a time. They did not have a biological control agent for that particular weed, because it was too closely related to plants like broccoli and other crops. She said most people just did whatever they could to control it. She said people were getting together and starting “weed management areas” that would target specific noxious weeds in a neighborhood, such as the group forming in the lower Truckee River. Part of the strategy was to replace noxious weeds with other plants that would eventually out-compete the noxious plants.
Assemblyman Christensen asked how the NDOA planned to keep the yellow star thistle from coming into Nevada.
Ms. Rafferty responded that it was a huge problem, and education was a large part of effective control. People would go through infestations in different states and counties, and not realize that they are taking seeds into other areas on their shoes and coats, or on their dogs or horses. The United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) usually posted signs in infested areas. Prevention was the best strategy, so recognition was equally important.
Assemblyman Christensen asked what California was doing about the yellow star thistle problem.
Ms. Rafferty said that the herbicide that was most effective on the yellow star thistle was banned in California because of the grape crops. They had tried other methods, but the problem was spreading at a rapid pace.
Ms. Rafferty said that there were studies in North Dakota where properties were infested with leafy spurge and some of those properties’ values decreased up to 80 percent. In the situation where someone bought property not knowing it was infested with noxious weeds, they inherited a problem that they were legally bound to eradicate.
Assemblyman Claborn asked if wildlife fed on any of those weeds.
Ms. Rafferty said that doves ate leafy spurge.
Ms. Rafferty stated that there was an ongoing statewide mapping effort, and the biggest contributors to those maps were the BLM and the USFS. The map shown (Exhibit E) was not representative of all the noxious weeds in Nevada. Counties that looked clear were usually that way because no one was mapping the data. Nevertheless, Ms. Rafferty said that between 1998 and 2002 there were a tremendous number of plants identified and mapped.
Ms. Rafferty said that many of the noxious weeds were very pretty and were sold ornamentally at one time. Some were imported for ornamental reasons, only to find that when they escaped cultivation, they spread uncontrollably and ruined the native environment. In Nevada there were weed laws, NRS 555.031-555.220, although no one had yet gone to jail for weed violations. Currently, Nevada had 47 plants on the noxious weed list, California had 130, and Washington had 122.
In December 2000, many agencies and groups came together to create the Nevada Weed Strategy. Ms. Rafferty showed a list of groups that participated (Exhibit E), which was extensive. The Nevada Weed Strategy set priorities that all groups agreed on, and included control, prevention, eradication, education, and other actions groups could take to try to make progress on the noxious weed problem. Ms. Rafferty added that they were also setting up Cooperative Weed Management Areas, with the help of a grant from the U.S. Forest Service, through State Forestry. With that money, the NDOA had hired a coordinator to solicit grant applications from groups that desire to form Cooperative Weed Management Areas throughout the state. Private people and groups get together and agree to control the same type of weeds in the same ways. She said many people had shown interest in this approach. The coordinator had already formed over 20 different groups throughout the state.
Assemblyman Claborn asked if “DOD” on the list of participating groups that drafted the Nevada Weed Strategy referred to the Department of Defense, and if so, how were they involved with weeds.
Ms. Rafferty replied that was correct. Officials from the Fallon Air Force Base came to the strategy meetings because they held land in Nevada and they would be legally obligated to control noxious weeds on that land.
Mr. Henderson explained that Nevada law required landowners to eliminate noxious weeds on private lands. If they did not, then the NDOA would initiate abatement, in conjunction with the corresponding county. The county would treat the weeds, and if payment were not forthcoming from the landowner for those costs, NDOA would place a lien against the property. That was the ultimate hammer for enforcing weed statutes.
Mr. Henderson said the NDOA had spent the last 5-10 years working with the Cooperative Extension Service to educate the public about noxious weeds. Currently, there was great interest in moving toward abatement for irresponsible landowners. Although the authority was clear, and they would use it if necessary, NDOA preferred to work cooperatively with individual property owners.
Chairman Collins asked if money was available from the Farm Bill.
Mr. Henderson was not aware of any money for noxious weeds in the Farm Bill. Several congressional bills would establish block grant funding help with state weed control programs, but they had not been approved by the U.S. Congress.
Ms. Rafferty said that funding attached to the Farm Bill was earmarked for natural resources, which could be used for noxious weed abatement. However, she did not have any detailed information with her.
Chairman Collins asked if funds were available for noxious weed abatement over the next 10 years. Ms. Rafferty said she thought there would be.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if Mormon crickets might eat whitetop. Ms. Rafferty said they did not eat whitetop, which was not very palatable.
Assemblyman Geddes said that his understanding of the $100 million appropriation for the Walker River System was that a portion of that money was to go to tamarisk control on the river. He asked Ms. Rafferty if she was involved in that process.
Ms. Rafferty said she was not involved at this point, but that Jeff might know something about that. She said that they needed to make sure that whatever would be done with the tamarisk would not affect the beetle trials that he was conducting. She did not think they had decided on how or where they would try to control the tamarisk. It was still being worked out.
Mr. Henderson replied that the money was going through federal agencies, and not through state agencies.
Mr. Rafferty concluded that the key priority for noxious weed control in Nevada was to teach the public to recognize noxious plants. The strategy was that early recognition would lead to early detection, which would be followed by a rapid response. That would prevent anything new from coming into the state and gaining a foothold, like tall whitetop already had.
Fountain grass, an ornamental grass sold widely in the Las Vegas area, was just listed in the last few weeks as a noxious plant. Hawaii and California currently had encountered huge problems trying to eliminate fountain grass. After fountain grass had already been imported and sold in Nevada, officials realized that it would become a real problem if left to spread unchecked. By then, fountain grass had already started to ring Lake Mead. The National Park Service had informed the NDOA that, once it reached that state, fountain grass was exceedingly difficult to eradicate.
Another plant, giant salvinia, had not yet reached Nevada, but it was on the list because of water. Giant salvinia had the ability to solidly cover a 1-acre pond in about 3 weeks.
African rue had been identified in Churchill and Mineral Counties, near Rawhide. Managers in those counties were working on eradicating it as quickly as possible.
Assemblyman Claborn said he used to fish in the San Joaquin Delta, and one of the weeds pictured had almost taken over the delta. He asked what if Ms. Rafferty could identify the plant.
Ms. Rafferty said that the weed pictured was probably not the one he had seen, because it only grew in the very southern part of California. She said what he saw was probably water hyacinth, which was a rampant problem in that area. She said that California had programs to deal with the water hyacinth infestation.
Mr. Henderson said that the next presentation was a cooperative program between the NDOA and the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), which was called the Agricultural Promotion and Marketing Program. He introduced Karen Grillo, the NACO Director for that program.
Karen R. Grillo, Director, Agriculture Promotion and Marketing, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), stated that her presentation would outline some of the projects they conducted with grant monies received from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and other continuing activities. She provided Exhibit H, Exhibit I, Exhibit J, Exhibit K, and Exhibit L.
Ms. Grillo said that on August 13, 2001, President Bush signed into law H.R. 2213, which provided a block grant of $500,000 to every state for the promotion of agriculture. The funds went to the various state departments of agriculture, and they decided how to spend those funds. In addition, Nevada was allocated $120,000 for Specialty Crop Promotion. Those combined funds were spent in 15 different categories, including providing grants to producers and groups for projects within Nevada. A portion of the money was spent to create Ms. Grillo’s position, and this was the first initiative of its kind in Nevada.
NDOA received 70 applications totaling over $2 million worth of proposed projects. Of those, 27 projects were actually funded.
Ms. Grillo mentioned examples of projects funded in the Specialty Crop category (Exhibit H):
· American Pet Diner, Eureka County, was granted funds to retrofit their micro bailer for timothy hay products, which enabled them to pursue larger contracts and find new customers.
· Churchill Butte Horticulture, Dayton, Lyon County, expanded their solar water capability. Their production increased 650 percent in one month, and 750 percent in the second month.
· Churchill Grape Growers planted a second vineyard of premium wine grape stock in Fallon and purchased a filtration system and netting.
· E.M. Farm and Ranch diversified from alfalfa to Indian rice grass as an agricultural crop.
· A 16-year-old girl in Douglas County started a business called Flowers from the Heart. She received a grant to improve her soil and water systems for growing vegetables and novelty flowers, which she sold at the Farmers’ Market and to florists in the area.
· Fallon Farmers’ Market received a grant to build a chef’s wagon, featuring a chef who prepared recipes with locally grown products at the Farmers’ Market.
· Hetrick Brothers, Inc. diversified from alfalfa to Indian rice grass.
· Lattin Farms prepared a regional marketing plan.
· McClintick Farms, Inc. diversified into native seed production, retrofitted their equipment, and developed a hand-held blower.
· Nevada Bio-Serv evaluated and demonstrated production of oregano as an aromatic essential oil.
· Simply Hawaii was the first USDA cooperative in Nevada, with a distribution center in Las Vegas. They received a grant to identify some growers in Nevada that could finish their product and to grow products to be sold in Hawaii.
· Smith and Smith Farms purchased and planted different flower stock, and put in a drip irrigation system.
· Soares Ranch converted from alfalfa hay to three different varieties of native seed.
· Tonopah Conservation District experimented with Sea Berry nursery stock, and paid for a business consultant.
Ms. Grillo mentioned examples of projects funded in the Conservation Districts and Grazing Board category (Exhibit H):
· Northeast Elko County received money for a fence project at the Boies Ranch.
· Carson Valley put in fencing on three different properties.
· Lander County joined with BLM to purchase chemicals to eradicate tamarisk (salt cedar) in the Big Smokey Valley.
· N-3 Grazing Board used their grant for a study related to the Sage Grouse Conservation Plan.
· Stillwater received two grants for solar pumping systems on their BLM allotments: one in Diamond Canyon and the other in Desert Wells.
Ms. Grillo mentioned examples of projects funded in the Weed Eradication Projects category (Exhibit H):
· Dayton Valley purchased herbicide safety equipment sprayers for their noxious weed control project, which was associated with irrigation delivery systems to 9 ranches and 3 drainage areas into agricultural land.
· Washoe County Parks and Recreation worked to eradicate noxious weeds at Bartley Ranch Regional Park and Rancho San Rafael Park.
· Smith Valley used the funds to eradicate tall whitetop in the West Walker River.
· Jiggs purchased chemicals for various areas of noxious seed infestations.
· Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California purchased chemicals to improve the tribal range and dry pasture.
Ms. Grillo listed a few additional projects that were funded from the same sources (Exhibit H):
· Native Seed Program and Assistance. The funding financed 11 meetings resulted in establishment of a new commodity group called the Nevada Wildland Seed Producers Association. Some funds were used to train and certify one person as a Seed Specialist.
· Nevada Organic Council printed some brochures.
· Nevada Agriculture Council and Ag in the Classroom received money for promotional activities.
· Public Education Funds provided for invasive species education.
· Timothy Hay Integrated Pest Management was an ongoing program being conducted in Eureka County. Funds were spent to put together an NDOA exhibit that was displayed at farm festivals and fairs, and for electronic communication to allow videoconferencing between offices within Nevada.
· Under the “livestock marketing” category, funds were provided for a study to test the market for aged-on-the-hoof meat products in Nevada.
· Farmers’ Market Association received some funding for conferences, one in northern and one in southern Nevada. They also printed the “Farm Trails” brochure.
· Completed a Watershed Management Demonstration Project in Elko County.
· Established a “Nevada Grown” Web site.
· Bought twine for the Weed Free Hay Program.
· Put up signs promoting Nevada Agriculture at the Reno/Tahoe International Airport.
· Nevada Landscape Association received funding for a statewide Green Industry Study.
· Printed NDOA brochures.
· Sponsored Farm Bureau Convention, Nevada Land Use summit, and the Nevada State Fair.
· Sponsored a conference in December 2002, entitled “Advancing Nevada’s Agriculture Future.”
Although most of her funding had been spent, Ms. Grillo listed some of her current projects, which included (Exhibit H):
· Organic Growers Conference.
· Rural Alternative Outreach Group sponsored an Ethanol Conference.
· International trade opportunities for organic growers.
· UNLV and UNR culinary schools featured dinners using Nevada products.
· Marketing Hearts Of Gold Melons received funding assistance via a grant to the Churchill County Growers.
· Began work on a proposed Nevada Plant Materials Center.
· Crop Insurance Education Program was funded through a cooperative agreement with USDA’s risk management agency.
· Working on additional USDA Block Grant funding projects.
Assemblyman Marvel asked what yield per acre was produced by rice grass plantings.
Ms. Grillo replied that one grower did not have good luck growing plants last summer, and Mr. Hetrick’s were planted in November, so they were just sprouts at this point. She did not know the yield figures, but would contact a cooperative in Montana that should have the information.
Assemblyman Marvel asked what the marked price was per pound for rice grass.
Mr. Henderson answered that the price could vary significantly, based on demand, which was a problem with the native seed industry.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if it would work well to restore burned areas.
Mr. Henderson said that the seed was engineered for that purpose. The reason the Wildland Seed Producers Association was organized was so they could work with involved federal agencies and lock into direct contracts. There was a problem with the federal procurement process, due to low bid preference, and problems with prices skyrocketing one year and rock bottom the next. The Wildland Seed Producers Association was trying to address some of these problems, and in addition, the educational aspects. Mr. Henderson said the yield figure he remembered for rice grass was around 600 pounds per acre.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if it had to be drilled or would aerial broadcast work. Mr. Henderson said, in a production setting, drilling worked much better.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked if timely funding for cricket and grasshopper programs was a certainty this year.
Mr. Henderson said they were further ahead this year because $300,000 from the BLM was due to arrive soon. Those funds were for treatment of cricket and grasshopper infestations on federal lands that were threatening to spread to private lands. Using the funds was somewhat restricted. They had passed all the approvals and were currently out baiting and would be treating Elko and Eureka Counties soon. They also had some sprays, for the first year. They expected about three times the cricket issues as last year.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked him to confirm if the funds would be available in time.
Mr. Henderson said they had $70,000 in hand, leftover from last year. The balance of $230,000 was on its way. Money was not the problem. The problem for the last month was to make sure all the permits were in place with federal agencies. During the environmental permit process, he said concerns were expressed over spraying insecticide near sage grouse nesting sites. The compromise that was negotiated was that when they identify a spray-block, they sit down with Nevada Division of Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and discuss the situation, including the nesting habitat, to see if spray patterns might be altered to accommodate them, or perhaps use bait in those areas as opposed to spraying.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked if the reason for spraying was that it would kill all the bugs. He did not see how spraying could impact the sage grouse.
Mr. Henderson said that there were questions there. Research showed that it was very specific to insects that molt, that shed their outer shell. The spray was a hormone that prevented cricket and grasshopper shells from hardening. However there were concerned about secondary effects on sage grouse. He hoped to reserves some money to try to educate agency folks out in the field on spraying days, so they could witness the effects with their own eyes. He thought there was some distrust of the research and how it might translate to other areas.
Mr. Henderson said it should be obvious that they had a tremendous staff at the NDOA. He said they were very fortunate to have dedicated people to lead the three programs just presented. He stressed that NDOA’s job was to coordinate all the parties involved with natural resource and agricultural issues (Exhibit I, Exhibit J, Exhibit K), to enable them to work together in a direction that was good for Nevada. “People Grow Things Here!” bumper stickers were available (Exhibit L).
Assemblyman Marvel said that the great job they did in the Measurement Standards Division affected everyone in Nevada.
Mr. Henderson agreed that it was an important program. He said they would be in front of the Committee again in a couple of weeks, presenting a bill dealing with weights and measures.
Senate Joint Resolution 2: Urges Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Agriculture and Congress to take certain actions concerning expenditures of money for restoration of and water developments on public lands in Nevada. (BDR R-675)
Linda Eissmann, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, and Committee Policy Analyst for the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining and for the Interim Legislative Committee on Public Lands, was introduced by Chairman Collins. Ms. Eissmann said that the Legislative Committee on Public Lands held eight meetings and two instate tours during the last interim. They also traveled twice to Washington, D.C., and produced six bill draft requests (BDRs) that were being considered this legislative session. S.J.R. 2 was one of six measures that were submitted by the Legislative Committee on Public Lands at Assemblyman Carpenter’s request.
The Legislative Committee on Public Lands, of which Senator Dean A. Rhoads was Chairman, met at the same time as this Committee. Senator Rhoads had asked Ms. Eissmann to present the bill on his behalf. She said she would first describe the subject and background of S.J.R. 2 (Exhibit O).
Ms. Eissmann stated that approximately 61 million acres in Nevada or 87 percent of the land was federally controlled. Although Nevada had more federal land than any other state, excluding Alaska, federal land managers, such as the BLM, received less funding for operations in Nevada than did many other states. Important projects often went unfunded. S.J.R. 2 urged the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to expand revenue generated from two federal land disposal programs on various land and water projects throughout Nevada.
Ms. Eissmann stated that the two land disposal programs addressed in S.J.R. 2 were the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act and the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act. Each of those acts allowed for the disposal of certain federal lands in Nevada. While the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act provided for disposal of federal land in Clark County, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act provided for disposal of land throughout Nevada. Revenue from land sales was used for specific purposes, such as the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and for capital improvements to federal recreation areas. In addition, a percentage of the revenue generated from the sales was dedicated to education in Nevada.
She added, however, that the proceeds were not specifically earmarked for land and water improvements on existing public lands, which were greatly needed in many areas. Responsible management of the federal land in Nevada was critical, and should include various range restoration initiatives, noxious weed abatement, and reestablishment of native ecosystems. Those activities helped to encourage range health, reduced the risk of wildland fires, and approved wildlife habitats. As a result, such improvements supported agriculture, mining, and recreation industries on which many rural communities relied for economic prosperity.
Adequate water developments on federal land were also essential. Without appropriate water systems, livestock and wildlife concentrated near streams and springs, and jeopardized the ecological health and water quality of sensitive resources. Water developments were needed to better disperse the animals and to better manage the land. Ms. Eissmann said that recently the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act was amended to allow a portion of the proceeds from land sales to be used for conservation initiatives on federal land in Clark County. S.J.R. 2 urged the Secretary of the Interior to consider land and water restoration and development projects on existing public lands, among the conservation initiatives to be funded. However, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act did not include funding for conservation initiatives or improvements to existing federal land. Therefore, S.J.R. 2 urged Congress to amend the act so that the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior could utilize some of the proceeds from land sales throughout Nevada for land and water restoration and development projects.
Chairman Collins said he would not take a motion on the resolution because there were a couple of Committee members absent.
Ms. Eissmann simplified S.J.R. 2 by describing how it addressed two federal acts:
The Clark County Wilderness Act, which passed in 2002, mandated that 10 percent of the revenue from the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act could be used for conservation initiatives in Clark County. S.J.R. 2 encouraged the Secretary of the Interior to consider land and water improvements on existing public lands as conservation initiatives, so that they would be eligible to be funded by that 10 percent. S.J.R. 2 did not suggest they should amend the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, but it urged them to allow the land and water improvements to be categorized as conservation initiatives.
The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act had not set aside 10 percent for conservation initiatives, and the Legislative Committee on Public Lands could find no mechanism for spending a percentage of money generated by disposal of those lands on land and water improvements on existing public lands. S.J.R. 2 encouraged the U.S. Congress to amend the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act to dedicate a percentage of that revenue for conservation initiatives, including land and water improvement projects on public lands.
Assemblyman Claborn said that those percentages would be revenue from selling public land properties. Ms. Eissmann said that was correct. Land disposal programs handled selling some of the public land in Nevada.
Mr. Claborn asked if S.J.R. 2 passed, if that would mean 20 percent of the revenue from both acts would go to those land and water improvements. Ms. Eissmann clarified that S.J.R. 2 did not specify a percentage, it encouraged them to facilitate the process, including amending the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, so that monies from the dedicated percentages could be used for those land and water improvement projects on public lands.
Chairman Collins said that the Bureau of Land Management was holding hearings all over the state to address how they should use the revenue they receive from land sales.
Assemblyman Goicoechea wondered if revenue from the two land disposal programs went into the General Fund.
Ms. Eissmann said she did not know, but that money was earmarked for specific projects. She would need to research the answer to that question.
Pam Robinson, Legislative Liaison, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of the Interior, replied that she did not know the specifics, but there was a Web site where one could obtain a list of disbursements from Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act revenues.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said he was interested in the allocation of revenue from the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, which was allocated differently. Ms. Robinson said she would provide him that information.
Chairman Collins said that the Clark County School District received 5 percent, and the Las Vegas Valley Water District received 10 percent of Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act revenue. He was not sure where the other 85 percent went.
Ms. Eissmann said that from everything she had seen, she was certain that all the money was expended on a variety of projects in Nevada, and did not go to other states.
Chairman Collins asked about spending associated with the Clark County Wilderness Act. He requested more information on all three acts.
Ms. Eissmann replied that the Clark County Wilderness Act designated specific wilderness areas but did not discuss land disposal or revenue generation. The Clark County Wilderness Act designated wilderness areas, released certain wilderness study areas, and a portion of that act changed the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act so that 10 percent of the revenue could be used for conservation initiatives. S.J.R. 2 would encourage officials to be flexible in judging what qualified as a “conservation initiative,” so that land and water improvement projects on public lands could be considered as conservation initiatives, which would make them eligible to be funded from the 10 percent.
Chairman Collins clarified that S.J.R. 2 would target Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act revenue.
Assemblyman Claborn asked for updates on the wilderness area suitables and unsuitables.
Ms. Eissmann replied that she had not been tracking the Clark County Wilderness Act, but she would track down the information. She thought there was a resolution on the Senate side that would evaluate wilderness designations in White Pine, Lincoln, and Nye Counties.
She added that one of the concerns in designating wilderness had been if a wilderness study area was designated as such for so many years, it was treated as wilderness. Even if subsequent studies were conducted that showed it was not suitable for wilderness designation, it would take an act of the U.S. Congress to release that wilderness study area back to general use. The main point of these wilderness bills was to decide which areas deserved to have wilderness designations, and which did not and should be released. The first effort was done in Clark County, and now there was talk of doing the next portion in White Pine, Lincoln, and Nye Counties.
Chairman Collins asked if the Utah lawsuit had affected any of those efforts.
Ms. Robinson said that her understanding was that the lawsuit was based on lands that were re-inventoried outside of the original Clark County Wilderness Act. When the Clark County Wilderness Act passed in each state, states were directed to inventory their entire wilderness, and all of the lands were added to the inventory and were managed to preserve and protect their wilderness qualities until they were either designated or released. In the last administration, the Secretary of the Interior had a new inventory done from a pamphlet that had not been passed by the U.S. Congress, and he added lands to the inventory, which precipitated the lawsuit. That lawsuit should not affect Nevada’s public land process.
Janine Hansen, representing the Nevada Livestock Association and the Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, said that she was interested in Ms. Eissmann’s presentation, and could not help but notice that Ms. Eissmann referred to “federal lands” much more often that she referred to “public lands.” Ms. Hansen said that as the Committee looked at S.J.R. 2, they would see that it never used the phrase “federal lands.” It always referred to federal lands as “public lands.” She called the Committee’s attention to the map of grazing allotments (Exhibit M), which were adjudicated. She said there were certain rights that went with the adjudicated grazing allotments. Those lands that were covered by adjudicated grazing allotments did not fall under the definition of public lands.
Page 2 of Exhibit M listed quotations from U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to public lands, for example:
It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land.
- Bardon v. Northern Pacific Railway Company
“Public lands” are lands open to sale or other disposition under general laws, lands to which no claims or right of others have attached.
- Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wismer
Ms. Hansen said that these definitions had caused her to rethink her original understanding of public lands. What the rulings indicated was that if there were mineral rights, water rights, access rights, grazing rights, grazing allotments, or other claims to the land, those lands were no longer public lands. Grazing allotments blanketed Nevada, and individual water rights were common.
Ms. Hansen said, since the S.J.R. 2 addressed “public lands,” it might not apply to Nevada, which contained mostly “federal lands,” according to the legal definitions. Ms. Hansen said that if S.J.R. 2 replaced the words “public lands” with “federal lands,” it would offer a more accurate description because grazing allotments were granted on “federal lands,” and other rights were layered on top of the concept of federal land. That concept was highlighted by the Hage v U.S. 2002 decision that addressed private property rights.
Ms. Hansen wanted to present another perspective from the Nevada Committee for Full Statehood. She said that Nevadans often expressed the idea that more water would equal more development, but, in reality, even without more water, the number of cattle in Nevada had already dropped 50 percent, wildlife numbers had declined, and sheep were almost nonexistent. Perhaps it was not simply a matter of needing more water. Ms. Hansen said she did not mean to criticize attempts that were being made to solve Nevada’s problems. She was just trying to clarify those problems.
Ms. Hansen said she saw a photo that illustrated an interesting fact about wildfires, which were a huge problem in Nevada. The photo was of a fence line. On one side of the fence everything was burned. On the other side, it was all green. The green side of the fence was private land, where cattle had eaten the grass, so the wildfire did not spread into that area. On the burned side was federally controlled land, where cows were not allowed to graze, and everything burned there.
Since there had been such a tremendous reduction in cattle, wildlife, and sheep in Nevada, there was a corresponding burgeoning problem with wildfires. One of the fastest-growing occupations in Elko County was firefighting. Fires were a growing problem because of federal restrictions on grazing on federal lands.
Ms. Hansen said she had distributed proposed amendments to S.J.R. 2 by the Nevada Livestock Association (Exhibit N), which would re-endorse the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which stated:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively under the people.
S.J.R. 2, Ms. Hansen stated, implied that Nevada recognized that the federal government was an agency of the states, and that states were not agents of the federal government. In drafting the Constitution of the United States, the states initiated and put together the original compact. So, the “real sovereigns were the states,” although we continued to act as if the states were agents of the federal government. Because states took money from the federal government, federal courts had ruled that a state could only assert sovereignty as long as the state did not accept federal money, and when a state accepted federal funds, it lost the right of state sovereignty.
Ms. Hansen encouraged the Committee to precisely define the relation of federal lands to public lands, and to face the fact that when Nevada accepted federal money, they forfeited state rights and individual rights.
Chairman Collins asked if Ms. Hansen wanted to substitute the phrase “federal lands” for “public lands” in the proposed amendment to S.J.R. 2.
Ms. Hansen said that that was the suggestion, in general, but she would have to reread S.J.R. 2 and evaluate each instance. However, that was her understanding of what needed to be done in order to align the language with the most recent Supreme Court Decision.
Assemblyman Geddes asked about Section 2 of the proposed amendment. He said that if they amended the resolution to reject the receipt of federal monies, he was not sure the resolution accomplished anything.
Ms. Hansen said that she did not think S.J.R. 2 determined the amount of federal monies, but that it would redirect them. She said that the Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, in its basic philosophy, would be opposed to receiving federal monies, and would keep those monies in Nevada from the beginning because of their whole philosophy of jeopardizing sovereignty.
Ms. Hansen said that Mr. Geddes was probably right, and she did not anticipate the Committee being willing to reject federal monies, but if they did “we could get our state back.” Ms. Hansen said that she felt it was an important point to ponder, especially as Nevada looked forward into the future. She felt Nevada would be better off without federal control.
Assemblyman Carpenter pointed out that federal agencies were currently using money from land sales in Clark County to purchase private land outside Clark County. He said that the basis of S.J.R. 2 was that, rather than using that money to turn private land into more federal land in northern Nevada, federal agencies should use that money to improve what they already own. That was the basic tenant of the resolution. The money itself did not come from the federal government, but from private investors in Clark County. Because the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act specifically used the words “environmentally sensitive lands in the State of Nevada,” and because the managers claimed they had already purchased all the environmentally sensitive land available, they were moving out of Clark County and buying up land in northern Nevada.
He said he did not like that, because it reduced the tax base in rural counties and cities, and because the federal government already had enough land in Nevada. He thought the money should be used for other priorities. Rather than buying up private land, they should develop the land they already owned. He said it would be better to develop the land for recreation, develop the water resources, prevent forest fires, plant trees, or revegetate the land, than to turn more private land into government-owned land.
Ms. Hansen said she was not an expert on this issue, and she appreciated his reminding her of those issues. He said that it was very important to stop buying up land in northern Nevada. Her objection was that the federal government was selling their land in the first place. She agreed that saving private land in northern Nevada was a worthy goal.
Ms. Hansen said they had seen that in Douglas County where the issue of taking private land off the tax roles was of considerable concern, and she felt it was a continuing problem with this issue in rural counties. In addition, the entire educational system in Nevada was suffering because tax benefits were declining. She suggested that the Committee might want to pass Section 1, but not Section 2, of the proposed amendment because the definition issue could be very important.
Chairman Collins said that there was an advertisement for the BLM in a southern Nevada newspaper that said, “We are having public meetings to find out where you would like us to use some of this money.” Mr. Collins sent letters to all local governments in Clark County that said, “Go get the money. Don’t let it out of Clark County.” He said he received one response saying that Clark County was searching for ways to use the money to improve existing recreational areas.
Assemblyman Geddes submitted the minutes of February 19, 2003, with corrections noted.
Chairman Collins reminded the Committee that there would be a tour of Elko and Ely, Nevada, beginning on April 25, 2003, and ending on Saturday evening, April 26, 2003.
Chairman Collins adjourned the meeting at 3:14 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Erin K. Channell
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman
DATE: