MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Natural Resources
Seventy-second Session
April 23, 2003
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 1:38 p.m., on Wednesday, April 23, 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 Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Maggie Carlton
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Bob Coffin (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, Assembly District No. 42
Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst
Alice Nevin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Patrick T.C. Smith, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Steve Weaver, Chief of Planning and Development, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Edwin D. James, General Manager, Carson Water Subconservancy District
Steve K. Walker, Lobbyist, Truckee Meadows Water Authority
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Terry R. Crawforth, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Chairman Rhoads:
I will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 287.
ASSEMBLY BILL 287: Revises provisions relating to transfer, establishment and maintenance of certain parks. (BDR 26-657)
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, Assembly District No. 42:
Assembly Bill 287 says if the State divests itself of a park and turns it over to a local government, the local government will essentially treat it the way it has been treated. They will preserve historical and cultural effects in the park, they will not sell the water rights, and they will maintain the park the way it was when it was under State management. If they do not, the park would revert back to the State.
The genesis of this is the Floyd Lamb State Park in Las Vegas. The State decided it wanted to divest itself and turn over the park to the City of Las Vegas. If you look back at the history of the park, the city owned the park in the 1950s and there were attempts by developers to buy portions of it to use for condominiums or other development projects. Fortunately, there was an uprising by the citizens and this did not occur.
We hope, with the passage of this bill, something like that will not happen again. At least in the south, parks are treasured because we are way behind the number of acres per thousand people. It is something like two acres per person where the national average is about ten acres per person. The local governments are 50 percent behind in terms of park acres. Others will testify on this bill. The bill passed through the Assembly with a 42 to 0 vote.
Chairman Rhoads:
The amazing thing is with the increase in population in Nevada the last 10 years, our park attendance has gone down drastically. I guess there are too many things to do in the big cities and people do not get out to the parks anymore.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
I believe this park has the third highest attendance in southern Nevada.
Senator Carlton:
How does this bill compare to the Senate Bill (S.B.) 444 which passed out of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs? I know it was specifically aimed at the Floyd Lamb State Park. Are the two bills similar or would this bill address all State parks?
SENATE BILL 444: Authorizes transfer of certain real property owned by State of Nevada to City of Las Vegas. (BDR S-517)
Assemblyman Mortenson:
I have limited knowledge of S.B. 444. I will be waiting for it to arrive in the Assembly.
Chairman Rhoads:
We will have staff make a comparison of the two bills.
Patrick T.C. Smith, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas:
We are here in support of the bill. We recognize the cultural and historical value of the park and we welcome continued talks with the Division of Parks on acquisition, or at least a partnership, for the Floyd Lamb State Park.
Steve Weaver, Chief of Planning and Development, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
I want to express the division’s support of A.B. 287. This bill does apply to all State parks. The Nevada Revised Statutes allow the administrator of the Division of State Parks to enter into agreements with other governmental agencies to operate State parks. We have a number of such agreements; for example, the Lahontan Reservoir and the Rye Patch Reservoir. Both have long‑term U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation leases. We also have other similar leases and agreements. This bill will give the Division of Parks added flexibility. It will allow other governmental entities to operate parks and park facilities owned by the State. We think it is a good bill because of the flexibility it will provide.
Chairman Rhoads:
Why do you want to get rid of Floyd Lamb State Park?
Mr. Weaver:
There is no guarantee we will transfer Floyd Lamb State Park. Both S.B. 444 and A.B. 287 allow the transfer of the property, fee simple, or to work out an agreement. I do not think anyone has a preconceived notion of exactly what the final result will be. The State may maintain ownership of the Floyd Lamb State Park, and the city will assume responsibilities, or it could be transferred. The decision has not been made at this time. Both bills allow the flexibility.
Chairman Rhoads:
I will close the hearing on A.B. 287 and open the hearing on A.B. 82.
ASSEMBLY BILL 82: Extends date of expiration of Newlands Project Water Rights Fund and related program for acquisition of certain surface water rights. (BDR S-346)
Assemblyman Mortenson:
Assembly Bill 82 is a wetlands bill which allows for an extension of the date of expiration of the wetlands-project, water-rights fund and a related program established by the Carson Water Subconservancy District for the acquisition of certain surface water rights.
Edwin D. James, General Manager, Carson Water Subconservancy District:
I would like to present “AB82 Newlands Water Rights Purchase Program Extension, Program Start-up Timeline” (Exhibit C). The good news about this bill is we are not asking for money, we are just asking for time. To give a little background on the original bill, the purpose of the bill was to try to purchase water rights that have been caught in litigation for years and years. These are the water rights people own, but because of litigation, they have not been able to receive water from the Newlands Project Water Rights Fund.
This program was to purchase those water rights and then to retire the water rights. The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians would then remove litigation on the remaining water rights in the Newlands Project Water Rights Fund. This will allow those who want to farm to be able to farm and stop trying to be their own attorneys to fight litigation.
The original bill was set to expire in June 2004. However, the Bureau of Reclamation was providing major funding. When the bill was approved, they realized they had to do an environmental assessment before any funds could be made available. My board thought it was not useful to go ahead with the program until those funds were available. They thought, if for whatever reason, the federal funds did not become available, the whole project would not be successful since the majority of the funds were coming from the federal government.
Chairman Rhoads:
Are you talking about the $3.3 million in the Newlands Project Water Rights Fund?
Mr. James:
Actually the $3.3 million came from the State and $9 million is coming from the federal government. We have gotten about $2.7 million of the federal funds and we have already expended those funds.
Chairman Rhoads:
Do you get a certain amount every year?
Mr. James:
It is based on demand. The program started off a little slower than we thought, so we actually have more funds available than the demand for funds. The funds are there and ready to go as soon as people are interested in selling.
Chairman Rhoads:
What can the funds be used for? Can the funds be used to buy someone else’s water rights?
Mr. James:
These funds are strictly to purchase water rights in the Newlands Project Water Rights Fund. We do not buy any land, just the water rights. If we buy water rights that are unchallenged, and they are active water rights, we match them with water rights that are challenged. Again, the purpose is not to buy any active water rights, it is just to buy water that cannot be delivered at this point.
Chairman Rhoads:
Does it have to be a net drainage?
Mr. James:
Yes. It has to be in the Newlands Project in the Truckee division or the Carson division.
Chairman Rhoads:
What is an acre-foot of water worth?
Mr. James:
The way our program works, we are purchasing per acre. In the Carson division, we currently pay $1600 an acre; in the Truckee division, we pay $3200 an acre. Over the last several years, the cost has gone up significantly on the Truckee division because there has been more demand, but everyone is buying active water. No one is buying inactive water.
Chairman Rhoads:
So you measure it by the acre, not by the acre-foot? You are priced per acre?
Mr. James:
Correct. Some lands have 4.5 acre-feet per acre and some are 3.5, depending on where it is located. Yes, it is priced per acre.
Senator McGinness:
Mr. James, what is your goal on the number of acres?
Mr. James:
The goal is to purchase 6500 acres, and we have currently purchased about 1800 acres.
Senator McGinness:
Will the money match the program?
Mr. James:
With the 2-year extension, it should match the program. We cannot earn any interest on the federal funds, but the State funds were given to us up front to invest. What we have done is put the money into the public investment pool to earn interest. The only funds we have been expending are the federal funds. We are trying to earn as much interest as possible on those State funds. Depending on the water rights we buy in the Truckee division, we might be short of funds; but if we buy most of our water rights in the Carson division, we should be okay.
I have a proposed budget if you want to see the details (Exhibit D). We anticipate by going to 2006, the State’s obligation of $4 million will be met due to the interest we are earning. We were given $3.3 million; we have the right to spend up to $1.6 million the first 2 years, and we have not spent that amount. We have about $3.6 million earmarked which is invested and accruing interest. Again, as soon as the program is completed, if we do not get the 6500 acres, we would be required to do an accounting. The federal government would be upset if we spent all of their money and no one else’s money. The goal is to maximize the revenue we have on hand.
Senator McGinness:
Has the tribe released any of their protests, or is it going to be an all-or-nothing situation at the end?
Mr. James:
What is nice with our program, anyone who participates today gets out of litigation today. The tribe has released and we have purchased quite a bit. We were surprised people were offering us 0.1 acre, 0.4 acre, many small bits of property. That is why it is taking so long. The tribe relieves anyone who participates in the program from litigation of that portion.
Chairman Rhoads:
Are you buying just in one county? You are taking the water right then and taking it to Lahontan Reservoir, is that right?
Mr. James:
It is in Churchill County and Lyon County. No, what we do is totally retire this, so the water is not called on. What happened was the tribe protested all of these water-right transfers in petition cases. Their concern was this water right, if it was reactivated, would divert more water out of the Truckee River. So, this water has not been used for many years.
Our goal is to go ahead and just retire this to get it off the record, so the tribe knows this water will not be reactivated in the future. Everyone who was a signatory of the original bill is in support of this date extension.
Steve K. Walker, Lobbyist, Truckee Meadows Water Authority:
The Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA) is a signatory and financial contributor on this legislation. The bill was originally called A.B. No. 380 of the 70th Session. It was a very significant piece of legislation then because “strange bedfellows” made the deal. We would be very supportive of extending the date to try to finalize a deal that was somewhat historic in 1999.
Chairman Rhoads:
Where did this money come from originally? Did it come from Ballot Question 1?
Mr. Walker:
The contribution from TMWA, the water company formerly owned by the Sierra Pacific Power Company, was about $1.2 million. When a developer buys a Truckee River water right in the Truckee Meadows, they contribute a portion of the money to this program.
Mr. James:
Actually, it was $2.5 million.
Chairman Rhoads:
The money was generated over what period of time?
Mr. James:
Again, everyone but the State is paying as they go. The State was the only one that provided funds up front. Sierra Pacific Power Company sends a monthly check, depending on how many people sign up for hookups; they write two checks, one to TMWA and they send a check to us. We get anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 per month.
Chairman Rhoads:
If there are no further questions or comments, I will close the hearing on A.B. 82 and reopen the hearing on A.B. 287.
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
Assembly Bill 287 concerns my agency. After Mr. Weaver’s testimony, I wanted to make sure everything was clear to the committee.
This bill does not authorize the transfer of any State land. It protects State park lands by putting conditions on them. Should the park lands be transferred, their transfer would have to be authorized by due process of law. In order to transfer any State park lands, I would need the approval of either the board of examiners or the Interim Finance Committee for a fair-market-value transfer. If it was a below fair-market-value transfer, I would need another act of the Legislature.
This bill imposes some protections in case any future transfer of land is authorized, but it does not authorize the transfer of any land. The other bill, S.B. 444, is a bill to actually authorize the return of Floyd Lamb State Park to the City of Las Vegas. They gave us the park many years ago when they were poor and we were rich by comparison. Now the shoe is on the other foot and more than 90 percent of the visitation to the park is local. Since it is substantially a local park, there have been discussions with the City of Las Vegas to return the park to them. Again, S.B. 444 does authorize the transfer of the property, and A.B. 287 does not authorize the transfer of any land.
Chairman Rhoads:
We will close the hearing again on A.B. 287 and open the hearing on A.B. 301.
ASSEMBLY BILL 301 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions concerning compensation from Board of Wildlife Commissioners for damage to certain property or land caused by certain animals. (BDR 45-883)
Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33:
I am here today to present A.B. 301. This bill would allow money from the compensation tag fund, the elk fund, to be used for repair of not only fences on private land, but fences on public land as well. The bill would also allow this money to be used for fencing of waters damaged by elk, with the provision there would have to be water provided outside the fence. Anyone with an interest in the water would be involved and a cooperative agreement would be entered into with all parties.
The reason for this bill is we are establishing the elk management areas. Some landowners are concerned about what might happen with the introduction of elk. I think being able to use the funds to repair fences on private and public lands, as well as fencing the waters, would give them a greater comfort level.
We had a situation in Elko County last fall where the elks got in and tore down a fence. The wildlife division was unsure whether the funds could be used to repair the fences around the water hole.
Chairman Rhoads:
So A.B. 301 just expands the use of the funds that are already in place? Is there quite a bit of money?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Compared to the money being taken in, very little is being spent. Some alfalfa fields have been fenced, and things like that, but this would expand the use of the money to make sure it can be used to fence those areas.
Terry R. Crawforth, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
We appreciate working with Assemblyman Carpenter to resolve this issue. We are supportive of A.B. 301 as amended, but I have one comment. I do not think it is a problem and I have not looked at the other parts of the statute, but in section 1, line 9, the bill reprint says “where there has been damage to the area near such sources …” The words “by elk” are not there. That would be my only concern and maybe it is not a problem, but I believe it is the intent.
Concerning the money in the fund, there is an additional $5 fee on the application for everyone who applies for elk tags in the State. We have about 15,000 applications these days; the fund, I am sorry I cannot tell you what is in it right now, I think it is about $325,000, but it may be more than that.
Chairman Rhoads:
How much have you spent?
Mr. Crawforth:
We have spent more than that amount. Maybe every 2 years out of 3, we spend about $75,000 on exclusionary fencing. On average we spend about $15,000 on damage payments each year. We try to keep several hundred thousand dollars in the fund in case we have a catastrophic winter where the elk have descended upon someone’s property and we need to deal with the problem.
Chairman Rhoads:
Do that many people apply for reimbursements?
Mr. Crawforth:
Not very many people, but we have one or two chronic problems. We pay the landowner’s damages until we can get the fence repaired. People have dropped out of the compensation program recently because they are interested in the elk incentive tag program where they get more compensation.
Chairman Rhoads:
How does it work? You have to allow people to go on your private land, to have access to it? Is that it?
Mr. Crawforth:
No, the incentive program within the elk management unit has a formula based on the number of acres in private land, the number of elk in the area, and the status of the elk population. If the elk usage on your property goes up, you would get more tags; if the elk population drops or if they leave your area, you would get fewer tags.
Chairman Rhoads:
Is the program popular?
Mr. Crawforth:
It is becoming more popular. Between the two of them, it provides us with the tools to address concerns, depending on the individual landowner’s situation.
Chairman Rhoads:
Is the deer and antelope program going pretty well?
Mr. Crawforth:
I think it is going very well.
Chairman Rhoads:
I will close the hearing on A.B. 301 and open the work session. The first bill is A.B. 74.
ASSEMBLY BILL 74: Provides for revolving fund to finance remediation of brownfield sites. (BDR 40-518)
SENATOR CARLTON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 74.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.(SENATORS AMODEI AND COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rhoads:
I will open the work session on A.B. 75.
ASSEMBLY BILL 75 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing certification of organic agricultural products. (BDR 51-566)
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 75.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.(SENATORS AMODEI AND COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rhoads:
I will open the work session on A.B. 193.
ASSEMBLY BILL 193 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing commercial fertilizers and agricultural minerals. (BDR 51-567)
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 193.
SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.(SENATORS AMODEI AND COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rhoads:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Alice Nevin,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
DATE: