MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Seventy-Second Session
May 26, 2003
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 2:20 p.m., on Monday, May 26, 2003. Chairman Tom Collins presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
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. 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:
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District
Ms. Peggy Pierce, Assemblywoman, District No. 3
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Erin Channell, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Steve Hartman, Vice President, Nevada Land and Resource Company
Dave Ayoob, Chairman, Pershing County Commission
Tim DeLong, Pershing County rancher
Alan List, Pershing County farmer and Planning Commission member
Hugh Montrose, Private Citizen, Pershing County
Joe Johnson, Legislative Advocate, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club
Kaitlin Backlund, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Conservation League
David Schumann, Vice Chairman, The Nevada Committee for Full Statehood
Janine Hansen, Independent American Party
Pam Robinson, Legislative Liaison, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
John Kobza, Sierra Environmental Monitoring, Inc.
Chairman Collins:
The Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining Committee is now called to order. [The secretary called roll.] We have six members at this time. We will start the hearing as a Subcommittee. We will open the hearing with S.J.R. 10.
Senate Joint Resolution 10: Expresses support for plan to consolidate certain public and private lands in Pershing County and urges Nevada Congressional Delegation to introduce and support legislation providing for such consolidation of lands in Pershing County. (BDR R-1323)
Steve Hartman, Vice President, Nevada Land and Resource Company:
[Introduced himself and those with him: Alan List, Chairman Dave Ayoob of the Pershing County Commission, Tim DeLong, Belinda Quilici, and Hugh Montrose.]
[The Chairman interrupted to announce the Committee had a quorum and would resume as a regular committee.]
S.J.R. 10 is a bill that conceptually is talking about consolidation of the checkerboard land pattern, which exists across the northern I-80 corridor. This is not a bill for exchanges. It is to consolidate the checkerboard pattern. We are requesting the Legislature’s endorsement of the concept of resolving the checkerboard land pattern that exists across the I-80 corridor. You’ve been provided with a packet with a map.
[Chairman Collins invited Senator Rhoads to join those at the table.]
Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District:
[Introduced himself.] These people came to me last summer indicating what they planned to do in the Lovelock area. It is something that people who use those lands would have liked done a long time ago to block it up. It is difficult to manage when it’s a checkerboard. I agreed to get the resolution drafted and, because the Legislative Committee on Public Lands would be meeting during the interim, I hoped to have some visibility, some hearings on it, and explore the positives and negatives. If it looked favorable, we could recommend to our congressional delegation that they draft the proper legislation to pursue this. I believe if this works, there could be other areas along the Humboldt River where the railroad runs from Utah to California that might apply.
Assemblyman Geddes:
Could you elaborate on that point? In proceeding to Congress with this and managing this checkerboard, why not urge Congress to look at the whole I-80 and railroad corridor versus just the land in Pershing County? I realize Pershing County is further along, but why not look at the whole thing?
[Senator Rhoads agreed that was a good suggestion.]
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I was going to follow the same lines. I think, Mr. Geddes, as you read the resolution, it says particularly Pershing County, but it doesn’t exclude any other county. I think it’s already there. It says “whereas” but the Interstate 80, particularly in Pershing County, would extend to any other county in the I-80 corridor.
Chairman Collins:
For the record, you two are reading lines 8 and 9 on the first page: “land ownership across northern Nevada in the vicinity of Interstate 80,” which goes from California to Utah, as the Senator said, and “particularly in Pershing County." We are already talking about the whole state?
Assemblyman Geddes:
Yes. The three resolutions, as far as “therefore, be it resolved,” all specifically state Pershing and don’t state beyond. We need to amend the resolutions to match the “whereases,” because all of the resolutions specifically state ”Pershing County” and they don’t say “all of northern Nevada.”
Chairman Collins:
So you would extend northern Nevada into all of them in some form?
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I don’t believe you could do that, especially on the “whereas” on page 2, lines 27 through 30, because I don’t think the other county commissioners have adopted the resolution that Pershing County is supporting. [Received confirmation of that.]
Senator Rhoads:
When we were working on the wilderness issues during the interim, there was not much appetite for a statewide wilderness bill. They want to do it in regions, like Clark County did. Now White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln Counties are working on a package. Perhaps Humboldt and Elko could get together. I think we are looking at the same situation with the railroad land. They don’t want to do the whole state. They’d rather just do portions of it here and portions of it there. That’s what Mr. Hartman, who has talked to our congressional delegation, advised me.
Chairman Collins:
That makes sense to follow that same regional plan.
Steve Hartman:
It is a very difficult issue. As recently as a month ago, it was a concern because of the breadth of issues, which stretch across the I-80 corridor. There’s a real desire to do it county by county. That was the preference, and I am not sure why, because we’re going to deal with a lot of the same issues. In Pershing County, we tried to do a land exchange because of the old pioneer trails that go from the area of the Rye Patch Reservoir out to the Black Rock NCA (National Conservation Areas). When that no longer could be accomplished, we tried to find a vehicle, because BLM (Bureau of Land Management) really wanted to acquire that.
We also have a lot of mountaintops in the Eugene and the Seven Troughs areas that we wanted to ensure would always stay public. That’s where Pershing County has been headed, and the working group that they’ve had has been going down that road. While nothing is set in stone, there’s been a lot of progress in trying to develop those different interests in agriculture and multiple use concepts staying in place.
[Steve Hartman continued.] One of the overriding issues has been ensuring that Pershing County, the local community, and its master plan, were included in this. That was the request from the congressional delegation and from the subcommittee.
Dave Ayoob, Chairman, Pershing County Commission:
[Introduced himself.] The county passed this resolution unanimously. A lot of their concerns dealt with the areas where there is multiple use access to the county. It seems like this will provide further access to the checkerboard lands. There are issues about some of this land being fenced off when it goes into private hands, limiting access for the outdoorsmen.
We also are concerned about economic development. We are a county with a declining ad valorem tax. We look at this as a possible economic boost for the county over the long term. This working group has selected areas along the I‑80 corridor that will probably help Pershing County in the future. There are big issues about access. Also Tim DeLong will discuss grazing rights and other issues. The Pershing County Commission is fully supportive of this concept. This is a broad general guideline right now. I’m sure it will be further fine-tuned if it goes to the congressional delegation.
Assemblyman Geddes:
There are a couple of “whereas” clauses that talk about the problems that the BLM faces in managing the checkerboard pattern. Could you elaborate on that during the other testimonies and presentations so I can get a sense of that?
Dave Ayoob:
The way I understand it with the checkerboard land issue, you have private land and public land. There are access issues. Those are big issues. Currently, if Nevada Land and Resource were to sell off a section next to BLM (Bureau of Land Management) land, there would be access issues. There are issues with fires. The management doesn’t work nearly as well if we block these out. That’s what we have considered doing. There are certain areas that Mr. Hartman referenced, like the Eugene Mountains, where they would be all capped for access areas. There are areas west of the Rye Patch area. Where we’re concerned, especially for getting this blocked out for use again, is along the I-80 corridor. There are areas there where, if it complied with our master plan for development purposes, these checkerboard lands are not as easy to manage for the BLM or to develop.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Tim DeLong can probably back me up on this, but I think BLM has always been a little reluctant to checkerboard areas for range improvements. I think, by blocking up this land, there’s going to be more appetite for them to make the range improvements. It’s difficult to manage this where we have this type of checkerboard situation.
Tim DeLong, Pershing County rancher:
[Introduced himself.] It’s not right for a rancher to want to give private ground to the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). Nobody thinks that, but I want to. I lease 152,000 acres from Nevada Land and Resource Company, and every acre is for sale. Some already have sold. Maybe someone would come in and buy a lot of it. What does that do to me? I would rather take my chances with the BLM than I would Nevada Land Company. The BLM controls this checkerboard land, private ground, or whatever it is, just as its own. They tell you how many cattle you can run, and when you can run them, so it might as well be BLM ground in my opinion. Either way it scares me, because it has the potential to put me out of business.
Chairman Collins:
I’m trying to figure this out. It’s kind of like going down to Las Vegas. You’ve been in the middle of Las Vegas. If you start at Fremont and Main Streets and say this is private land from Fremont to Charleston, then it’s BLM from Charleston to Sahara, then from Sahara to Desert Inn, it’s BLM, and then from Desert Inn to Flamingo, it’s private; it’s all blocked up. I have a cop driving a mile each time to work in two different jurisdictions, and all you are trying to do is pull those two apart so that from north of Fremont is public and south of Fremont is private. You’re just trying to make it simple. Wouldn’t that allow you to run your cows? We could go fishing and hiking, and we could all get there the same? Does that make sense? Do I need to do that for Reno? From Wells for six blocks belonged to Reno then Sparks would have the next eight blocks, and then the next eight blocks would be Reno again, and then the next eight blocks would be Sparks. Does that make sense that they’re trying to consolidate it into a city, county, or whatever?
Steve Hartman:
What has happened, as Assemblyman Marvel indicated, is a problem getting range improvements done. Another recent problem was a fellow who bought some ground in Humboldt County. He fenced off his ground. In fencing off his ground, he fenced off an area that was the access to the river by a neighbor to water his livestock. The neighbor had a stock water right in the Humboldt River. When he fenced that off, he kept that neighbor from being able to get to the river to water his livestock. There’s another man who fenced 23 miles out from north of I-80 in the middle of Sage Hen Flat. He fenced off his section of land with a five-strand barbed wire fence because it was his. Those kinds of situations and when they go over the top of roads, as we’ve had in the northeastern portion of Pershing County, create a lot of problems. Folks who aren’t used to this area who come in from somewhere else and buy this ground are not very neighborly. There’s always been an issue of access. There are a lot of roads that go out across the country, and there are always access issues between BLM (Bureau of Land Management) and Pershing County.
[Steve Hartman continued.] There is also the wild horse issue. We are supposed to be horse-free and they’re not supposed to be running on the private ground; they are only supposed to run on the public ground. The horses don’t know what’s private and what’s public, so they run wherever they want. Those are some of the practical issues that have caused everyone to try to figure out a solution. What are important are the economic matters.
Alan List, Pershing County farmer and Planning Commission member:
[Introduced himself.] We set up a fairly diverse committee. We had a representative from the State Fish and Game Commission. We had people who were farmers and ranchers and people from the city looking at all the different aspects to try to put this plan together. I think it’s a very good plan.
We’re working with our county master plan so that the kinds of lands that would come back into private hands would dovetail with the zoning so everything fits. It’s hard to zone and manage something where every other section belongs to the federal government. Even though we have zoning, we don’t tell them what to do with that land. So, we will consolidate these. We see it as a very good plan to protect some of the critical lands that are next to the BLM such as the steep sloped lands and the lands that have particular value to the BLM. If you look at a BLM map, it will identify what the BLM sees as critical areas. They have an endangered species; they have certain value for recreation or some other use. It will allow the BLM to consolidate their lands, too, so that they can manage those together.
Again, the BLM can’t tell Nevada Lands and Resource Company what to do with its property. The company is free to sell it or do anything they want to with it. They have a lot of land along the Applegate Trail. It goes from the north end of Rye Patch over into the Black Rock area. There are some very critical lands that the BLM wants very badly to combine with what they already have to protect that view shed. This will allow them to do it. Those lands would be very saleable today and I think, because we are working on this issue, some of those lands haven’t gone up for sale. Those are the kinds of desirable lands that are quite saleable. They have offered to pay 25 years of ad valorem tax to the county so that, in the interim, during this exchange, we’re not down on an ad valorem tax. By the time 25 years has elapsed, a lot of this land should be back into private hands, and it should be a lot better land for tax purposes. It should really help our tax base there in the county.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
It looks to me like Nevada Land and Resources is going to sell this land to the BLM, and I guess the money is probably coming from the Southern Nevada Lands Act.
Alan List:
No.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
So where is the money coming from?
Alan List:
The way it’s set up now is that they would get credits to buy federal lands at auction. Money does not necessarily have to change hands. They would get credit that they could use in BLM auctions across the state.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Could you explain that to me again?
Alan List:
All of the lands will be appraised and valued. When they are turned over to the BLM, Nevada Land and Resources will get credits that can be used to purchase any land that the BLM puts up for auction in the state. We will designate in our county which lands we want to go up for auction and, in time, those would be put out to auction to the private sector.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Does that mean that land in Elko County is going to change hands? I really don’t understand how this will happen. It says here that a large corridor of Nevada Land and Resource Company’s (NLRC) checkerboard lands will be conveyed to the Bureau of Land Management. Then it says Nevada Land and Resource will be credited with the fair market value of the lands conveyed for use only at public auctions of federal lands in the state of Nevada. How is this going to happen?
Dave Ayoob:
The way I understand it is that Nevada Land and Resource would convey a certain amount of acres, let’s use 100,000 acres, for example. Of that, this working committee has decided, along with the Commissioners, that we want to bring out 50,000 acres for public auctions, because these areas are designated as having economic value. Those other lands would go permanently to the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). We’ve referenced areas around the Eugene Mountains and areas west of Rye Patch that we want to use as BLM land for public access and the economic development areas along the corridor would come out for auction. At that time people would buy this land at public auction.
[Dave Ayoob continued.] Then there would be the credit part. NLRC (Nevada Land and Resource Company) would get credit for the appraised value, the fair market value, of the land that they turned in to BLM. Nevada Land and Resource could purchase land that BLM put up for public auction in other areas of the state, just like anybody else would have the right to bid on land, but they would have those credits because they turned in an amount of land to the BLM.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I understand the checkerboard problem. I ran a checkerboard for 25 years. I understand that situation and the management problems and everything that goes along with that. But the way I understood your explanation is that the BLM is going to put up for sale 10,000 acres in Elko County. Then the people in Elko County who want to buy that land are going to be competing against Nevada Land and Resources for the purchase, because you’ve been given credits somewhere else. It looks to me like, if we’re going to that, then everybody agrees on this deal. Otherwise, maybe you’re going to create more conflict and problems than you’re going to solve.
Steve Hartman:
You’re correct. The credit portion is in there because a provision under the federal law allows that. We’re trying to put this in for as little cost as possible. Our preference would be cash. There is a General Fund appropriation out of the federal Treasury to pay us the fair market value in cash. That’s fine. Obviously, that’s always our preference. We feel good enough about the state of Nevada that we’re willing to take a credit and reinvest in Nevada. If that’s what Congress chooses to do, that’s fine. We are trying to figure out ways.
As the largest landowner across the I-80 corridor, it’s in our best interest that the economic activity in northern Nevada be stimulated. Frankly, there haven’t been a lot of people figuring out ways to do that. We are willing to make a fairly significant effort to do that. We have spent a lot of time in Pershing County for a number of years trying to figure out ways to improve the economics. We have had an ongoing dialogue with BLM on environmental lands that they want, and we are in complete accord with that. We were in accord with Washoe County regarding lands, but the exchange process went away. Some of those lands will be lost because they are going to be sold. We just needed to take a comprehensive approach. I don’t know if it will be a cash resolution by Congress or if it will be a credit. I truly don’t know. It’s just an offering. We’re trying to make it as easy to do as possible. When we have lands come out after they’ve gone in, they’ll have to go through full NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) compliance. They will have to go through appraisal again, and then they will go on the auction block. The proceeds from those auctions will go to BLM (Bureau of Land Management) and Pershing County in a percentage that hasn’t been negotiated yet. That will be something they’ll need to do at the congressional level.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I understand what you’re trying to do, but I really have some great concerns. In Elko, it took the Glaser brothers, Norman Glaser was in here for the legislature for 20 or 30 years, over 20 years to try to get an exchange with the BLM. All of this is predicated on what the BLM is going to do. I know I’m not going to be here, and I doubt whether my grandkids will be here. Twenty years for the taxes to Pershing County is nothing in the way that things like this move unless Pershing County is getting some real benefits. I have some real concerns with putting up taxes for 20 years. I don’t know whether it’s going to come out the way everyone wants. We’ve been talking about this issue for as long as I can remember, and we always run into a stumbling block, especially in areas like Elko. Nobody wants the BLM to get rid of those lands.
We’ve just tried to make some simple consolidations like the Glasers tried to do, and it took them years and years. I have deep concerns that, if this land goes to the federal government and Pershing County, the rest of the northern counties will end up with less land than they have now which affects the tax roll. It looks to me like this might be the way it’s going unless there’s some real guarantees put in there. I think the federal government has to stay on the hook for longer than 20 years. Twenty years goes by so fast. I don’t think you will get this accomplished.
Chairman Collins:
Correct me if I’m wrong. This is a resolution which is asking the Legislature, because of the promptings of Senator Rhoads and the Pershing County Commissioners, to encourage Congress to work with the parties, the landowners, and the county elected officials, to find a way to clean up the checkerboard situation in that area. Is it any more than that? This is not a hard, fast law that says it can only be 20 years of taxes; it can only be this or that. It doesn’t say that you have to give up Rye Patch or cut down somebody’s fence or keep a road open. None of that is there. All of those things will be decided at public hearings and through Congress, Pershing County, RAC (BLM’s Resource Advisory Committee), and with all these federal agencies, environmental studies, and participation. Who did I leave out? What did I leave out? Does this do anymore than that, besides kill trees?
Steve Hartman:
No, it does nothing more. That is all we are asking. We just want to try. We think it’s important to find a solution, and I share Assemblyman Carpenter’s frustrations. I can assure you that anybody who has been out on rural Nevada public lands knows that frustration.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I think anyone who has run a cow on the checkerboard understands the issues. I have some concerns in line with those of Mr. Carpenter. I commend Pershing County for bringing S.J.R. 10 forward. I think we need to incorporate the other boards and county commissioners across the I-80 corridor that would be affected. They need to have the authority. Not in S.J.R. 10, this is only the resolution supporting it, but as this evolves, we need to ensure that the other boards are brought into it. I think there has to be some ability for the permittee of record to have a preference very similar to what you have under the Baca bill (Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, 2000) if your property is contiguous and you petition to have that property sold. You ultimately have the right to meet that final offer. I think that’s only fair to those people who are there. If we can get some type of preference like that in place, it protects the rights of those people in rural Nevada who have been there for generations.
Also, I would hope that the Board of County Commissioners would have the ability to either ratify or nullify any of these sales if they weren’t under the Lincoln County Land Act or the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act. I think, clearly, we would prefer, if you did a land exchange, you had some credit. I think you should have the ability to go down and buy land under the Lincoln County Land Act or the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act. That’s what it’s all about. In any other area, until we get a Northern Nevada Land Act, if it ever comes, the Boards of County Commissioners would have the ability to either ratify or nullify any sales or transfers that occurred in their counties. Is that reasonable?
Chairman Collins:
What they would negotiate as part of that wouldn’t be in here. That would be beyond this. That would be beyond this resolution as far as the preference. That would depend on Congress.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I want to echo that sentiment. Even though it is a resolution encouraging things to go forward, I think we need to put our intent in because whatever they end up negotiating, this year, next year, five years down the road, we’ve endorsed it without seeing what that final negotiation is going to be. We need to elaborate our intent right up front. My big concern is very similar to Mr. Carpenter’s and Mr. Goicoechea’s. As was mentioned, Pershing County has that right, with their master plan, when the lands are going back and forth. When they’re discussing which lands can be sold and which lands can be bought, they have that in their process.
All the other counties are hanging without master plans. There should be something in there to allow all the other counties to have that same process or procedure so that they can put together a plan and move it forward. I know this is just a resolution urging people to move forward, and I know it’s Pershing County in here specifically, but I think we should let Congress know the intent of this Legislature. All the county commissions should have the same possibilities, procedures, and discussions as far as what lands should go forward and what shouldn’t as Pershing County has.
Chairman Collins:
I think that’s why the Public Lands Interim Committee has been going for 20 years plus. It’s been dealing with those kinds of ongoing issues. I think that’s what Senator Rhoads said, too. As this developed, the Public Lands Interim Committee would be staying on top of that, and, should we need to address it or change it next session, we make sure those intentions are clear.
Assemblyman Marvel:
At what point is this land appraised? Do you have an appraisal yet in order to generate those credits?
Steve Hartman:
We do not. We’ve had appraisals done on some large sales. The C‑Punch Ranch bought a fairly large chunk of ground from us, and those appraisals ran $55 to $65. The sale went at $52.50 an acre. That was about 80,000 acres. There is another sale that is pending that will be in the $40 per acre range. You are dealing with a very wide spectrum of land from mountaintops to bottoms. There has not been an appraisal on this. That will be something that BLM will do that we won’t do. That’s part of the process.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Won’t this eventually lead to more federal land going into private ownership? I think this would be one of the salient points of this resolution, the fact that maybe this is a backdoor approach to being able to acquire lands for private ownership.
Steve Hartman:
We have had that discussion. It is important. There are a number of lands that the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) believes are properly on their interface plans for disposal. They should probably be expanded. One of the difficulties from an economic standpoint, so that you don’t devastate a county, is that you need to come out over a period of time. That’s why, on those maps, you will see short-term and long-term dispositions. I expect that we can make up the ad valorem number relatively quickly from a taxation standpoint, which concerned Assemblyman Carpenter. We can make the ad valorem side of it catch up fairly quickly. We probably will never be able to generate the acres, at least for our grandkids, but there is an appetite to get lands that are more appropriately designated as development and then keep those that are more appropriately open space.
Assemblyman Marvel:
On this map, if you can develop something around Toulon, like an industrial park, that would more than make up for what might be lost in that ad valorem. I don’t know how many times that would magnify the ad valorem base. I would have to give the people in Pershing County a lot of credit for being aggressive in this area, because I think this is a prelude for things that may happen.
Steve Hartman:
That is the number one priority of the working group. We believe that is an asset that Pershing has that not a lot of areas have. It’s close to their airport, which has plans for expansion. It’s near the railroad. It has a lot of benefits.
If I may digress to something Assemblyman Goicoechea said, when Dorothy Palmer and I first came on with the NLRC, we went across the state of Nevada and met with every county commission. Mr. Goicoechea was chairman of a commission at that time. We asked, “What do you want? Where do you want to go?” We’ve had a lot of dialog with Pershing County, and we’ve gotten further down the road. We always intend to do that with rural Nevada.
Hugh Montrose, Private Citizen, Pershing County:
[Introduced himself.] I am a lifelong resident of Lovelock. I’ve served on the planning commission for seven years. I was the mayor for 12 years. I’ve been on the hospital board for seven years, and I am a member of the committee that worked on this checkerboard land. I would like to say that the plan we developed, with the request for the resolution, is pretty much a consensus of a diverse group in Pershing County. We had mining, ranching, tourism, outdoors people, and sportsmen. We even had environmental concerns regarding preserving the Applegate Trail and preserving the lands around Rye Patch Reservoir from being developed. As a whole, I think this committee has done a very good job trying to move ahead on something that would be very good for Pershing County and the state of Nevada.
[Hugh Montrose continued.] To address Mr. Carpenter’s concern regarding the public land issue, Pershing County is a little unique. The lands that we are proposing to turn over to BLM are essentially nonproductive lands. It’s not a ranch that’s being taken out of operation and removed from the tax rolls. We’re talking about fairly bleak land, but therein lies the problem.
The ranchers that I have talked to, including Tim DeLong of the Flying “M” Ranch and Mike Casey of the Coyote Creek Ranch up by Unionville, absolutely would like to be able to buy these lands to expand their operations. The position they get into, though, is that they can’t justify the expense to do so.
It would take sections and sections of ground to make it a viable cattle-grazing operation. They tell me it won’t “pencil out.” The nearly unanimous feeling is, “Well, if we can’t have it that way, we would rather take our chances with the BLM and have them manage the land under the multiple use concept rather than have people from out-of-state come in, buy these lands, and then fence them off. Unfortunately, in some cases, those buyers make 640-acre junkyards or that kind of thing. I personally would rather have the lands remain in the BLM hands where they have some value for the sportsmen or the tourist, rather than all chopped up under private ownership that really isn’t going to work.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I agree with what you said, but how much taxes is the county now getting from these lands, this 300,000 acres that might be disposed of?
Hugh Montrose:
I can’t answer that. [He offered to get the numbers.]
Steve Hartman:
They are all in deferred agriculture because every acre is designated as grazing no matter where it is. For the whole thing, it’s about $30,000 a year. That’s why we feel, if we can do what we think we can in Toulon or at the airport, we can create a replacement ad valorem that will exceed or beat that.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Can’t you agree that you will hold the county harmless for whatever amount of time it takes to get that value back?
Steve Hartman:
I think that’s what we were trying to do with the 20-years provision. With the two-pronged approach, we were hoping to be able to take that at the time that we convey the 300,000 acres to BLM (Bureau of Land Management). It is our intention at that time to also convey directly to Pershing County certain properties that were Nevada Land and Resource properties in Toulon or at the airport so that they don’t have to go into the federal holdings and come out where their master plan identifies them for activities. That gives them the ability to get a jump-start while the rest of the process goes on. We think the combination of those will probably give Pershing the ability to get down that road of replacing ad valorem values and tax revenues. That’s why we picked 20 years. We really did believe that was a long enough time frame.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Where’s the BLM in this deal?
Steve Hartman:
We have had a conversation with Mr. Robert Abbey, and he is supportive of the concept. Obviously, there are a lot of details that have to be worked out. I met with Bob during the first part of the year, and he’s supportive of the fact that we had come up from Pershing County. That was very important to him, that we came from the people in Pershing County who wanted to do something to solve the problem.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
The BLM in the Elko district has held lands for 25 to 30 years that they have designated for disposal. So far, I don’t know that they have done anything. Maybe, if they think they’re going to get land, they’ll go on it, but my concern is in the part of your resolution where it says that there will be no less frequency than every 24 to 36 months for the auction of federally managed public lands in Pershing County. I would feel much better about it if Abbey or someone else had signed this resolution.
Steve Hartman:
I would, too, but I don’t think it’s appropriate at this point. I do share your concern, and I know Mr. DeLong’s brother has been working on a change for a very long time, even a modified sale, which is currently where they’re trying to go. It is a difficult process. There’s not enough staff, and we’ve all been involved in that. I think that’s why this is just trying to get a different approach to solving the same problem.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I think all of us in the industry have witnessed, over the years, a parcel of land selling out in the middle of our allotment. It might be 10, it might be 40, or it might be a section. Ten years down the road all we did was scatter wire because that’s all that’s left. The owner came up and fenced it and realized it wasn’t what he was going to do for a living. We get to trail cows and saddle horses through that downed wire for the rest of our lives.
Alan List:
I would like to answer Mr. Geddes’ question on the counties. I think this is planned to go county by county as Senator Rhoads said. It is difficult. Each county has different interests. I think the other counties will have their turn. Pershing County is just the guinea pig. We’re the ones who have stepped forward to try. If it works in Pershing County, I can assure you their desire is to move up and down I-80 and do the rest, but it is difficult just within one county, working with one group of people. If you try to put everybody together, I don’t think anything would get done. That’s why they started with Pershing County.
Mr. Carpenter mentioned that the exchanges are slow and time-consuming. This, in a sense, won’t be an exchange. This will be a one-shot deal, and the hope is it will be a much faster, easier process by going through the exchange, and we can get it done in a timely fashion.
The Nevada delegation in Washington wants to start from the bottom up. They want this to start at the city and county level and work on up. That’s why it started with a resolution in Pershing County. We’re here and hope to be in Washington next year.
Assemblyman Geddes:
We’re probably going to do this resolution once and throw it out there and agree that Pershing County is further along than anyone else, and it should be from the ground up. But, if we do the resolution, I think we should include every county. Clearly Pershing County is the furthest along, and you’re most willing to proceed and move forward, but as long as it takes to get some of these things through Congress, I want the others to be able to follow your model and move forward on it as well. I think just limiting this to Pershing is limiting that aspect.
I had a question in regards to the appraisal. I know the Clark County Commission has had a lot of problems with appraisal or a lot of criticism as far as what the BLM’s land is appraised at, what they’ve sold it for, and so forth. I’m wondering if we have any safeguards in the procedure you’re looking at in Pershing County. What have you dealt with in the appraisal and the appraisal values so it doesn’t run into the same criticism that they’ve been getting in Clark County?
Steve Hartman:
That’s been on the sale coming out. Typically, when you have had the appraisal of the property when it’s going to auction, that has been the issue where it’s been most difficult. This is going to be an appraisal on the front end; there are really two appraisals. There’s the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) appraising it on the front end for purposes of creating a value to give Nevada Land and Resource a credit or cash, or however they decide to treat that. The second level of appraisal will be after a period of time when a piece of ground or several parcels of ground must come out. In accordance with Pershing County’s master plan, that again will be run by GSA (General Service Administration). That’s typically who’s running that process.
Assemblyman Geddes:
Will the payment for the ad valorem that you make to Pershing County be based on that initial appraisal? If the value comes up significantly and it turns out to be 10 times what you appraised it at, will they get a lot more tax money?
Steve Hartman:
I think they will because it will be auctioned and then someone will pick it up at that higher value. The value we use is the value that exists out there today, and that’s why it’s at a much lower rate. It’s at that $30,000 for the whole number, because that’s when it goes in. The stuff that’s coming out, that first 1,000 acres or 2,000 acres, is going to come out in accordance with the master plan in an area that’s designated for development, residential, commercial, whatever the industrial zone may be. You are going to see a higher value that BLM and the county will share in terms of dividing the auction revenue, however they are going to do that.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I would continue to argue with my colleague that this resolution does address the whole northern corridor, and it does recognize that Pershing County is in the lead, but clearly it doesn’t exclude any other county.
Joe Johnson, Legislative Advocate, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club:
[Introduced himself.] We are speaking in favor of the concept of the resolution. On the Senate side we had some concerns not knowing exactly what was in the plan and what was being supported. The language of the resolution is somewhat confusing in the tense of what you are doing. The working group is preparing a plan, but you are being asked to tell Congress that you support the plan that is being developed. We think it is better to support the process by which the plan is being developed instead of advancing beforehand.
Chairman Collins:
When you are saying by present tense of the resolution, are there some lines you have?
Joe Johnson:
I believe there may be some proposed amendments that clarify the intent rather than asking you to support a plan that is in the process of being developed. Maybe it should be the process of developing a plan. I don’t have the language.
I have some other concerns as we review the amendment. Of particular concern is that this land is going to be transferred to the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). Will the mineral rights, the total estate, be transferred, and, if not, will there be a severance in the mineral rights? Historically this has been very problematic in areas of Wyoming and Colorado, for instance, where the railroad lands were severed from the mineral rights.
The second issue is the resolution passed by the county commission, Resolution No. 030301, item 7, page 2. Essentially the county commission is asking that the Pershing County master plan determine what land is proposed to be offered by the BLM. I question whether the county master plan is superseding the BLM area management plan, which this land would then become part of. It’s simply a question. I don’t wish to go into a particular discussion of what should be. I think the county certainly should have the primary responsibility of recommending what goes to sale if one of these actions takes place.
Lastly, we would like to go on record as supporting this measure with the Pershing County language. Let everyone get comfortable with the process. There’s no exclusion in this resolution for any other county to go forward with exactly what Pershing County has done. I would feel more comfortable with keeping the language of the resolution, which identifies the problem as the result of an entire land grant [to the Central Pacific Railroad Company in the 1860s]. It’s already problematic that you’re recommending a plan that’s in development, and to extend that to one that’s not even in the planning process would surely make me nervous.
Chairman Collins:
I think it tends to lead to Pershing County just like the Southern Nevada Public Lands Act did when Clark County was a designated county with a purpose. This is just supporting the direction of movement. It’s not that concrete.
Assemblywoman Peggy Pierce, Clark County District No. 3:
[Introduced herself.] When I first looked at this on Friday, I had a lot of concerns. I have considerably fewer concerns now. I’m more comfortable having seen the resolution. This resolution was agreed to by the Pershing County Commissioners. I have a proposed amendment (Exhibit C) that you have, and I’ll just walk through that.
The first part of it is to add a paragraph that says:
“WHEREAS, The changes to be made in this proposed consolidation of public and private lands will greatly affect the residents of Nevada and the interests of the State as a whole and, therefore, necessitate full public participation and consultation during the remaining planning process.”
The second would amend the resolution on page 2, line 38, so that “the Nevada Legislature hereby expresses its support for the concept of consolidation.” I think that addresses Assemblyman Geddes’ concern and what Mr. Johnson spoke of. I’m a little reluctant to have this body sign on to a plan that’s not finished and that is basically still in development. I would be more comfortable if we agreed to the concept. I do support the concept. I have talked to a number of people about the checkerboard pattern and the problems that presents to the ranchers, the BLM, and everyone involved, and I’m comfortable that this is a good plan to move ahead on as a way to solve that. But, I’m more comfortable with the idea that we sign on to the concept, because the plan is many years away. It’s not as if, at this point, there is a map that says this is exactly what we’re going to do.
The last part of my amendment is to amend the resolution on page 2, between lines 41 and 42, by inserting:
“RESOLVED, That all aspects of the process to develop a final plan for the proposed consolidation of public and private lands should occur, after compliance with all applicable Federal environmental laws, including but not limited to, the National Environmental Protection Act; and be it further . . .”
Mr. Hartman said something about the National Environmental Protection Act, NEPA, and I appreciate that. He has assured me that there is a point at which the NEPA process will be triggered. That’s a concern.
We came up with the idea for this amendment before I had spoken with him, although I would still like to have this in our resolution. The NEPA process is a way of developing an environmental impact statement. To get there it sets out a very good process of scoping meetings and public hearings that really set out what you’re trying to do and gets the public involved.
[Assemblywoman Pierce continued.] I would like to leave that in just so we’re sure that happens, because, as the first part of my amendment says, we think this is not just about Pershing County. It has to do with ranching, but also with recreational use of lands, hiking, and the environment. All of this should be brought into it. One of the ways to do that is through the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process. It’s a good process of meetings and scopings. I had some conversations with Mr. Hartman, but I haven’t spoken to the person who brought this bill forward, but I think we can work this out. I think these are just mostly conceptuals.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I guarantee you that if you are talking about one square inch of public lands, you will be in NEPA compliance.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I’m happy to hear that.
Kaitlin Backlund, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Conservation League:
[Introduced herself.] We support the assemblywoman’s amendments to S.J.R. 10. We feel we can certainly get behind the concept of this resolution, the idea of consolidation. We would like to echo the sentiments presented by Joe Johnson that this goes forward regionally, one step at a time. It seems to be working well with the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, and we would like to see it continue to proceed in that manner. I would also like to suggest we found the resolution somewhat confusing: the idea of adopting a plan that didn’t appear to be completed. It sounds like they’ve had great success in having a working committee from Pershing County come together on this. The resolution, particularly line 39, says, “in accordance with the plan developed by representatives of Pershing County.” The plan is fairly nonspecific, so there is no guarantee that what has been adopted by Pershing County would indeed be the final product. I appreciate the assemblywoman’s attempt to help with that.
Chairman Collins:
Five of the resolutions are of a conceptual nature, whether it is more wilderness study, less wilderness land, fire suppression, water, protection, range user options, and all those things. Those are all the same kind of conceptual thing, so you’re trying to put in a conception of, or a future tense, for the resolution, rather than it being a hard, right-on-the-line tense.
David Schumann, Vice Chairman, The Nevada Committee for Full Statehood:
[Introduced himself.] This is a much more complex and convoluted bill than you would get from reading these 2¼ pages. Upon initially reading it, I thought all they were going to do was take land within Pershing County and make it nice and even. Here’s some private; here’s some public, and you can access it. It’s all within Pershing County. Now we find out that’s not true. Just to make it more complex and convoluted, Nevada Land and Resources has bought adjudicated allotments on its land. Then it owns the water rights, and it can transfer all of that to the BLM. There are adjudicated allotments on all this land, public and governmental, that go back before the turn of the century to the original Central Pacific Railroad. Those Central Pacific Railroad lands have adjudicated allotments on them. For all those who haven’t gone to Helen Chenoweth-Hage’s meetings on this, those adjudicated allotments are fee lands.
Now that we know that, this is going to go out into other counties. People who have existing allotments on BLM land are going to find themselves facing a company that has the right to come along and get those counties for this credit. It would be wise to insert some language that existing adjudicated allotments will be respected.
There is another matter that needs to be here. The Lahontan Valley News, May 14, 2003, describes Nevada Land and Resource Company and Vidler Water Company as sister agencies. They’re both connected to a French holding company. I would think you should put something in here that any water that goes into their hands . . . as you did in S.B. 487, which solved the problem. Any water on those lands would not be able to be exported beyond the county.
Chairman Collins:
That bill died.
Janine Hansen, Independent American Party:
[Introduced herself.] I have one suggestion that we have discussed in this Committee. This resolution is about the public lands. Some of those might be public lands, and some may be adjudicated allotments. Perhaps we ought to deal with that issue so that we start to understand the redefining of the public lands as only lands to which no claim or right attaches. If that is what is meant by this resolution, that there is no claim of an adjudicated allotment or a water right attached to this, that’s the way it ought to be specifically identified so we’re not continuing the confusion about what public lands really mean. It doesn’t mean any of the land to which existing claims such as water rights, mineral rights, access rights, or grazing rights exist. It mentions public lands numerous times in the resolution and I just call that to your attention because you have been very thoughtful as you proceeded on this particular thing after you heard the Hages’ testimony about the definition of the public land issue, which I think is very important.
Chairman Collins:
Would you explain the years of meetings, notices, discussions, and comment periods that would be involved before any part of this resolution were to happen?
Pam Robinson, Legislative Liaison, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior:
[Introduced herself.] When a resolution is passed from the legislature of a state, it is sent to the state’s congressional delegation. It would also be sent to the Secretary of the Interior who would then forward it down to the agency heads. At that point, there would be a decision in the Nevada delegation’s office on whether or not they were going to introduce the legislation. If and when that happens, legislative staff would work very closely with the Nevada Land and Resource Company. They would work very closely with the Pershing County Commissioners and with the intent of the Nevada legislators to make sure that the bill they crafted would be exactly what was intended.
Any kind of exchange or sale would have to go through a full EIS (environmental impact statement) process. Almost everything does now, unless it is specifically excluded in the congressional legislation, which probably would not happen. At that point, there would be public scoping meetings. There would be congressional hearings on it, which probably would include the Pershing County Commissioners. The representatives on this would have an opportunity to testify. Written comment would be taken in Congress. The bill would either pass or not. Then they would go through the public scoping where those meetings and hearings would be held in Nevada as well as other places, I suspect. There would be a huge record put together on this.
Chairman Collins:
How far outside of Pershing County would you go to discuss this? Would you come to Clark County and Reno or Elko?
Pam Robinson:
I don’t know the answer to that.
Chairman Collins:
What’s the general, normally?
Pam Robinson:
I don’t know. It really depends on how legislation is written, and how they decide to do it. There’s a fairly specific process, and I am not an expert on that.
Chairman Collins:
How would you define full, public participation? If you were using federal dollars, would you be holding meetings in Maryland or Florida or Seattle?
Pam Robinson:
I would doubt that. The full public participation would be specifically to the affected land, which would be Nevada.
Chairman Collins:
So you might go to Twin Falls? Could you, because of the related borders?
Pam Robinson:
I would say “no,” but far be it for me to interpret Congress.
Chairman Collins:
I will close the hearing on S.J.R. 10, and open the hearing on S.B. 58.
Senate Bill 58 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to hazardous materials. (BDR 40-943)
Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection:
[Introduced himself and provided written testimony, Exhibit D.] The purpose of S.B. 58 is twofold. Sections 1 through 13 authorize the State Environmental Commission to adopt regulations requiring laboratories to be certified, which conduct analyses for determining if a substance is a hazardous waste or for the presence of a hazardous waste and regulated substance contaminating soil or water. Certification helps ensure the quality and accuracy of analytical data used for such determinations. It assists the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection in assuring that hazardous waste is managed in an appropriate facility, and that environmental cleanups are complete.
Secondly, in Sections 14, 15, and 16, the Commission is authorized to adopt regulations governing the aboveground or over-water petroleum storage tank systems used to supply fuel at marinas. Presently there are no design, construction, or maintenance regulatory requirements for aboveground tank systems as there are for underground storage tanks. Implementation of such requirements is expected to significantly reduce the potential for releases to surface and groundwater from these systems and to reduce the overall costs of environmental cleanup and expenditures to the State Petroleum Fund.
[Allen Biaggi continued.] The fiscal note, which will be totally supported by fees assessed on the laboratories with no General Fund expenditures, is for the cost of the laboratory certification aspects of the bill. Currently, the Division is unsure of the actual workload impacts of these new provisions. As a result, we believe that it will be prudent to initially not move forward with any new staff until the actual workload and revenue amounts can be determined. Based upon this trial period, we can better gauge the needs of the program.
Finally, there is not a fiscal impact for the above-ground tank component of this bill. I encourage your support of S.B. 58.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
One hundred ten gallons seems to be a fairly small tank. Is it necessary to regulate those? Would that be just someone who has a boat?
Allen Biaggi:
That is the volume of a tank currently in the regulations and statutes for the State Petroleum Fund for when an aboveground tank can come under the program. That is referencing some existing statutory requirements of the State Petroleum Fund. We’ve had some problems with marinas and other storage tank systems in close proximity to water, particularly in southern Nevada. The intent is not to regulate boats and not to regulate floating vessels. It’s those onshore-type storage systems for petroleum products.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
You’re talking about tanks that are located out into the water, right? Or at least have a hose out there or something?
Allen Biaggi:
That’s correct, tanks that have a conveyance of some sort out into the water. Those particular tank systems may be situated on land or in close proximity to the water itself.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Are these tanks safe? Have they been approved that they’re safe?
Allen Biaggi:
The concern that we have is, one, there are no standards for the environmental safety of these tank systems. The Fire Marshall or other jurisdictional entities may evaluate them for fire hazards, but, from an environmental standpoint, they may not be safe and can consequently leak or have problems. We’ve also had some concerns in southern Nevada with the National Park Service where there have been more than a couple of releases that have caused surface water and groundwater contamination. It’s those types of incidences that we’re trying to address through this legislation.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
Are you going to have a laboratory that detects the presence of hazardous waste or regulated substance in soil or water? Ammonium nitrate is a fertilizer, right? But isn’t it also the material they used to blow up the building in Oklahoma City? What’s that going to be? Is that going to be a hazardous material or is it going to be a fertilizer?
Allen Biaggi:
What you are referring to is called “ANFO,” and that is a mixture of diesel fuel and ammonium nitrate. As Mr. Marvel indicated, that is an explosive regularly used in the mining industry. Ammonium nitrate, in and of itself, is merely a fertilizer that is used by all of us on our gardens and lawns. It’s when you mix it with the diesel fuel that it becomes highly explosive. That material may be considered a hazardous waste when it is no longer destined for its intended purpose and when it is considered highly reactive, as it is required under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act defined by the federal government. There may be situations where that material would be considered a hazardous waste.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
How do you determine if a tank has been discontinued before you bought it? I think it had to be discontinued pre-1984, if it’s an underground tank. How would you establish that? That’s what I would say, if you came to my place and found a leak. I would say, “I didn’t use it, but the last guy must have, so he owns the tank.” How do you address that?
Allen Biaggi:
That’s a very good question, and it’s similar to my response to Assemblyman Carpenter. This is a reflection of what is already established in the law. The underground storage tank provisions stated that if the tank was discontinued before a certain date, then it was out of the regulatory purview. After that date, then it was in. Oftentimes there are records of the business, or people’s recollections of when that tank was used. It’s that kind of evidence that goes into the determination. Most of that has been resolved through the 1998 amendments, which brought underground storage tanks up to specifications. A lot of that has been resolved, but it could come back into play with regard to these marina tanks, although there’s not very many of them in the state of Nevada. I don’t anticipate that will be a huge undertaking or stumbling block.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
But this goes beyond marina tanks. The laboratory testing and all of it applies back to even tanks that are outside of a marina, right?
Allen Biaggi:
I think you need to separate the two provisions. One is the enabling legislation to allow the Division of Environmental Protection and the State Environmental Commission to establish standards for tanks. The laboratory provisions are something different and those dates don’t apply to those laboratory provisions. This is an intention just to bring this laboratory certification program to address hazardous waste and hazardous substances so there’s really two relatively separate provisions of this bill.
John Kobza, Sierra Environmental Monitoring, Inc.:
[Introduced himself and provided written testimony, Exhibit E.] My company is the oldest laboratory in the state of Nevada. You also have before you written testimony (Exhibit F) from Roger Scholl of Alpha Analytical, Inc. They are the largest commercial environmental laboratories in the state of Nevada. We both, among other laboratories, feel very strongly that S.B. 58 is a good piece of legislation for a number of very important reasons. One, it will round out our certification program so that we now have certification for all the environmentally sensitive samples that are analyzed by commercial laboratories in the state of Nevada. That includes the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and RCRA, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act.
The funding for this particular piece of legislation is coming from us. I think that’s a very important component. We’re the ones who feel so strongly about having this legislation that we are willing to tax ourselves so that we can be sure the data produced by laboratories doing the analysis for characterization of hazardous waste are doing it by certified methods and their data is truly defensible in a court of law.
We feel very strongly about this bill and are in full support of it.
Chairman Collins:
We’ll close the hearing on S.B. 58 and bring it back to Committee. Is there any discussion?
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 58.
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I want to state that, as somebody who worked in the private testing laboratory since 1990, this is something that they’ve been trying to do since then. It’s long overdue, and it will be very helpful to assure the quality of data that we’re getting in the state, and I encourage you all to vote “yes.”
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Atkinson was absent for the vote.)
Chairman Collins:
Let’s discuss S.J.R. 10.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 10.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I’m going to echo again that if we’re going to send an edict to Congress that this legislative body supports something, we should expand the resolve portions of this bill to include all of the counties in the area along the I-80 corridor and not limit it to Pershing County.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I’m not comfortable with the resolution as it is. If we were to accept the amendment by Assemblywoman Pierce, then I would support it.
[The Chairman asked for clarification whether it was all or any part of the amendment. Assemblyman McCleary responded that it was the whole amendment.]
Assemblyman Conklin:
I’m going to support the resolution in its current form. As to my colleague from the Reno area, I think it’s important that we test the waters first before we run amok with the whole thing. Let’s try it in Pershing County. I will remind my colleagues, as well, that we have a member of this body right here who represents Pershing County, and I’ve talked to him about this bill. I think he’s very supportive of it as well, being from that area and working with his constituents, so I am going to support this bill in its current form.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
If it would make Assemblyman McCleary any more comfortable, you know the final amendment there is clearly repetitive. You have to comply with NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and the EIS (environmental impact statement) process. The only real substantive matter that I could see that Assemblywoman Pierce did bring forth would be if you were talking about consolidation or the concept of consolidation, and I think where it is in a resolution form, that’s what it’s talking about. I hope you would feel more comfortable with that.
Pershing County is involved in the process. The planning commission, their advisory committee – those would all be public bodies. I can only assure you that this process has been going on for a couple of years, and it has been very open. I would hope you could support the bill. The only real issue would be the concept of consolidation versus consolidation. If this wasn’t just to support the resolution, and it was clearly statute or something we were trying to put in place, then I would agree with you and Ms. Pierce that maybe we need to have a little more flexibility. Where it is just a resolution, and we’re asking for congressional support, I think it’s wide open, so I ask for your support.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I’m very supportive of what Pershing County has done. I think Pershing County has a good model. The one thing that this resolution is lacking beyond extending it to the other counties is that once they get that credit from the Bureau of Land Management, they can spend it in any county in the state to buy up lands. I think without those other counties having the permission, just as Pershing does, to discuss the lands and debate the lands, we’re leaving the rest of the counties out of this process. That’s why I think we need to amend in the other counties on the corridor as well as the other counties in the state so each commission has the ability to say, “This land works for us; this land doesn’t,” and negotiate. I think as Mr. Carpenter mentioned, this gives them an open checkbook to go anywhere in the state and buy lands and they don’t need the commission’s approval elsewhere outside of Pershing. That concerns me.
Assemblyman Marvel:
It’s going to take a statute to do all of this. This is just a resolution. You have to wait until we get the congressional mandate and that’s where you can go. That’s where we can have the input. I would just leave it the way it is.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
We’ve argued this back and forth. I do believe, by the testimony in this Committee, that we have fairly well established what our intent is and how that plan should evolve and also the statements about “There has to be preference, and there has to be county commissioner involvement in the other counties as it expands.” I would hope that the legislative intent has been fairly well established here in the minutes and in the recording of this hearing.
Chairman Collins:
I would say, Mr. Geddes, that you make a good point on where the dollars or credits are spent, if, in fact, the credits are granted, or if Congress doesn’t restrict them, such as in southern Nevada and Clark County. So much goes to the water company; so much goes to the school district. This could be a provision that comes into this, if Congress addresses it. They don’t have a penny credited to them yet, and Congress might not do anything at all with this. We’re just encouraging them to solve an economic situation in central Nevada.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I’m going to vote for the resolution, but I have a lot of concerns with this. If I were on the county commission and dealing with something like this, I’d get a much better deal than I think they got in there now. I’m going to vote for it, but I may change my mind on the Floor.
Assemblyman McCleary:
The comments made by my colleague to my right have changed my feelings on it. I will support the resolution.
Assemblyman Claborn:
You have a motion on the table.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES VOTED NAY. (Assemblyman Atkinson was absent for the vote.)
Chairman Collins:
[The Chairman reminded the Committee of a combined meeting with Ways and Means on S.B. 420 on Wednesday.] We’re adjourned [at 3:59 p.m.].
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sharee Gebhardt
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman
DATE: