MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session January 23, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Monday, January 23, 1995, Chairman Lambert presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin, Vice Chairman Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Pete Ernaut Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Wendell P. Williams, excused Mrs. Vivian Freeman, excused GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Steve Teshara, Chairman, Tahoe Truckee Regional Economic Coalition Mr. Jim Baetge, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Ms. Pam Wilcox, Division of State Lands Mr. Joe Johnson, Sierra Club Mr. John Christopherson, Tahoe Basin Forest Health Consensus Group Mr. George Finn Chairman Lambert stated the need for clarifying and approving the Standing Rules of the Committee (Exhibit C). ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO APPROVE THE STANDING RULES. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Speaker Hettrick provided an introduction to three Resolutions to be heard in the meeting. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 1 - Urges Congress to expedite ratification of amendments to Tahoe Regional Planning Compact made by State of California and adopted by Nevada Legislature. Assemblyman Neighbors questioned Mr. Hettrick as to the reason for the hold up on the ratification of A.J.R. 1. Mr. Hettrick was not absolutely sure. The Government simply has not moved. Therefore, the entire Legislature is actively seeking the ratification of A.J.R. 1. Assemblyman Tripple wondered why Federal approval was needed as the resolution has already been approved by the two states involved. Mr. Hettrick stressed the need for government involvement as the two states are under a Federal Compact which requires the amendments be ratified by Congress. Assemblyman Bennett considered the need to contact the entire Western delegation for assistance in ratifying this amendment. Mr. Hettrick indicated that no one has put forth any significant effort in that direction. Assemblyman Ernaut commended Speaker Hettrick on his work towards the passage of this Resolution. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 6 - Supports efforts of the Tahoe Regional Economic Coalition to promote strong economy and enhance quality of life in Lake Tahoe Basin. Mr. Hettrick indicated the need for support of the Tahoe Truckee Regional Economic Coalition especially in the direction of the partnership approach which brings groups together for a greater consensus and agreement on solutions to issues which concern the Coalition. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 7 - Expresses support of Nevada Legislature for mission of Tahoe Basin Forest Health Consensus Group and urges Congress and certain Federal and State agencies to provide assistance in accomplishment of that mission. Mr. Hettrick recognized the controversy over the need to log-off dead trees from the insect infested forest area. The tremendous number of dead trees creates an extremely dangerous and potentially catastrophic fire hazard. Assemblyman Harrington questioned the necessity to remove the dead trees. Mr. Hettrick stated that the trees are stressed due to the 7 « year drought. They are a breeding ground for the parasites that are already plaguing the Tahoe forest area. Although the insects and dead trees are a natural part of the forest cycle, the significant number of both is no longer "natural" and creates a high risk situation for the sizeable population. Chairman Lambert emphasized the potentially disastrous situation created by the dead trees relating the Crystal Peak fire of last year and how swiftly tragic it was in its rapid sweep and devastation of the north Reno area. Mr. Neighbors queried whether it would be economically feasible to spray the beetles in the Tahoe region. Mr. Hettrick indicated the issue would be addressed later by other people testifying on the same issue. Mr. Bennett referred to LCB Bulletin No. 95-10, page 7, Assembly Joint Resolution 2, urging the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) to carry out its current plans, and to page 4 of the same bulletin under the heading Major Planning Requirements and wondered whether the state of Nevada would be subject to California environmental standards rather than those of the federal government. He felt that money issues could become involved to the extent of losing sight of the original goals of the Compact. Mrs. Lambert explained that Mr. Weldon would cover that and more in his report. Mr. Fred Weldon, representative of the Research Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, presented background on the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. Under the U.S. Constitution, the Bi-State Compact must be approved by the two affected states and then ratified by the U.S. Congress. The Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, as a Bi-State Compact, was originally approved by Congress in 1969. The lengthy document was proposed for changes several times and was substantially modified in 1980. A.J.R. 1 condenses subsequent proposals for further modification. The entire document can be found in Nevada Revised Statutes 277.200. Generally speaking, the Bi-State Compact highlights the Tahoe Basin's unique ecological and environmental values while simultaneously speaking of the need to provide opportunities for orderly growth and development. The effort to balance the natural environment and the need for orderly development within the basin are the principal goals of the Bi-State Compact. Mr. Weldon proceeded to cover some of the major elements of the Compact (Exhibit D) Included were Governing Body and Structure and Major Planning- Related requirements. Under the heading Other Specific Provisions, highlights were rules regarding gaming, filing environmental impact statements before embarking on projects, venue for legal actions, financial contributions and the establishment of the Tahoe Transportation District. Regarding Mr. Bennett's inquiry on the environmental standards in the Basin, it was generally accepted that the highest environmental standards from either state would be incorporated into the Compact. The policy statement that the Tahoe Basin is a unique, national treasure reflects the need for the inclusion of environmental impact statements prior to the commencement of projects in the Basin. In Nevada, there is no such requirement. In California they do have such a requirement and the TRPA went with the stricter law. Jim Baetge, Executive Director of the TRPA, further explained the function of the agency. He reiterated the necessity of establishing environmental threshold carrying capacities. By 1987 thresholds were basically finalized and a twenty year planning process began for the TRPA. In 1991 their progress was evaluated and found lacking in certain areas, particularly in the loss of wetlands. As the agency must undergo an evaluation every five years, another review is upcoming and the agency is currently working on obtaining Capital Improvement funds for more rapid progress in those areas that need attention. If progress is not made environmentally, then there will be no development allocated for Basin programs. A proposal for a 20 million dollar bond is on the horizon to address such big money issues as stream environment restoration, wetlands restoration and erosion control. This should be accomplished through the partnership approach, satisfying both environmental and developmental concerns. A lot of support comes from other groups. Project reviews are being sent out to local governments. Permitting, for example, will be turned over to most local governments by the end of May. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether or not California has picked up its financial obligation. Mr. Baetge responded that California has to meet two-thirds of the operating budget and Nevada one-third. California has had trouble meeting their portion of the obligation, however, other contributions are coming in from locations outside the operating area. Therefore, California should be able to meet their financial requirements. Mrs. Segerblom inquired whether both states' approval was needed if something was being done in only one state and Mr. Baetge responded that indeed, all projects had to be approved by the agency. Mr. Bennett asked if there were any safeguards to protect one side or the other from radical legislation. Mr.Baetge re- stated that yes, the safeguards were built into the Compact due to the fact that modification of the Compact could only be accomplished through identical legislation in both states with federal ratification following. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the local governments were lessening the restrictions on permits. Mr. Baetge said no, that in the process of permit review, the permitting jurisdiction imposes the conditions of TRPA as well as those of the city and/or county as a joint permit done under agreement. Mr. Nolan questioned what type of permits were involved in turning over project reviews activities to other entities. Mr. Baetge indicated that all types of permitting were involved, including forest removal and any activity that affects the environment. Mr. Nolan wondered if the joint standards would remain in place when the permitting process was turned over to the local governments. Mr. Baetge said that it happens as a matter of course, as in residential permitting, for example, it has worked well. The cities and counties bring their ordinances in line with the agency's so the codes are the same when the process is over. When the permit is issued, it is the same as the one that would be issued by the TRPA. Permitting fees are collected from all applicants. A portion is kept by TRPA to ensure consistency in the permitting process. Mr. Weldon stressed that all major projects must still be approved by the TRPA Board. Obtaining a permit is a small part of the entire process. Mr. Bennett wanted to be updated on the Santini/Burton program regarding how the projects are financed, specifically the sale of Clark County federal lands. Mr. Weldon said there was a congressional bill passed, put together by Mr. Santini of Nevada and Mr. Burton in California. It originally had a two-fold purpose; one, to find money in the Tahoe Basin to purchase environmentally sensitive property. The other was to allow publicly held property to go into private ownership. The two activities were combined in the Bill to a degree. It was not a straight sell land in Clark County and buy property in Tahoe Basin situation. The money that purchased land comes from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund and it has to be appropriated by Congress every year to keep the program going. The Santini/Burton law says that land will be sold in Clark County to reimburse the federal government for the money that they are spending buying property in Tahoe. Mrs. Lambert opened the public hearing on A.J.R. 1. Mr. Steve Teshara, Executive Director of the Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, spoke concerning the need to attract the attention of Congress this session to expedite the ratification of amendments to the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. He asked the Committee to act favorably on it. George Finn spoke in opposition to A.J.R. 1. He testified that A.J.R 1 was unconstitutional because the TRPA is composed of unelected people passing laws. The residents in the Tahoe Basin did not vote for those on the TRPA governing Board. All Board members are non-residents. He presented a complaint (Exhibit E) served upon the TRPA, which he claims applies to 74% of the people in the Basin. The complaint was filed for declaratory relief, denial of the right to vote and denial of the right to vote for constitutional government and damages. A panel of three judges will ultimately rule on the constitutionality of the complaint. Mr. Ernaut admired Mr. Finn's tenacity as he has never found anyone who was as adamant against the policies of the TRPA. He agreed with many points in Mr. Finn's argument. He pointed out in his joint bill with Assemblyman Knowles that Nevada cannot pass law to bind California and vice-versa. Each assemblyman speaks to his own constituency and state via his own bill. TRPA regulations were passed by both states and therefore are in compliance with federal laws. Mrs. Lambert opened the hearing on A.J.R. 6. Mr. Teshara offered comments and written material in favor of A.J.R. 6 (Exhibit F). This includes the mission statement and 1995 Goals and Action Plan for the Tahoe Truckee Regional Economic Coalition. Hearing closed on A.J.R. 6. Mrs. Lambert opened the hearing on A.J.R. 7. Mr. Weldon provided an introduction to the substance of the Bill and to Mr. John Christopherson, a member of the Tahoe Basin Forest Health Consensus Group (TBFHCG). The widespread tree mortality, fire hazards, water quality and management strategies for these and other problems are some of the major concerns of the group. The group is made up of representatives from land management agencies, regulatory agencies, educational institutions, environmental groups and concerned citizens who would like to see a change effective in respect to the forests. All are aware of the dire problems facing the residents of the Tahoe Basin and the need to forge alliances to correct those problems. The group meets monthly with guest speakers focusing on a variety of topics and issues discussed in the previous months. Committees have been formed to meet more than once a month to take an in-depth look at particular problems and then present their findings at the monthly meetings. They have developed a Basin Strategies Map which identifies the areas for different sources of treatment. The TRPA's code of ordinances will be looked at for recommended changes. As the name indicates, it is a consensus group, involving many different viewpoints and offering creative problem-solving strategies. Mrs. Lambert asked what was the official length of the drought, as reports vary. Mr. Christopherson replied 7 or 7 « years. Mr. Neighbors inquired if the beetles have ever been sprayed in the Tahoe forest area. Mr. Christopherson stated that it has been done, but only on private property in high value trees that homeowners want to protect. It is economically ineffective as a forest-wide strategy. There could be environmental problems with the poison affecting non-target animals and insects as well. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the TRPA has been cooperative with the TBFHCG's programs. Mr. Christopherson indicated that they have been. If changes in goals or policies are needed in the future, there would be no problems in the cooperative arena. Mr. Nolan questioned line 3 of the Bill, regarding the accuracy of the indicated mortality rate of trees in certain areas. The rate varies with each stand of trees so the mortality variance is accurate. Mr. Harrington inquired if the beetle problem was strictly related to the drought. Mr. Christopherson replied that this is part of the normal course of events, but due to the logging and re-growth of trees, along with the suppression of fire in the Sierra Nevada, there are an extraordinary number of trees at the present time. This causes an overpopulation of beetles. When the drought ends, the trees will be better off, but the best solution at this time would be to thin out the trees now to give them the greatest opportunity for survival. Mr. Harrington questioned man's intervention and how it has been detrimental in the past and now that man is intervening once again, will the cycle be repeated? Mr. Christopherson stated the need to intervene will always be there. It is necessary and prudent to try to actively manage the forest given the knowledge we currently have to right the situation. Mr. Ernaut wanted to clarify the reason for many of the problems faced today. Logging and the subsequent re-forestation contribute to the majority of troubles found in the area today. Two out of three trees are dead or dying. A fire in the Tahoe Basin would be catastrophic. Mr. Ernaut felt that "urging" would not be sufficient to effectively get A.J.R. 7 passed. He stressed the immediate need for action on the Bill. Mrs. Lambert agreed by citing the Crystal Peak fire of last year and the terror created by such a disastrous blaze. Pam Wilcox, Administrator of the Division of State Lands, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, spoke in favor of A.J.R. 7. In 1986, the voters approved a 31 million dollar bond act to buy sensitive properties in the Tahoe region and to do erosion control projects. The Division has acquired almost 500 parcels, all residential, scattered throughout the Nevada side of the Basin. There is an ongoing management program, a forester on staff and an ongoing program of tree removal in cooperation with the Division of Forestry. Ms. Wilcox stressed the need for the passage of this Bill as there were over 110 small fires last season and there will be even more next season if the dead trees are not cleared away. Mr. Ernaut inquired if funds were available in the Division of State Lands budget for tree removal. Ms. Wilcox stated that there were some funds available, but the biggest problem with dead trees was on Forest Service land. Mr. Bennett asked if there was a record of the number of man-made versus naturally started fires. The answer was no, there is no distinction made in the record. Mr. Nolan queried as to the immediate preparations being made by other agencies in fire prevention tactics. Ms. Wilcox mentioned a Sierra front firefighting cooperative entity composed of all the firefighting agencies and they are actively preparing to fight fires in the Basin. Mr. Baetge briefly summarized the tree problem. He also pointed out the tremendous effort being put forth by the participating agencies. He noted that there is an ongoing logging project on 6600 acres on the east shore of Lake Tahoe. This is a cooperative venture involving mostly helicopter removal of dead trees. All concerned parties are also looking into ways to continue funding the Forest Service in the tree removal activity. Mr. Ernaut questioned the financing of the east shore project. The project brings in enough money to pay for most of the operation, however, many miscellaneous fees still need to be paid for. Mr. Ernaut suggested contracting the service out to a private company and by-passing the legislature as a funding source. He foresees the public/private partnership as the wave of the future in terms of funding and accomplishing other tangible goals. Mr. Joe Johnson of the Toiyabe chapter of the Sierra Club spoke in favor of A.J.R. 7. Although once opposed to tree removal in the Basin, it has now become imperative in view of the extreme fire danger. Mrs. Lambert closed the hearing on A.J.R. 7. The meeting was adjourned at 10:09 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Denise Sins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs January 23, 1995 Page