SENATE COMMITTEE MINUTES

MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Natural Resources

Seventy-second Session

May 21, 2003

The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 3:12 p.m., on Wednesday, May 21, 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 Lynn C. Hettrick, Assembly District No. 39

Assemblyman Tom Collins, AssemblyDistrict No. 1

Assemblyman Joseph (Joe) Hardy, Assembly District No. 20

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst

Lynn Hendricks, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

David K. Schumann, Lobbyist, Nevada Committee for Full Statehood

John L. Wagner, Lobbyist, Nevada Republican Assembly

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum

Fred Church, Nevada Bowhunters Association

Bill Bradley, Board of Wildlife Commissioners, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Chris MacKenzie, Nevada Wildlife Commission

Larry J. Johnson, Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife

Joel Blakeslee, Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife

Tina Nappe

Gerry Lent, Nevada Hunters’ Association

Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter/Sierra Club

Douglas Ponn, Lobbyist

Don Henderson, Acting Director, State Department of Agriculture

Stephen D. Hartman, Lobbyist, Nevada Land and Resource Company, LLC

Chairman Rhoads:

We will open the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 5.

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 5: Urges Congress to appropriate just compensation to State of Nevada for losses of revenue for public education from impact of land in Nevada held by Federal Government. (BDR R-1070)

Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, Assembly District No. 39:

This resolution is the product of an initiative started in the Council of State Governments-WEST last July, when I was chairman of that body. It has been passed by all 13 of the western states and the Western Governors’ Association. Each of the 13 states is trying to pass this resolution in essentially the same form. I have a printed presentation on the Action Plan for Public Lands and Education (APPLE) (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.).

The federal government holds public lands in the western states. In Nevada, federally owned land accounts for 87 percent of the State. This land is not on the tax rolls. We tax at basically the same rate as any other state, but because we have a limited property tax base we get less funding for public education than states in the east. The estimated loss of revenue comes to $116 million per year in Nevada alone. The resolution asks Congress to make a fair and just adjustment to compensate the State for this inequity.

There is a precedent for this. The National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition is a group similar to APPLE created about 5 years ago to get increased funding as compensation for lost revenues from logging bans. Congress granted their request, and they have been receiving money since then. We need to pass this resolution and support APPLE. I believe it will have an impact and we will get some compensation from this. It may take time, but this is a good start.

David K. Schumann, Lobbyist, Nevada Committee for Full Statehood:

We support this resolution with one modification. Page 56 of the APPLE presentation states the loss of all taxes from the federal ownership of land is $355 million (Exhibit C). The resolution should include this fact and say Nevada is only asking for $116 million. In addition, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is authorized to make federal Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) on some federal lands. The amount allocated by Congress last year was twice the amount the BLM actually turned over to Nevada. This has been the case for years. We ought to direct Nevada’s treasurer to audit what the Congress authorizes for PILT and what the BLM actually pays. If the numbers do not agree, Nevada’s Governor should make a formal complaint to the Secretary of the Interior. I have a related article (Exhibit D).

John L. Wagner, Lobbyist, Nevada Republican Assembly:

We support this resolution. I concur with the testimony of Mr. Hettrick and Mr. Schumann. I think we are being cheated by the federal government. It is time for them to do what is right by us.

Chairman Rhoads:

We pass a resolution every session asking for a fair share on PILT. It has not been increased for a long time, as I recall.

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum:

We support this resolution. The most important thing about the APPLE initiative is its exposure of the economic hardship the federal government places on Nevada. I have a related article (Exhibit E). We fully support the APPLE initiative and have been promoting it throughout the United States.

Chairman Rhoads:

We will close the hearing on A.J.R. 5 and open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 41.

ASSEMBLY BILL 41 (1st Reprint): Converts Division of Wildlife of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources into Department of Wildlife. (BDR 45-14)

Assemblyman Tom Collins, AssemblyDistrict No. 1:

This bill does two things. First, it changes the Division of Wildlife of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources back into the Department of Wildlife. This reverses the consolidation done in the 67th Legislative Session. Second, the bill changes existing language to allow the State commissioner of wildlife to participate in the development of the budget. Current statute authorizes him to “review and comment” on the budget; section 16, subsection 6 of this bill changes that to “review and recommend.” This lets him be more participative in the budget of this primarily self-funded department.

Senator McGinness:

I see the bill has been amended. What was changed?

Mr. Collins:

We changed the language in section 16, subsection 6, on the advice of staff to make it meet the intent.

Fred Church, Nevada Bowhunters Association:

We support this bill.

Bill Bradley, Board of Wildlife Commissioners, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:

We support this bill. Assembly Bill 41 is a companion bill to Senate Bill (S.B.) 420. It is a very important bill to the sportsmen of Nevada, who feel they lost some input into the management of their agency in 1993. This separation has already occurred with the departments of agriculture and minerals. Commissioners and sportsmen both feel wildlife is important enough to the State to be a cabinet‑level position. I have letters from several county advisory boards for the record in support of this bill, including a petition (Exhibit F).

SENATE BILL 420: Makes various changes relating to Division of Wildlife of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. (BDR 45-1254)

Chris MacKenzie, Nevada Wildlife Commission:

This is an important part of the whole package and goes along with the fee increases in S.B. 420.

Chairman Rhoads:

Do most of the other western states divide these departments in this fashion?

Mr. Bradley:

Yes. In fact, in some western states the commission has more authority. We are not interested in pursuing this.

Chairman Rhoads:

I have a letter from Blackrock Outfitters in support of this bill (Exhibit G).

Larry J. Johnson, Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife:

We support this bill. I have written testimony (Exhibit H).

Joel Blakeslee, Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife:

We support this bill.

Tina Nappe:

I am representing myself in this matter. I respectfully disagree with the premise of this bill. Agriculture and mining are different from wildlife in that they are basically private businesses. Wildlife by law is considered a public resource; it lives on public land, and the public invests heavily in wildlife. Under the present system, the director of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources represents the public more than the director or administrator of the proposed Department of Wildlife will. The director of the Department of Wildlife will respond to the commission, which is a user group. The purpose of this move is to privatize Nevada’s public wildlife. Wildlife management has become increasingly complex and requires more money and investment from a greater variety of people. Sportsmen have done a marvelous job in this effort, but if it is not assisted by more money and more people, it will not be successful in the long run. I find it increasingly difficult to swallow the idea that this public resource should be overseen by an agency funded by private users. I am concerned about the commissioner being allowed to review and make recommendations on the use of public monies, as well as on the management of species, and to utilize the county advisory boards, which by law are limited to sportsmen and ranchers. It is clear from the testimony that sportsmen regard wildlife as their privately owned resource.

Gerry Lent, Nevada Hunters’ Association:

We support the bill except for one part. The original intent of section 16, subsection 6, was for the commissioner to approve the budget before it goes to the Governor for final approval. I would like to change line 30 on page 7 to read, “… review and approval before the budget is submitted for final approval to the Governor.” The commissioner is required to review and approve fee increases for tags and licenses, so he should also be authorized to review and approve the budget as a whole. We would also like sportsmen to have a say in the budget. The Washoe County School District had a town meeting and gave the public the chance to say whether they wanted fee increases or program cuts. We would like the commission to give sportsmen the same opportunity for input. Currently the budget is presented as a short 10-minute presentation at a board meeting.

Chairman Rhoads:

Are you saying you want the budget to be worked out by the Department of Wildlife and go straight to the Governor, bypassing the Legislature?

Mr. Lent:

My concern is for the commissioner to approve the budget before it is finalized, and to have public meetings on the department’s budget so sportsmen can have input into it.

Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter/Sierra Club:

We were strongly opposed to the original bill. The provisions we objected to have since been either removed or softened. In 1993, we opposed the change from department to division. In the 8 years since, we feel the agency has functioned very well and do not see any reason to change.

Douglas Ponn, Lobbyist:

I support this bill. I have been a licensed sportsman in Nevada since 1961. The importance of wildlife as a resource is evidenced by the number of citizens who participate in hunting and fishing and other activities administered by the Division of Wildlife. It is consistent with the importance of this resource for the division to be elevated to department.

Chairman Rhoads:

We will close the hearing on A.B. 41 and open the hearing on A.J.R. 6.

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 6 (1st Reprint): Urges Congress to increase payments in lieu of taxes and make certain other reparations for detrimental effects of federally held lands in Nevada. (BDR R-810)

Assemblyman Joseph (Joe) Hardy, Assembly District No. 20:

I have a handout on this resolution (Exhibit I). Assembly Joint Resolution 6 could be considered a companion to A.J.R. 5. It strengthens the resolution and lets the federal government know we are interested in increasing our PILT.

When Nevada became a state, it was granted two sections of land in each township to fund public schools. The location of these two sections of land were arbitrarily decided, and many of them were in uninhabitable locations such as salt flats or steep mountainsides that generated little or no income. In 1880, 3.9 million acres were exchanged for 2 million acres of more usable land. Since states admitted to the union after Nevada received four sections of land per township to fund education, Nevada has a disproportionately small amount of land to be used for this purpose.

This resolution supports the concept of the APPLE initiative and asks that PILT payments, which were put into law but not fully funded, be increased. In addition, it asks for land and/or water to make up for the land taken or made unusable by the Nevada Test Site and the buffer zone around it. This is about 5400 square miles of land. With 300 million curies of radiation underground, this land and the water under it are completely unusable. Under Nevada’s tax structure, we get back 76 cents on the dollar from the federal government. New Mexico gets back $2.08 for every dollar. Nevada is 47th in the nation on this.

Chairman Rhoads:

Were you around when the Sagebrush Rebellion was passed?

Dr. Hardy:

I was born and raised in Nevada, but I am not sure the Sagebrush Rebellion has ever finished.

Mr. Schumann:

We support this resolution but would like to see it strengthened. I recommend we ask for land only rather than compensation and therefore delete lines 12 through 18 on page 5. The federal government has a poor record in this area. The Congress allocates money, but somewhere along the chain it gets used for other things by the BLM and does not actually reach the State. I would like to add a paragraph (c) following line 39 on page 4, to the effect that the U.S. Treasury should report to the State every year the amount of money appropriated by the Congress to be sent to Nevada and the amount actually received by Nevada. There needs to be some record of the discrepancy.

Ms. Hansen:

We support this resolution. There is information on this matter in the material I supplied (Exhibit E).

Mr. Wagner:

We support this resolution.

Chairman Rhoads:

Every session we send a resolution to Washington, D.C., regarding PILT. This resolution is very well constructed and has a little more meat to it than most, so perhaps we will finally get some action on this matter. We will close the hearing on A.J.R. 6 and open the hearing on A.B. 130.

ASSEMBLY BILL 130 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to State Department of Agriculture. (BDR 50-569)

Don Henderson, Acting Director, State Department of Agriculture:

This is a small but important bill for the State Department of Agriculture. Current statute allows the department to charge individuals and businesses for our services. When the public is the primary beneficiary, the service is funded by the General Fund. Because the enabling statutes are very specific, we have not been able to charge for several services provided to individuals or businesses. Examples include Certificates of Free Sale, Certificates of Veterinary Inspection, Certificates of Origin, Field Inspection Reports, and Christmas Tree Inspection Reports. These reports and certificates are a benefit to the grower or seller in that they add value to their product. Sections 1 and 2 of the bill give the department authority to charge administrative fees for services rendered. Per Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 561.105, actual fee amounts will be set by public regulation adopted by the State Board of Agriculture.

This bill was amended by the Assembly to include needed refinements to Nevada’s medical marijuana program. These changes were suggested by the department’s experience administering the program over the last 18 months. Proposed changes include adding osteopathic physicians to the program in sections 3, 5, 6, and 7 of the bill, and fee authority to recover expenses in section 8.

Chairman Rhoads:

Did you say the department does not currently have authority to charge for livestock inspection?

Mr. Henderson:

We can charge for the Certificate of Livestock Health. We cannot charge for the Certificate of Veterinary Inspection, used by veterinaries in other states to report the health of livestock shipped to Nevada.

Chairman Rhoads:

Is that a federal requirement?

Mr. Henderson:

I believe it is a State requirement. There may be federal guidelines. The process could be improved with an increase in funding.

Chairman Rhoads:

Do you know any more about the outbreak of mad cow disease in Canada than we have heard in the news lately?

Mr. Henderson:

No. I can have the State veterinarian give you details.

Senator McGinness:

Where is the provision about Christmas tree inspections?

Mr. Henderson:

It is covered by sections 1 and 2, which give us broad authority to charge a fee to cover costs of any service, product, or publication, pursuant to Titles 49, 50, and 51 of NRS. Truckloads of Christmas trees are inspected to make sure they are free of sudden oak disease, which can be transported by conifers and is very damaging to broadleaf trees and other crops in Nevada. This certificate covers commercial dealers only.

Senator Coffin:

Can sudden oak disease thrive in all climates?

Mr. Henderson:

My understanding is it can survive a pretty broad amplitude. It is a concern here in Nevada, both north and south. I do not know if it can thrive in other parts of the nation. We have some federal grant monies to help us look into it. We are watching very closely for the introduction of this disease.

Senator Coffin:

Has it been detected in Nevada yet?

Mr. Henderson:

I think there was an incident a couple of years ago, but it has been cleared up. We are in a watch mode at this point.

Senator Carlton:

Could you give me an idea of what type of publications you are talking about and what the costs might be? I would hate to see us charge for information someone might need.

Mr. Henderson:

The information we publish for the general public would not be affected by this. It is not our intent to charge for such things as nursery requirements. The intent is to charge for those services benefiting private businessmen and individuals and the business sector. The publications referred to are certificates and inspection reports.

Chairman Rhoads:

We will close the hearing on A.B. 130 and open the work session on Senate Joint Resolution (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)

Chairman Rhoads:

I feel confident the public lands committee will be exploring this possibility at almost every meeting in the future. This should give more than adequate opportunity for public input. Too much government involvement will slow down the process considerably.

Ms. Nappe:

I sent an e-mail on this topic (Exhibit J). I would be concerned if the map presented at the hearing on S.J.R. 10 on May 19, 2003, was to be included with the resolution. If the map goes with the resolution to Congress, it will be difficult for the public to have any input on it at that point. The resolution as currently worded is extremely exclusive. I serve on a board that should have been notified of the resolution and was not. There has been no real broad public involvement at this point.

Stephen D. Hartman, Lobbyist, Nevada Land and Resource Company, LLC:

The map is not part of the resolution. It is part of the work in progress in Pershing County.

Chairman Rhoads:

We will close the work session on S.J.R. 10.

SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 10.

SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.