MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Natural Resources
Seventy-second Session
February 5, 2003
The Senate Committee on Natural Resourceswas called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, February 5, 2003, in Room 2144 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness, Vice Chairman
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Maggie Carlton
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Bob Coffin (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst
Johnnie Lorraine Willis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Jim Lawrence, Management Analyst III, Division of State Lands, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Amir M. Soltani P.E., Chief Hydraulic Engineer, Division of Hydraulics, Nevada Department of Transportation
R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Chairman Rhoads opened the meeting by directing the committee members to look at the prospective standing rules, Exhibit C, and noted the rules were almost the same as the last two sessions. Chairman Rhoads indicated Rule 9 was a new rule stating all cell phones and pagers must be muted or turned off during hearings.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO ADOPT THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS COFFIN AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rhoads asked Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst, to brief the committee on potential issues that might be heard this session. Mr. Welden responded the committee members should have a copy of his prepared Committee Brief (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.). He said the brief focused on some of the significant measures the committee looked at last session, addresses some of the issues the committee might be addressing this session, and includes a natural resources key contact list for the committee members to research this session’s issues.
Mr. Welden indicated the issues start on page 10 of Exhibit D, which included a fair number of agricultural provisions, a couple of hazardous material issues, and a few public lands bills.
Chairman Rhoads said there might be an Assembly bill on bonding for mining and said he wondered whether that bill would be heard in this committee. Mr. Welden responded, “yes,” it was his understanding the mining bill would be heard in this committee. He said the bill in question was one of the big mining bills the Assembly feels is important.
Mr. Welden said there would probably be several wildlife bills from the Assembly that would be significant measures as well as the mining bonding issue.
Mr. Welden stated staff would gladly answer any questions about the issues and provide any background information the committee might need. He said a background paper on the “History of Water Law in Nevada and the Western States,” (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.) had been provided. Mr. Welden explained the paper was a history and outline of the issues and procedures used in water law appropriation, and distribution adjudication.
Mr. Welden reported Linda Eissmann, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, would be completing a report on stock watering rights and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s “Rangeland Reform 1994” initiative, which will again be an issue this session. He noted Ms. Eissmann’s report would be available within the next week.
Chairman Rhoads told the committee the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ Division of State Lands would give a presentation on the status of the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) in regard to Nevada’s portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin.
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said Nevada’s Tahoe program took a different turn in 1997 when the President of the United States came to Lake Tahoe for a presidential summit. She said the summit set events in motion that lake inhabitants, the states, and counties were still carrying out today. Ms. Wilcox explained by the time the President left, the federal government had committed to contributing almost $300 million to an environmental improvement program for Lake Tahoe. She said the states of California and Nevada had committed significant amounts, and private sources and local governments had also committed significant amounts. All together, the entities came up with $908 million for a 10-year crash program to save the clarity of the lake and ecological systems of the Lake Tahoe Basin.
Ms. Wilcox, referring to page 2 of the Division of State Lands’ presentation (Exhibit F) said this was a representation of the projects approved for funding during the 1999 Legislative Session. She said all of the problems are interrelated and in order to solve some of the problems, all of the problems would have to be solved.
Ms. Wilcox stated the loss of clarity of Lake Tahoe was the major problem. She said it has been documented that Lake Tahoe has been losing clarity at about one foot per year since the 1960s. Ms. Wilcox explained that in the 1960s when the Secchi Disk was first being used to measure clarity of the lake, the disk was visible more than 100 feet down. She noted at the lowest clarity a few years ago, the visual was down to 66 feet. The clarity now is back up to 70 feet, which seems to indicate the program is working. However, Ms. Wilcox said, no one knows for sure whether the program is the reason or the new clarity is due to current weather patterns. She pointed out no one expected to see such a major improvement in such a short period of time.
Ms. Wilcox said this program has been a very daunting task, especially for Nevada. She explained Nevada had no agency structured to do any of this kind of work. In the 1999 Session, the Nevada Legislature responded immediately by passing a bill authorizing the entire $82 million Nevada was requested to contribute. Ms. Wilcox noted the Legislature at that time stipulated it be informed as to the status of the program every 2 years and to let the Legislature know how much bonding authority may be needed for the following 2 years.
Chairman Rhoads inquired whether the $9.9 million needed for bonding was included in the budget. Ms. Wilcox responded it was not and said that request was Senate Bill (S.B.) 46 because it is bonding authority not budget money.
SENATE BILL 46: Authorizes issuance of general obligation bonds to carry out Environmental Improvement Program in Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR S-174)
Chairman Rhoads asked what bonding authority was granted 2 years ago. Ms. Wilcox responded it was $16.2 million.
Jim Lawrence, Management Analyst III, Division of State Lands, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said the loss of clarity Ms. Wilcox spoke of was an environmental problem, and a symptom of other environmental problems which contribute to the loss of clarity. Mr. Lawrence said one of those contributing problems was erosion, particularly along cut slopes and road areas. He said the typical road in the Tahoe Basin has an eroding slope next to a highway that deposits sedimentary particles into the lake during rainy seasons and snow melts. Mr. Lawrence said another problem has been the loss of stream zones. He pointed out these stream areas had been turned into parking lots or turned to other uses, depriving the lake of its natural filtering system. Mr. Lawrence said urban runoff contributed the same kinds of sediments into the lake as erosion and has caused loss of clarity.
Mr. Lawrence explained also contributing to the pollution of the lake were poor forest health conditions. He said these conditions were obvious with the large number of dying trees along the highways and in the protected forest areas. He pointed out these problems also cause loss of wildlife habitat.
Mr. Lawrence said to address these environmental problems there was a presidential summit in 1997. At the summit, the federal government, California, and Nevada pledged full support for the 10-year Environmental Improvement Program. Referring to page 4 of the State of Nevada Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program presentation (Exhibit G. Original is on file in the Research Library.), he said the State of Nevada’s share was $82 million. Mr. Lawrence said the federal government had authorized its full commitment of $297.2 million through the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of the 106th Congress. California had appropriated $240 million of its share.
Senator Rhoads asked where private contribution funds came from. Mr. Lawrence responded private money, for the most part, came in the form of individual parcels and environmental improvement projects. He said there was a large regional program called the BMP Retrofit Program that helped private property owners put in dry wells to handle driveway runoff and other filtration systems along rooflines by capturing and treating private parcel runoff before it gets to the lake.
Mr. Lawrence said Nevada’s portion of the project, the $82 million, has come mostly from obligation bonds. Referring to page 5 of Exhibit G, he pointed out column 3 shows the 1996 voter-approved general bond amount of $20 million. He said these funds were used for erosion control and stream restoration projects.
Mr. Lawrence explained the fund to protect Lake Tahoe was established in the 1999 Legislative Session, which provided Nevada’s remaining shares toward the $82 million of Nevada’s agreed-to contribution toward the project. He reiterated the EIP must come before the Legislature every 2 years to report on the reclamation progress and request the next biennium’s funds. Mr. Lawrence said the estimated amount needed, $9.2 million, was reflected in column 6, line 11 of page 5 of Exhibit G.
Mr. Lawrence said the next step would be to go through the environmental improvement program, look at the projects, and then prioritize them, by deciding which would contribute the greatest environmental benefit for the Lake Tahoe Basin.
Mr. Lawrence explained the approximately $26 million in grants to local governments was for those entities to do their water quality improvement truck projects along their roadway systems. He stated the roads and highways were the largest contributors to pollution of the lake.
Responding to a request from Chairman Rhoads, Mr. Lawrence noted the Nevada Department of State Lands (NDSL), the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), the Nevada Division of State Parks (NSP), the Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF), and the Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW), are listed on page 7 of Exhibit G, along with other agencies involved with the project. He said 3 years ago the Nevada Tahoe Resource Team (NTRT), directed by the NDSL, was established. He said it was an interagency, interdisciplinary team, which was housed in one office. Mr. Lawrence explained the advantage of housing the team members together was to give a multidisciplinary approach to all the projects affecting the Lake Tahoe Basin. Mr. Lawrence said the NTRT coordinates and facilitates communication between all the relevant entities to produce the largest environmental benefit for Nevada taxpayers’ dollars. This team minimizes confusion and conflicts of interest between the entities that had vested interests in the Lake Tahoe area, he noted.
Mr. Lawrence, again referring to page 7 of Exhibit G, stated other State agencies that were part of the project, but not housed in the same office, were listed and include the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), the Division of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Division of Conservation Districts, the State Historic Preservation Office, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ Natural Heritage Program, and the Nevada Energy Office.
Mr. Lawrence stated the project could not be as successful without these partnerships, which include the regulatory agencies, the scientific community, and other major stakeholders were implementing their own projects. He said these partnerships allow everyone to coordinate all the projects without stepping over each other, and it helped make sure projects were not unnecessarily duplicated.
Senator Rhoads inquired whether California was doing the same types of projects on its side of the border. Mr. Lawrence responded, “absolutely,” and added Nevada’s team coordinated, in particular, with the California Tahoe Conservancy. He said the California and Nevada teams were in constant communication so they could learn from each other through the various projects both states are implementing.
Mr. Lawrence said California and Nevada were working toward coordinating their federal grant cycles in order to coordinate each state’s funds with the federal dollars coming into the projects.
Ms. Wilcox stated daily meetings are required to coordinate these projects, and the members of the team try to attend all the meetings of the major groups that meet in regard to the Tahoe Basin.
Mr. Lawrence stated the Lake Tahoe Project is on schedule. He said NDOT has completed 11 projects involving $1.5 million and 12 miles of highway. He said the EIP funding for NDOT projects pays only for water quality improvements. Mr. Lawrence pointed out NDOT’s other components of the project are paid from other funding sources. Calling attention to page 9 of Exhibit G, he told the committee this page would give them an idea of the kind of projects NDOT has accomplished in the basin and where they plan to go in the future. He noted there has been a tremendous amount of master planning work by NDOT on these projects.
Senator Rhoads asked what percentages of lakeshore did California and Nevada each have. Mr. Lawrence responded it was about a two-thirds to one-third split. Senator Rhoads then inquired whether California had more development than Nevada and shared that he had reviewed the area personally when the problems where first introduced. Ms. Wilcox responded, “absolutely,” and that was why Nevada’s requested contribution to the project was only $82 million while California’s requested contribution was around $300 million. She said historical evidence showed Nevada’s lakeshore lands were held in large ownership lots and did not become subdivided until more recent years. She explained large portions of the area were still pristine and undeveloped, and were owned by the Forest Service or in large ownership lots.
Mr. Lawrence informed the committee page 10 of Exhibit G was a preview of what portions of the highway NDOT would like to improve for future projects. He said there were another 29 miles of highway projects NDOT needed to complete. Mr. Lawrence pointed out the planning and designs were already in progress for those 29 miles. Senator Rhoads inquired what the red areas and blue areas indicated on the map of the presentation. Mr. Lawrence replied the blue represented the completed areas and the red represented areas that need addressing.
Senator Rhoads asked whether the project called for moving the highway or just working on the sides of the road for better drainage. Mr. Lawrence answered most of the work was for drainage and erosion control improvements. He said some of the work was maintenance of improvements already installed.
Mr. Lawrence said in addition to the NDOT projects along the highway, there was also a large grant program to local governments to do water quality projects on subdivision roads. He said there had been 28 EIP projects identified that need to be completed. Mr. Lawrence pointed out 11 of the 28 projects had been completed, and 12 projects were currently in progress. These projects were in the design and planning stage, or would be ready to go out to bid for construction this year, leaving 5 projects for future work.
Mr. Lawrence indicated one of the problems was there were few areas where water could be safely infiltrated into the lake. The area was steep and difficult to work on which required the use of water quality vaults in the road system. He said because of this challenge, a large focus of the water quality programs was source control. He said the idea was to keep the sediment and dirt on the slope and away from the roadway system, which was about 90 percent of the job. Mr. Lawrence said some examples of source-control measures were placing rocks or constructing walls along those slopes.
Mr. Lawrence said when a grant project was proposed, one of the things the applicant was asked to project was an estimate of soil that could be prevented from entering the lake. He stated, based on the projects that had been completed or were in progress, an estimated 11 million pounds or more of soil had been prevented from entering the system.
Senator Rhoads inquired whether this estimate was over a 3-year period. Mr. Lawrence responded these statistics were gathered over a 4- or 5-year period.
Mr. Lawrence continued, saying stream restoration was another one of the important programs, and said several areas had been identified that need attention. He said those areas were Third Creek, Rosewood Creek, and Edgewood Creek drainages. Mr. Lawrence, citing the scientific community’s conclusion, said these areas were the largest areas delivering sediment loads to Lake Tahoe.
Mr. Lawrence said a portion of Incline Creek had been restored, a portion of Rosewood Creek was scheduled for restoration for the current year, and an assessment of the Edgewood Creek area was in progress. This assessment would allow the projects to be prioritized and should be completed by June of this year, he said.
Mr. Lawrence explained a partnership with Washoe County and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was being formed to address future restoration of creek drainage areas on Third and Incline Creeks. He said page 13 of Exhibit G shows a parking lot area that had been restored to its original form as a drainage creek.
Senator Rhoads asked where cars were being parked now the parking lot was no longer there. Mr. Lawrence replied alternative parking had been found.
Mr. Lawrence said forest restoration was another part of the program. He noted problems regarding forest health have been well documented. He pointed out historic logging practices, drought, and insect infestation had all contributed to grave tree die-off in the Lake Tahoe Basin area. He explained these problems result in a risk of catastrophic fire hazards and loss of wildlife habitat. Mr. Lawrence said teams had identified about 4800 acres within Lake Tahoe Nevada State Park needing to be restored.
Mr. Lawrence continued by saying major planning work was in progress, and the cultural and historical resource inventory had been completed, and road improvements have been made so workers and equipment could be transported to the areas of concern. He said the forest stand mapping had been completed, about 300 acres had been treated, and there had been a thinning of forestation in various sections of the park.
Senator Rhoads asked whether the work had been done on private as well as forest service lands. Mr. Lawrence replied all the work had been done on State park property. He said the Lake Tahoe environmental improvement teams work directly with the federal Forest Service because there are federal lands adjoining state lands. This cooperation allows the restoration projects to be coordinated.
Mr. Lawrence said page 15 of Exhibit G was a photograph of the Gondola Fire burn area. He explained the fire in the Tahoe Basin started on the California side of the basin right behind the casino core, and then spread up into the Kingsbury Grade area. This fire burned about 272 acres on the Nevada side, of which about 60 acres were classified as severely fire damaged. He said the remaining fire acreage area was within the boundaries of what a contained fire burn would accomplish, and was thus beneficial to the area.
Mr. Lawrence, referring to the photograph of the severely damaged areas, said an example of what had to be done in high fire-damaged areas was to place straw and pine wattle logs on the slopes to halt erosion. Mr. Lawrence said fires in these high-risk areas not only threatened homes and structures, and wildlife habitats, but also presented critical water quality issues. He said if the logs were not put in place, a great portion of the soil from these slopes would end up in the distributaries during any rainstorm or snowmelt.
Mr. Lawrence explained there was a wildlife program that had two critical wildlife habitat projects, focusing on aspen stand inventories and improvements. He stated aspen stands were declining in the West, and unfortunately, these stands were extremely critical to wildlife habitats. He said scientific studies have shown animal species diversity in aspen stands was usually about six times greater than in other forests.
Mr. Lawrence said the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program had some old-growth forest restoration projects and some ongoing wildlife projects underway. He said on page 16 of Exhibit G was a photograph of a pine marten, which was an exciting discovery as the pine marten was used as an overall indicator of wildlife habitat health and diversity. He noted this was the first photograph of a pine marten after a year of doing the surveys. He said the teams believed this sighting indicated these projects were going in the right direction.
Mr. Lawrence said the EIP has identified ten such projects. He said three projects that had been completed were Spooner Lake Improvements, Memorial Point Overlook, and the Spooner Summit Trailhead. He said three projects were proceeding, one of which was an equestrian and hiking trail between Spooner Lake and Marlette Lake.
Mr. Lawrence explained, on page 17 of Exhibit G, there was a schematic of the planned visitor center for Sand Harbor. Senator Rhoads asked what funds would be used to put in the buildings and whether those buildings were included in the EIP funding. Mr. Lawrence responded the Sand Harbor buildings would be funded by a combination of monies from the EIP bond request funds, some 2002 general election Question 1 funds, and some land and water conservation funds. Senator Rhoads then asked how much the project would cost and whether the cost was part of this year’s bonding request. Mr. Lawrence replied the total estimate is about $4.4 million for the project and those funds had been part of previous EIP bond requests.
Mr. Lawrence said recreational projects were very important to visitor enhancement. He said those visitor enhancements include many environmental improvements involving water quality and cited the Spooner Summit Trailhead project as an example. Mr. Lawrence explained the area was a popular parking area, but during rainstorms or snowmelt great amounts of soil would end up in the meadow or on the highway. He said the improvements had helped to alleviate this problem. He noted this project was financed using Lake Tahoe license plate funds, highway funds, and through partnerships with state lands, state parks, and NDOT.
Mr. Lawrence, moving to the bond request, said the request is S.B. 46 with the total request amounting to $9.87 million. He asked the committee to look at page 19 of Exhibit G, which gave the breakdown of the anticipated use of the bonded funds being requested this session.
Senator Rhoads inquired whether any of the highways would be moved. Ms. Wilcox replied none of the highways would actually be moved. She said it was more of a retrofit action to deal with the drainage off the highway than any new highway-building project.
Senator Rhoads asked what the car count usage was on a busy day in the summer. Ms. Wilcox replied she had no idea and requested that Amir M. Soltani, P.E., Chief Hydraulic Engineer, Division of Hydraulics, Nevada Department of Transportation, respond to the Senator’s question. Mr. Soltani said the car count on State Route 28 was about 15,000 on a busy weekend, and on U.S. Highway 50 it was around 18,000. He explained these counts were acquired about 2 years ago.
R. Michael Turnipseed P.E., Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, explained the director's office provided leadership and general management to the Divisions of Conservation Districts, State Lands, Environmental Protection, Forestry, State Parks, Water Resources, Wildlife, the Nevada Natural Heritage Program and the Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses.
Mr. Turnipseed said the director’s office had ten full time employees, six of whom were accountants. He explained the accountants in the director’s office provide accounting services to the smaller divisions of state lands, conservation districts, and water resources. He stated larger divisions had their own accountants. Mr. Turnipseed said he had changed one employee’s salary to a wetlands grant in response to the Governor’s request to cut 3 percent of the budget. He commented overall there were over 1100 employees in the department. He said all personnel issues come through the director’s office.
Mr. Turnipseed explained Question 1 passed by the voters in November allowed for the State Treasurer to sell $200 million in bonds, which will come through the director’s office. Some of those funds will be directed to the Las Vegas Springs Preserve, and the Las Vegas Wash.
Mr. Turnipseed said approximately $65.5 million would go to Ms. Wilcox’s section for grants to local governments. He noted Ms. Wilcox’s team was in the process of holding workshops on defining eligibility to acquire these funds, and what the matching funds criteria should be.
Mr. Turnipseed pointed out his department was suing the federal government in regard to a public trust issue for getting more water into Walker Lake. He explained this case had been going on for about 12 years, with tribal claims and other claims to the U.S. courts for both surface water and ground water. He said about 2 years ago at a status conference he asked for a room where all the contenders could discuss a settlement, which was promptly provided. Since then the U.S. government has created their federal negotiating team and his department would be meeting with a mediator to discuss some of those issues within the next month.
Mr. Turnipseed explained the Division of Conservation Districts supported 28 conservation districts throughout the State for which $128,000 was divided. He said these districts were involved in water conservation measures, soil erosion measures, and many other issues. He noted these districts used the funds from the State as seed money to attract other investors for their ongoing projects.
Mr. Turnipseed stated the Division of State Lands held title to all State land including the sovereign lands, with the exception of those lands held by NDOT and the university system. He said the Division of State Lands was the archivist for all the original land records for Nevada, and provides land-use planning to rural counties that did not have their own staffs.
Mr. Turnipseed said the Nevada Division of State Parks had been in existence since 1923. He noted there were 24 state parks in Nevada, which equaled 123,000 acres of land and 29,800 acres of water. He said State parks collected about $2 million per year in fees and those fees that did not go to the General Fund went into a maintenance account.
Senator Rhoads asked whether public usage of State parks was still going down or whether it had evened out. Mr. Turnipseed said recreation parks that were water-dependent had lower usage because the water levels were down, however, other parks’ usages fluctuated.
Mr. Turnipseed explained 3.3 million people visited the parks last year, with 176,000 camping in the parks. He noted there were 43,859 boat launches recorded.
Mr. Turnipseed said voters passed the 1990 general election Question 5 funding, which provided $15 million, and had mostly been spent. He commented the money was used for various acquisitions and capital improvements. Mr. Turnipseed said the Question 1 funds recently passed by voters would provide funds for more improvements and acquisitions.
Mr. Turnipseed explained the Nevada Division of Forestry was divided into three regions. He pointed out the division had many more responsibilities than most people were aware of. Mr. Turnipseed said the NDF fights fires on all kinds of land and only federal land fires are reimbursed. He said the division had an urban infestation program going on to control insect infestations on private lands abutting public lands. He explained the division also had ten honor camps working with inmates from the prison systems.
Mr. Turnipseed said the Nevada Division of Forestry cooperates with county fire districts and volunteer fire departments. He explained the division had an urban and community forester, and the division was part of the Nevada Shade Tree Council. The division was also part of the big tree program, had a statewide nursery program, a seed bank at East Lake, and air operation programs.
Mr. Turnipseed explained the division of wildlife operated under a nine-member commission composed of bureaus of administration, conservation education, fisheries, game, habitat, law enforcement, and wildlife diversity. Mr. Turnipseed pointed out the division was currently working to establish an on-line licensing program.
Mr. Turnipseed said one of the Nevada Division of Wildlife’s continuing issues was the hatchery refurbishment program that was to be funded by a $5 fee addition to the trout stamp.
Mr. Turnipseed explained the sage grouse issue had been getting a lot of attention at this time and the Governor created a Sage Grouse Conservation Team. He said all individual sage grouse plans would soon be combined into a statewide program, which would be the blueprint for keeping sage grouse off the endangered species list.
Mr. Turnipseed stated the NDOW also had a predator management program, which was partly funded by a $3 fee on all game hunting tag applications.
Mr. Turnipseed said there was a boater education program that was required for all boat permit applicants born after a prescribed year. He explained the division was working to provide more boater access to waterways and to arrange rehabilitation to the fire areas.
Mr. Turnipseed explained the number of hunting tags was greatly reduced last year due to the damage to hunting lands incurred during the fire season. Much of the land that was damaged was winter range area for deer.
Mr. Turnipseed stated the division of wildlife’s funding came mostly from fees and grants.
Mr. Turnipseed explained the Division of Environmental Protection had 191 full time employees, plus 3 employees on loan from the federal government. He said the division had 17 budget accounts and 7 executive budget accounts. It consisted of bureaus of air quality, air quality planning, water pollution control, mining regulation and reclamation, waste management, corrective actions and a bureau of federal facilities.
Mr. Turnipseed continued, saying the division of water resources dealt with the appropriation of water and the change applications of appropriated water. He said the division dealt with all the appropriated water in all the state’s rivers and streams with the exceptions of the Colorado, Truckee, Carson and Walker Rivers. He pointed out the division handled a lot of litigation in regard to the State engineer’s office.
Senator Rhoads asked how the Snake River/Owyhee tribal adjudication was coming along. Mr. Turnipseed replied there was still major conflict with the tribe, however, the non-tribal irrigation mapping had been finalized. He said a copy of the settlement with the tribe had gone to the deputy attorney general in Idaho, however, the deputy attorney general had some problems with the settlement. Mr. Turnipseed noted the water resources division was waiting for a meeting with the deputy attorney general in Idaho.
Mr. Turnipseed stated the Nevada Natural Heritage Program is primarily the database for all sensitive, threatened, and endangered species in Nevada. He said the program handled both plants and animals. He noted the program worked extensively with NDOT, with the division of wildlife, with the biodiversity division of the university, and the fish and wildlife service.
Mr. Turnipseed explained the wild horse commission tracked all Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Services activities in regard to the gathering and health of wild horses in the State of Nevada. He explained the commission was involved in the horse adoption program through the Department of Corrections, horse holding facilities and training programs. He noted the State had been gathering more horses than it could get through the adoption program, so the animals were held in various places.
Mr. Turnipseed explained some of these horses come from the burned areas of the range and would be returned to those areas when the range recovered from the fires.
Senator Carlton asked what the funding mix was for employees in the natural resources department. Mr. Turnipseed responded wildlife and environmental protection was almost entirely funded by fees and grants, water resources had 70 General Fund employees, state lands had 18 General Fund employees, conservation districts had 3 General Fund positions, the heritage program was mostly grant funded with 1 General Fund employee, and wildlife personnel were paid by a trust fund. Senator Carlton then asked how many of the vacant positions in his department he had been asked to eliminate. Mr. Turnipseed replied the entire department was down about 30 positions and the entire budget for the department was only about 11 percent General Fund money.
Senator Rhoads adjourned the meeting at 2:31 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Johnnie Lorraine Willis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
DATE: