MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Natural Resources
Seventy-second Session
April 28, 2003
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Vice Chairman Mike McGinness, at 1:38 p.m., on Monday, April 28, 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 Bob Coffin
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Maggie Carlton
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Roderick (Rod) R. Sherer, Assembly District No. 36
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst
Alice Nevin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tracy Taylor, P.E., Deputy State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Incorporated
Peter D. Krueger, Lobbyist, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association
Lloyd Nelson, Environmental Management Specialist, Chairman, Advisory Committee for the Control of Vehicle Emissions, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter/Sierra Club
Kaitlin A. Backlund, Lobbyist, Nevada Conservation League
Vice Chairman McGinness:
I will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 403.
ASSEMBLY BILL 403 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing forfeiture of certain water rights. (BDR 48-818)
Assemblyman Roderick (Rod) R. Sherer, Assembly District No. 36:
This bill adds to the list of required considerations by the State engineer in determining whether to grant an extension of time to work on the forfeiture of certain water rights. The addition to the list allows the State engineer to grant requests by reason of prolonged periods of below-average precipitation which indicates a deficit of soil moisture in the basin where the water is located. Some of the areas I represent, Pahrump and others, do not have a lot of runoff. There is just precipitation in the groundwater, so this would add an extra area to avoid the forfeiture of our water rights.
Vice Chairman McGinness:
Was there any opposition in the Assembly?
Assemblyman Sherer:
There was no opposition to the bill. The State engineer worked with us to craft some acceptable language. There was one amendment offered to the bill.
Tracy Taylor, P.E., Deputy State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
We have been working together on A.B. 403. We do not have any problems with the bill as written.
Senator Carlton:
What would you consider a prolonged period?
Mr. Taylor:
That is a good question. There are different indexes, but I really do not have a good answer. We currently look to see whether a right has been forfeited and whether there has been a long period without water.
Senator Carlton:
When I read the average for that particular basin, I wondered if there were averages designated in different areas across the State.
Mr. Taylor:
We have information on precipitation in each basin and studies showing the perennial yield in a basin. Past averages help to provide information on perennial yields.
Vice Chairman McGinness:
I will close the hearing on A.B. 403 and open the hearing on A.B. 36.
ASSEMBLY BILL 36 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to control of emissions from engines of certain motor vehicles. (BDR 40-196)
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Incorporated:
The primary purpose of this bill is to eliminate the language that requires us to follow California emissions regulations. One of our problems has been California’s program was much more sophisticated, with more people and money involved. It was virtually impossible for our environmental department to match the mobile-source-emissions regulations. A group of interested industry and State people met over the past 2 years to look at the emissions program and how to improve the regulations without tying them specifically to California’s regulations.
Sections 7 and 11 of the bill strike the language requiring the State to follow the California laws and regulations. It does not mean the State Environmental Commission and the Division of Environmental Protection cannot look at what California is doing; but the way the law was written, it almost tied their hands. There was quite a bit of criticism that we were not keeping up with the regulations.
The new language in A.B. 36 eliminates the problem. It gives the State Environmental Commission and environmental division the flexibility to look at any law and develop our own regulations on mobile-source emissions. The Division of Environmental Protection and the industry/government committee also looked at extending the environmental emissions testing beyond 8500 pounds. Under federal regulations and law, anything over 8500 pounds gross vehicle weight is considered heavy duty. Our laws cover up to 8500 pounds, but there is no regulation governing vehicles from 8500 pounds to 10,000 pounds. That language is found in sections 2 and 8 of the bill.
In section 2, “heavy‑duty motor vehicle” is defined as a vehicle up to 8500 pounds or more, which is in keeping with federal law and regulations. Section 7, subsection 2, of A.B. 36, extends what is currently the smog emission inspection program. It is the on‑highway testing procedure that uses the smoke meter and stack to test the opacity of the smoke. It raises it to 10,001 or more pounds.
New language was added in section 8, the annual inspection program, to fill the gap between 8500-pound vehicles and 10,000-pound vehicles. As you will see, this is for vehicles powered by motor vehicle fuel or special fuel. The difference is now instead of just being gasoline and diesel, motor vehicle fuel is gasoline. It includes all special fuels and alternative fuels, and would require testing for emissions. Lines 17, 18, 19, and 20 on page 3, include all passenger cars, all light-duty motor vehicles up to 8500 pounds, and all heavy-duty motor vehicles not exceeding 10,000 pounds.
On an annual basis for registration purposes, vehicles using either motor vehicle fuel or special fuel would require testing prior to registration. The provision in section 8, subsection 5, beginning on line 35, was one of the amendments added in the Assembly. The State Environmental Commission must look for testing procedures and standards to be adopted, using hearing procedures as outlined in chapter 233B, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act, so everyone has an opportunity to respond to the proposed regulations.
The bill was extensively reviewed in the Assembly. There were a number of iterations resulting in the first reprint of A.B. 36. There was no opposition in the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining, which passed it unanimously; or in the full Assembly, where it passed 42 to 0.
Senator Carlton:
I have been trying to correlate the act portion of the bill with the definition in the bill. It prohibits certain branch offices and agents of the Department of Motor Vehicles from registering certain motor vehicles. What are you trying to do here? Where is this in the bill?
Mr. Capurro:
Section 8 of A.B. 36 says a vehicle must pass inspection before it can be registered. This is the current law for all light-duty motor vehicles.
Senator Carlton:
Are there vehicles not being registered?
Mr. Capurro:
No, vehicles are being registered. The inspection procedure for an annual inspection registration cycle is up to 8500 pounds. This bill would extend it to 10,000 pounds and require vehicles to be cleared, inspected, and receive an emission certificate for registration purposes.
Senator Carlton:
We are including a new section on a vehicle using special fuel. Under the definition of special fuel, it includes an emulsion of water-phased hydrocarbon fuel. Can you explain that?
Mr. Capurro:
You are referring to A-55, a water-based fuel. Under the definition in NRS 366, special fuels include liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural gas (CNG), diesel, A-55, and bio-diesel; any of the alternative-type fuels. The difference is now all alternatively powered vehicles, in these weight categories, would be inspected and certified. Again, it is up to the State Environmental Commission to hold hearings and workshops to determine the procedures and standards.
Senator Carlton:
Are these vehicles used by municipalities and other agencies? Are there fleets of these out there?
Mr. Capurro:
Yes, fleets like Southwest Gas Corporation are required to be certified under the current law, unless they are powered by LPG, CNG, or something exempted under the current law. They would be required to be certified before registration.
Vice Chairman McGinness:
Currently, if I lived in Clark County or Washoe County and had a vehicle that operated on CNG, would I be exempt from the emissions test?
Mr. Capurro:
Yes, your vehicle would be exempt.
Peter D. Krueger, Lobbyist, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association:
I represent the Nevada emission-testers council which is the small emission tester owners’ trade association. We are here in support of the bill. We believe this expands a necessary area of the law to encompass fleet vehicles. This would add fleet vehicles currently exempt from the law because they are over 8500 pounds. We feel this is important. There is one private-sector business in Las Vegas with the equipment to test these vehicles. My members have told me if this bill passes, and the demand is there, the necessary equipment to test the vehicles will be purchased. A private fleet, such as Southwest Gas Corporation or others, could go ahead and buy the equipment if necessary.
The important issue is currently we are not aware of any procedures to test CNG vehicles. The protection for fleets and other types of alternatively powered vehicles means the State Environmental Commission must conduct extensive workshops and public hearings. If there are no procedures, there is no way they will be able to adopt a regulation to include CNG and LPG vehicles. This is not necessarily true of some other alternative fuels. We feel the compromise is fair and would also provide air-quality protection to our two largest counties.
Senator Carlton:
I am a little confused. We are establishing a fee for a new inspection, but this bill does not have the two-thirds notation on it. We are going to inspect vehicles we have not inspected before, and they are going to be required to pay a fee at the inspection station, just like I would if I showed up at a smog station. Why is there no two-thirds notation on this?
Mr. Krueger:
This does not affect public bodies. Only the private sector will be covered; there is no impact on the public sector.
Senator Carlton:
I want to clarify this because when we do bills in the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor, it applies to the private sector. Anytime a fee is increased or a new line-item fee is established, it requires a two-thirds vote.
Mr. Capurro:
I agree with you, but the bill does not include a fee for the inspection procedure. In talking to the Division of Environmental Protection, it is probably going to take time, even up to the next session, to establish the procedures and standards under which some alternative-powered vehicles will be tested. As Mr. Krueger indicated, it may not be possible to test CNG- and LPG-powered vehicles with the same kind of testing done on other vehicles. For purposes of this bill, no fee is attached to the procedures.
Senator Carlton:
Are we giving this test for free?
Mr. Capurro:
I would not anticipate that happening. I would anticipate if there is a need to do anything for vehicles other than under the current testing procedure, a different fee would be established in the next Legislative Session.
Senator Carlton:
I would like to ask our staff to look into this. I know in establishing new line items if you are including a different group of folks, even though the fee amount is not changing, you are putting more people in the pool. In the past it has been required and I would just like to make sure it is clear.
Mr. Capurro:
Section 7 retains the language “powered by diesel or motor vehicle fuel.” It deals strictly with the opacity testing procedure done on heavy-duty vehicles. Currently it is a random test done on highway or in fleet yards using a smoke meter. The procedure calls for depressing the accelerator to the floor on the vehicle to measure the high-end emissions. If it were done with any alternative‑powered vehicle, like a diesel-powered vehicle, the engine would blow; that is why this section is restricted to diesel and motor vehicle fuel. If there is any stream of smoke with motor vehicle fuel, it is a violation of the law.
Vice Chairman McGinness:
How many vehicles are we talking about?
Mr. Krueger:
Mr. Nelson from the Department of Motor Vehicles has the exact numbers.
Lloyd Nelson, Environmental Management Specialist, Chairman, Advisory Committee for the Control of Vehicle Emissions, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles:
I am the emissions control manager with the Department of Motor Vehicles, management services and programs division. I brought some statistics regarding vehicles that would be brought into the program. Currently, on the light-duty diesel vehicles being tested, for calendar year 2002, there were 2626 vehicles tested statewide. There were l960 vehicles in Clark County and 666 vehicles in Washoe County.
Should this regulation or statute be amended to include vehicles up to 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, it would increase the number to approximately 5500 vehicles. There would be 8267 vehicles brought into the emission program for diesel testing in Clark County each year. That is the difference between 8500 to 10,000 pounds. Vehicles up to 8499 pounds are currently being inspected. In Washoe County, it would bring in approximately another 2300 vehicles, for a total of 2909 vehicles to be brought into the diesel inspection program.
Vice Chairman McGinness:
Can you give the Clark County number again?
Mr. Nelson:
Yes, 8267 vehicles.
Vice Chairman McGinness:
We are adding about 10,000 vehicles in those two counties. Is that correct? Or are those totals?
Mr. Nelson:
Those are totals. Currently being inspected are 2626 vehicles and this would bring it to just a little over 11,000 vehicles statewide.
Senator Carlton:
How much does it cost to get the inspection?
Mr. Nelson:
It is based upon a percentage of the labor rate for the light-duty diesel. It is $33 for a light-duty diesel in Washoe County; in Clark County, it is $38, and it includes the $5 certificate fee.
Senator Carlton:
It is a total of $38 for Clark County and a total of $33 for Washoe County. You would add an extra 5500 vehicles to Clark County and an extra 2300 vehicles to Washoe County. Multiplying 7800 vehicles by $33 or $38 would yield the approximate amount of money it would provide.
Mr. Nelson:
That would be correct.
Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter/Sierra Club:
We would like to voice our strong support for this bill, particularly the inclusion of the additional vehicles in the weight class from 8500 to 10,000 pounds. These are vehicles presently exempt from a smog check. If we, as a matter of fairness, smog only those vehicles at 8500 pounds or less, many diesel sports utility vehicles are exempt because they are slightly over 8500 pounds. As a matter of fairness and as an advocate for clean air in the community, it is always difficult to justify giving smog tests without including the diesel vehicles that are presently exempt. They are significant contributors to smog within our area so this is a matter of health for our citizens. We have adopted some regulations in the State Environmental Commission dealing with smog to firm up the requirements for the on-road program that requires heavy-duty vehicles to be tested.
We found in trying to broaden the application of the test program, the California language was exclusionary. We could not adopt the regulations we had promulgated because California did not have those regulations. It was not simply a matter of the California regulations being different from ours. Existing law allows the director to exclude those that may not be relevant to our State; but with the restriction in the language, we could not adopt language to allow a different approach to controlling the smog. That was the reason for the request to remove the California language. We support this bill as presented to you. Although this is not a perfect bill, we strongly support the bill.
Kaitlin A. Backlund, Lobbyist, Nevada Conservation League:
I represent the Nevada Conservation League and I simply want to echo the sentiments expressed by Mr. Johnson and the Sierra Club. We strongly support the bill because it works to increase air quality in both Washoe County and Clark County.
Vice Chairman McGinness:
I will close the hearing on A.B. 36 and welcome Chairman Rhoads to the meeting.
Chairman Rhoads:
I will open the work session with A.B. 82. Committee, please refer to page 1 of the Work Session Document (Exhibit C) for information on this bill.
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)
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 82.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rhoads:
I will open the work session on A.B. 287. There were no amendments proposed and there was no opposition to the bill.
ASSEMBLY BILL 287: Revises provisions relating to transfer, establishment and maintenance of certain parks. (BDR 26-657)
SENATOR CARLTON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 287.
SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rhoads:
I will open the work session 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)
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 301.
SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rhoads:
The meeting is adjourned at 2:11 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Alice Nevin,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
DATE: