MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 10, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, May 10, 1995, Chairman Bache 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 Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Seale, State Treasurer; Pat Mulroy, Southern Nevada Water Authority; Gerald A. Lopez, Attorney General's Office, Colorado River Commission; Janet F. Rogers, Colorado River Commission; Richard Wimmer, Southern Nevada Water Authority; Bob Crowell, Dave Donnelly ASSEMBLY BILL 519 - Makes various changes relating to Colorado River commission. (BDR 48-2002) ASSEMBLY BILL 542 - Makes various changes relating to Colorado River commission. (BDR 48-963) Janet Rogers, Chairman of the Colorado River Commission, spoke on both bills. She presented prepared testimony to the committee (Exhibit C). Mrs. Rogers stated A.B. 542 was an agency bill requested by the Colorado River Commission and jointly prepared by the Colorado River Commission (CRC) and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). The Commission and the Water Authority worked closely together for many months to complete the bill draft before it went to the Legislative Counsel Bureau. A.B. 542 as presented today was the consensus bill arrived at by the two groups. Mrs. Rogers referred to A.B. 519 and stated it had been the first draft or rough copy of the proposed measure that was presented to LCB to work out the corrections and adjustments both the CRC and the SNWA could agree on. Unfortunately, it was this rough draft that was introduced as A.B. 519. Because that bill contains errors and discrepancies, both the Commission and the Water Authority respectfully requested the indefinite postponement of A.B. 519. Happily, she said, the corrected, final version of the consensus bill was A.B. 542 and they were grateful to Assemblyman Ernaut and the committee for that. She reiterated A.B. 542 was the bill both groups wanted the committee to consider today. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 519. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 519. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bache opened the hearing on A.B. 542. Janet Rogers explained the bill. She finished reading from her prepared testimony and covered the details of the entire bill (Exhibit C). Mrs. Rogers also provided a summary of the bill relating the main points: 1. It transfers the Southern Nevada Water System to the Southern Nevada Water Authority; 2. It expands the Commission's water-related activities and provides a mechanism for funding those activities; 3. It specifies certain powers that will better enable the Commission to carry out its functions and duties; 4. It establishes a framework for a partnership between the Commission and the Water Authority and other water purveyors for the acquisition of supplemental Colorado River water supplies for southern Nevada. Mrs. Rogers indicated some very minor, technical amendments to the bill and said those amendments only related to refunding issues and did not affect any of the major provisions of the bill. She told the committee Mr. Wimmer of SNWA would explain the amendments following her testimony. Mrs. Rogers thanked the committee for their consideration. Bob Seale, State Treasurer, offered some comments on the bond issues related to A.B. 542. He addressed the part of the bill that affected the Treasurer's Office. Page three of the bill, paragraph six, would enable the Treasurer to transfer all assets and liabilities from the Colorado River Commission to the Southern Nevada Water Authority. Assets and liabilities are the bonds that are currently issued by the CRC and the proceeds from the bond sale that was done in October. Mr. Seale had no problems with this provision and understood that an actual transfer of liability on those bonds the state has already issued; the authority will take over the responsibility of making the payment to the Treasurer through the debt service fund. He will then continue to make the debt payments. He said that was a transparent kind of transaction that caused no trouble. Mr. Seale mentioned there were three options in dealing with the bond proceeds, totaling in the neighborhood of $155 million dollars. The first option was a draw down schedule that was worked out some months ago and the portfolio in which Mr. Seale had invested has those draw downs in mind and is already planned. That can be continued. Secondly, the proceeds could be converted to cash which could be turned over to them in 1996 to invest on their own. The third method would be to transfer the specific instruments that have been invested in the portfolio. He did not think that was a particularly good option, but it was a possibility. Each of the options had been discussed and it was agreed upon to facilitate the transfer of funds in a way that does not disrupt the portfolio or injure either party. Assemblyman Harrington asked Mr. Seale if he had seen the proposed amendments and if he was comfortable with them. Mr. Seale said he had seen the amendments and was content with them. Assemblyman Nolan asked Mrs. Rogers to refer to section six and questioned the interest of the water district in assuming operation of ..."a facility for the storage or conveyance of water and a facility for the generation or transmission of electricity." He wanted to know if that meant they would be able to wheel electricity. Mrs. Rogers replied it gave them the flexibility to deal with electrical issues but not to wheel electricity. That could not be done without Legislative direction. Mr. Nolan understood the retail wheeling debate was ongoing and that would provide them the opportunity to enter the market as an electrical retailer. Mrs. Rogers felt it would not be necessary to amend the statutory authorization, were retail wheeling to become a reality. She thought that matter was under study. Mr. Bob Crowell, member of CRC, stated the language in section six subsection three was not broad enough to encompass the concept of retail wheeling unless that was adopted by the Legislature. The language was intended, in Mr. Crowell's opinion, to allow the acquisition of facilities, not necessarily the retail wheeling of that asset. Assemblyman Neighbors questioned whether Mr. Crowell was the rural representative for his committee. Mr. Crowell replied in the affirmative. Mr. Neighbors questioned page nine, section two, "...provisions of this subsection do not apply to supplemental water" and wondered why that was not included. Mr. Crowell requested the Deputy Attorney General to answer that question. Mr. Gerald Lopez, Deputy Attorney General for the CRC, stated they have entered into contracts over the years with water customers and have put these contracts into place following the procedure in the section of the bill being questioned. As to supplemental water, they would not go through the process of a customer coming to the CRC and applying for the water and the CRC deciding whether that customer would get the water or not, using the parameters in NRS 533.370 to make that decision. Mr. Lopez said together, the CRC and the water purveyor, are going out and seeking the water supply. Together, they would be entering into agreements with those water suppliers. The parameters in NRS 533.370 would not apply in that instance. They would be going together to seek that water supply, customers would not be coming to CRC to ask for it. That would be the major difference and the reason supplemental water was split off from the other procedure. NRS 538.171 represents a procedure for acquiring water from the CRC that they already have. Supplemental water has to be sought out. Mr. Neighbors had a lot of problems with that provision. He asked Mr. Lopez how it would affect the other 145 applications in the rural areas. Pat Mulroy, General Manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, indicated this did not apply to Nevada ground water. Anything that pertains to Nevada ground water is still subject to Nevada water law as handled by the State Engineer. This would only apply to the Colorado River. Mr. Neighbors said regardless of that, he still had a lot of problems with that. Mrs. Mulroy reiterated the water was not Nevada's water. Any supplemental water referred to would be Arizona's, California's or some other states' water. She told Mr. Neighbors the state of Nevada had an allocation of 300,000 acre feet from the CRC; that water has been given away. The pool of water the state of Nevada can claim as its own is gone. Any water from here on out is water that somebody else feels custodial ownership of. The laws of other state's would be applicable, not Nevada's. Mr. Lopez said looking at the three elements of criteria in NRS 533.370, one element would be water availability for appropriation in Nevada. Another consideration would be is someone in Nevada going to be hurt by that appropriation of water. The third parameter would be is it in the public interest of the state. The CRC would determine those types of things. The first two items in NRS 533.370 have no relevance at all and the third parameter would be covered by Nevada's presence in supplemental water transactions. Mr. Neighbors mentioned he would support any effort to get more water from the Colorado River. He asked Mr. Crowell as rural representative if he was comfortable with that provision. Mr. Crowell made it clear that the provision was not intended to or did not affect state water law as it applies to other counties or the state of Nevada. If it did, he would not be testifying today. He was comfortable as there was no injustice to any other county and no detriment or detraction to anyone's rights. He noted the term purveyor, and stressed the definition thereof was another protection. Assemblyman Lambert questioned the definition of supplemental on page seven and said it could be read that water could be traded from Nevada to another state in exchange for a larger portion of water from the Colorado River. She felt that language allowed that interpretation to be made. She wondered if line 22 could be amended to indicate supplemental water meant from any source outside Nevada. Mrs. Rogers mentioned a problem involving the determination of how water from the Virgin River was going to be used and whether that water was in Utah or in Nevada. She said it would be detrimental to Nevada to limit supplemental water to supplies outside the state, especially in determining the pending issue of the Virgin River water. Mrs. Rogers said they were desperately looking for water from somewhere else. They were seeking other Colorado River allocations that were not being used and could be returned to the Colorado River. The CRC only has authority over the Colorado River. Mr. Lopez added they were trying to wheel Virgin River water through the Colorado River. If they were going to do that, they would need to enter into arrangements of some sort with the other states. The language in this bill was designed to ensure the state of Nevada, through the CRC, would participate in those arrangements. Mr. Nolan questioned some of the pumping aspects of the water in southern Nevada. He mentioned there was a need for a new pumping system in the valley because the one current system has problems. He said the price tag for the new system was one billion dollars. Mr. Nolan questioned if that was one of the projects in the works and how would the public approve of that expenditure? Mrs. Rogers said what was in the works right now was a new improvement project being constructed by the CRC pursuant to bonding that they have already received. In the meantime, the SNWA and the integrated research project are contemplating the necessity of expanding the treatment facilities or building new ones. Mrs. Mulroy would discuss that further in her testimony. If the transfer of the SNWA is approved, the importance of the bill would entail the orderly transition and integration of the organizations so the whole system runs smoothly. That was why they felt the pipes and pumps should be managed by one entity. They realized the CRC needs to be doing a lot of other things like dealing with environmental issues, water management issues, hydro-power and power- marketing administration issues. That was essentially what prompted the transfer of duties to SNWA from CRC. Mr. Bennett went back to the supplemental water issue. He asked if there were any possible future wheeling agreements that might be reached and would that include the 174,000 acre return flow. Mr. Crowell said Mr. Bennett was correct except for the 174,000 return flow credit. He mentioned that was already calculated into the 300,000 consumptive use figure now in place. Assemblyman Segerblom asked if the Virgin River dispute had been settled; was it Nevada's or Utah's? Mrs. Rogers said for the record, its ours! She told the committee they were still working on that. She referred to the seven-ten process which involved consulting with seven states and ten tribes to secure additional water for Nevada. The attempt to obtain Virgin River water was part of that process. They want to get water from the spring thaw on the Virgin River and wheel it into the Colorado River. They do not want to put the death knell on that deal by acknowledging they do not have rights to that water. Mr. Neighbors wanted to know if Mrs. Rogers would have a problem defining supplemental water as that other than Nevada water. Mrs. Rogers pointed out the Virgin River problem. If Nevada wants to claim some of the water from the Virgin River they cannot exclude the state from being a source of supplemental water. She suggested the exclusion of ground water from the bill to ensure Nevada's ground water would not be at risk for loss. Assemblyman de Braga told Mrs. Rogers she was being flippant about the Virgin River water issue. She said surface water users were the ones who would be affected and questioned what kind of protection there was for people who use the Virgin River to make a living. Mrs. Rogers apologized if she appeared to be flippant because she definitely was not. She said the Virgin River water now under negotiation was the bubble that was not being used by anyone. Utah cannot divert that water because they have no place to store it. The water that comes down in the spring amounts to about 100,000-200,000 acre feet of water no one is able to harness. The CRC has approached Utah to store that water in Lake Mead to be stored for Nevada's use. Mrs. de Braga asked where the water went now. Mrs. Rogers replied it goes to Mexico. Pat Mulroy, SNWA, said the simplest protection for the current users of Virgin River water was already in place; they all live upstream. The users have the first access to any water in the river before it goes downstream for use by others. The water we would get would be leftover after their needs were met. Mrs. de Braga reiterated this would have no affect on upstream use. There was no way, Mrs. Mulroy emphasized. They could affect us by damming the waters upstream, but downstream users could in no way be a detriment to those who lived upstream. "What is a bubble?", Assemblyman Freeman asked. A bubble was a descriptive term, Mrs. Rogers pointed out. She said the snow melts and the water comes down and joins the river; it is not part of the steady flow. Mrs. Freeman remarked those of us from the north feel very protective of water in the northern part of the state. She related a trip to southern Nevada and a plan to pipe water from the Columbia River for Las Vegas' use. Mrs. Freeman said she was a bit suspicious and would ask a lot of questions regarding these water issues and the intention for the northern part of the state. Mrs. Lambert questioned if the state engineer was adjudicating the Virgin River now. Mrs. Mulroy said it was done. The state engineer has awarded the SNWA up to 100,000 acre feet of Virgin River water, she stated. Mr. Bennett mentioned the Virgin River only flows through Nevada in Clark County. He wanted to add some verbiage to line 26 on page 9 saying supplemental surface water to clear up the definition. Mrs. Mulroy said if it was Nevada ground water they would not have a problem with that. She said when does water they bank in the Arizona ground stop being surface water and become ground water; it was a difficult distinction. If the concern was the contravention of Nevada water law as it pertains to ground water filings, perhaps a sentence indicating nothing in that section would negate or contradict Nevada water law or something along those lines would suffice to make everyone more comfortable. In the case of the Virgin River, Mrs. Mulroy added, they had to get a water right from the state engineer before they could approach the commission and the other states to discuss delivery of that water to Nevada. Mr. Crowell said the Virgin River was the adjudication of the Nevada State Engineer. He stated perhaps language could be put in the bill to affirm there would be no impingement on the state engineer's authority. He felt no injustice would be done to the bill if this clarification was deemed necessary. Mrs. de Braga knew protection was needed for Nevada's water resources. The extensive water needs of growing population areas would override the rights of rural Nevadans if there were no protective laws in place to prevent that. Mrs. Rogers said that could be added to the line which indicates nothing in the bill was intended to affect any presently existing water rights or be in derision of the rights or powers of the state engineer. Mr. Bache said that was all the questions he had for the time being. He asked Mrs. Rogers if she wanted others to testify in a specific order. She replied yes, Mrs. Mulroy would speak next and Mr. Wimmer would be available to answer any technical questions. Mrs. Pat Mulroy, General Manager of the SNWA in Las Vegas, was pleased to testify on behalf of the bill. It was the culmination of many fruitful and productive discussions. She said if the Legislature would enact this bill, the state would be in one of the strongest positions of any of the Colorado River states because of the flexible, pro-active partnership formed by the CRC and the SNWA. Mrs. Mulroy mentioned the walk-through tour some of the committee members had been on to introduce them to the SNWA system and reviewed a portion of that system to enhance the committee's understanding of what was intended for southern Nevada's water system. She said it was critical to understand that their board had directed them to find a phasing plan that would build the least amount of facilities in any one phase, thereby costing the least amount of money in any one phase. The system also needed to be flexible and have the ability to grow to meet the ever-changing needs of an expanding community. They had to have a system that would never be more than they actually needed but never allowed them to lag behind and have a water delivery problem in southern Nevada. The proposed one billion dollar project would be phased in over the next 15-20 years. She introduced Dave Donnelly of the SNWA who proceeded to show an overhead schematic of the water system as it exists and the proposed phasing in of new facilities. Dave Donnelly, Chief Engineer of SNWA, told the committee that for some time now, it has been recognized by the water planners that the current southern Nevada water system did not have the capacity to meet the long-term needs of the area. About two years ago, the SNWA began a planning process to look at some additional water facilities to take water out of Lake Mead and bring it into the Las Vegas Valley. At the time, he stated, they had planned to leave the southern Nevada water system alone and build a whole new facility. However, once the planning effort began, they quickly realized that was the wrong thing to do for two reasons: 1. The cost would be astronomical for a large system they would not completely utilize for a very long time. 2. A huge system like that could not be built in a timely manner for maximum and effective usage. The existing system was examined for possible integration into new facilities to build on an as-needed basis and make it more affordable. Mr. Donnelly showed a schematic of the current system and how it functioned pointing out the treatment plant holds about 460 million gallons a day and how the tunnel has a maximum capacity of 400 million gallons per day which created a bottleneck. The work the CRC presently has underway takes the existing system and expands it to 575 million gallons a day and relieves the bottleneck with a new tunnel that can carry 600 million gallons a day. Ultimately, the two tunnels will eventually hold a million gallons of water per day. The pumps also have to be updated with a parallel pipeline pumping station to take water from the expanded water treatment plant. Hopefully, by 1999 most of this work will be done. This would be followed by a new intake into Lake Mead and a new pipeline up the hill in 2002-2004, depending on growth. A new water treatment plant would be constructed at that time as well. Because of some park service requirements, they do not want this water treatment plant to be located along the shores of Lake Mead where the existing one is. The water from the new intake will be untreated water. The existing tunnel would be converted to a raw or untreated water tunnel to deliver water to the treatment facility. As growth needs dictate, modulars would be added to the system. The final phase of the system, around 2025, would require a new tunnel to be built. Mrs. Mulroy commented it was critical to build each phase in such a way to maintain maximum flexibility to accommodate growth and conservation processes. The first phase would be ready to present to the board soon. A 21 member citizens' committee working together with staff has prepared the report and has looked at how needed water resources would be provided to southern Nevada. Water re-use facilities, conservation as a resource and clean water facilities are all ways to lengthen the life of each phase of the system as the demand on the facilities will be decreased. This was a planned and well-balanced approach for water resource planning in southern Nevada. In terms of financing, Mrs. Mulroy stated, the funds will come from a combination of water rates and connection fees. They have done some preliminary financial modeling for the citizens' committee and the results of that have shown the project was affordable. The assignment of costs would be their choice. Each water purveyor will probably have a mix of how they want to assign those costs; that would be left up to each member agency who will be funding these projects. The financing will lag behind the facilities as they will obtain money as they need it for cash flow purposes. Mrs. Mulroy said this was the heart of motivation for the bill; the facilities. The partnership, too, was a big part of that and Mrs. Mulroy was extremely happy that it would put southern Nevada in a strong position to speak for the entire state on critical water issues. Mr. Bache clarified the section of the system that was currently owned by the CRC and was to be transferred to the SNWA; it was shown in blue in the schematic. Mrs. Mulroy said yes, the blue section was the one to be transferred. Mr. Nolan questioned what portion of the project had been approved for funding through bonds and were they general issue or special issue bonds. Mrs. Mulroy said they were general obligation bonds of the water district. The water district was the financing agent for the SNWA. Currently, she added, bonds have been sold and the project was under construction. Some bonds have already been sold for the 1999 phase as well. Mr. Nolan was concerned about the capacity problems of the tunnel and possible emergency situations that could occur and mentioned a private pumping system in Henderson that perhaps could be looked at as an immediate resource. Mrs. Mulroy responded that had been examined carefully and was one of the alternatives already considered. That system is operating at 100% capacity. The pipeline is not large enough; it is only 40". The prospective pipeline would have a capacity of approximately 12'. Mrs. Segerblom asked if a site in Henderson had been selected for the new treatment plant. Mrs. Mulroy said there were three alternate sites that would be carried through the environmental impact statement and determination for the final facility will be a come from public input from locally affected residents and federal review. That decision will not be made for some time. All residents are aware of what is going on in the area. Mrs. Segerblom questioned if there were enough water allotted to Nevada to take out all that would be necessary. Mrs. Mulroy iterated a lot of the reason for the system was redundancy, to be able to have a back-up system in place. Much of the water was already under contract but they did not have enough facilities to build out. They need to deliver most of the water during one season of the year which means large facilities are needed to meet that peak demand. Mrs. Segerblom asked how the water bubble was measured. Mrs. Mulroy said there was a gauge at the mouth of the Virgin River. When the snows melt in the spring, there is an excess amount of water, varying from year to year. The attempt has been to capture that excess water and divert it into Lake Mead for future use. Mrs. Lambert questioned whether the CRC would still own the water and the SNWA would own the utilities. No, Mrs. Mulroy answered. The SNWA and its purveyor members have the contract for the water. Under Arizona vs. California, a state puts its water to beneficial use by an end user entering into a contract with the Secretary of the Interior. That has to be done through the respective state because they are the entitlement holder. It is not a matter of a water right, it is a contract right held with the Secretary. The facilities would transfer as well. Mrs. Lambert asked what the Robert B. Griffith Water Project was on page 11 of the bill. Mrs. Mulroy responded it was a piece of the southern Nevada water system. Mr. Donnelly added it was the federal part of the project. The federal government built the intake structure and they own the tunnel and pumps. The water treatment plant, built by the state with state bonds, was now the Alfred Merritt Smith water treatment plant; collectively they were known as the Southern Nevada Water System. Mrs. Lambert asked about lines 33-40 on page 11 where the full faith and credit of Nevada had been pledged to finance the Robert B. Griffith Water Project. Mrs. Lambert reaffirmed this was not the proposed extension, this was the current system that was being funded with the bonds Treasurer Seale had spoken of earlier. Mrs. Mulroy replied yes, they were currently being repaid 100% by water rates in southern Nevada. Mrs. Lambert stated future financing for construction would be done through the Las Vegas Water District. Mrs. Mulroy explained it would be the SNWA with the district being the financing instrument. Mrs. Lambert inquired what were the advantages of this bill in regards to the ability to change or improve their bonding ability. Mrs. Mulroy said right now, the Las Vegas Valley water district operates the system. The employees working there are water district employees. The CRC maintained a management role over the southern Nevada water system in order for them to use the existing tunnel for a future phase and be able to act quickly when necessary and they cannot do that when a piece of the system is owned by the state. Mrs. Mulroy indicated no state money was involved, they were paying for and operating the facilities, therefore, they should own the facilities to be able to react more quickly as a utility can and should be able to react. The bill does not change the bond rating or the ability to get money, it just clarifies who owns what, reiterated Mrs. Lambert. Right, said Mrs. Mulroy. Mrs. Lambert added this bill does not suddenly pledge the full faith and credit of the state of Nevada to pay off a certain amount of obligatory bonds. Mrs. Lambert affirmed current methods of repayment such as the bond bank would be used to repay debt. Richard Wimmer, Deputy General Manager for the SNWA, briefly went over the amendments which were basically minor technical clarifications (Exhibit D). There were three major changes: 1. Bonds could be issued to refund presently outstanding obligations that had been sold for water systems. 2. Revenues could be used to pay off those refunding bonds if they were issued. 3. Would allow revenues to be used for the purpose of making water facility additions or improvements. The only other change listed applies to section 16, page 14, and it is just a slight clarification of an exception to the unfunded mandate. The local water purveyors would fund any improvements needed there. Mr. Lopez added he would be happy to answer any questions. Mrs. Segerblom asked Mrs. Rogers if they were going to let the electrical companies that get their power from Hoover Dam raise their rates to pay for the new visitors center. Mrs. Rogers said an implementation agreement signed by all 15 contractors at Hoover Dam was currently in effect and through the federal process pursuant to that, the state of Nevada has become the contracting agent for an audit. They put out an RFP, accepted the bids and the audit has been started by an independent auditing firm. It is both an operational and financial audit of the dam. They were also pushing for other sources of revenue to fund the visitors center. They do not want to raise the rates to pay for it. Mrs. Segerblom wondered if CRC and SNWA were negotiating for water outside the state of Nevada. Mrs. Rogers answered yes, they were doing it together. Since the jointly held Nevada Water Summit, they have been in a partnership effort to work together to present a unified voice. Mrs. Segerblom asked Mrs. Mulroy if the new intake tower arrangements had been approved by the park service and were they going to come up the service road to Boulder City. Mrs. Mulroy said they were still carrying that through the EIS. There would be two intakes; one in Hoover Dam and the other would be a saddle line next to the existing one. Mrs. Segerblom said she preferred the saddle line. Mrs. Mulroy preferred that as well, but indicated they had to carry more than one alternative through the environmental process. Mr. Bache asked for an explanation to question five on page two of the amendments (Exhibit D), changing a chapter reference. Mr. Wimmer indicated the change was thought to be a more appropriate reference and that the final call on that would remain with the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Lopez reiterated it was an LCB call. He believed the reason for the reference to chapter 646 was because that was the law in which section 1.1 came into being. That would be the appropriate reference according to drafting rules. Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 542. Mr. Bache asked Mr. Lopez if he would be working on amended language for the supplemental water concerns. He said he would. Mr. Neighbors requested more time to review the bill as it was very important legislation for the entire state. Mr. Bache had a BDR to introduce. BDR 23-1882 - Revises provisions governing the committee on benefits. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 23-1882. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mrs. Freeman mentioned her subcommittee meeting on public records coming up on Monday at 8:00 a.m. Mrs. Segerblom asked if there were going to be a regular meeting on Monday. Mr. Bache said the regular meeting was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Monday. She said she had all the information on S.B. 23 and was going to try to move the bill along. Mr. Bache said they would be done with S.B. 23 one way or the other. Mr. Williams mentioned he had the amendment to A.B. 204. Mr. Bache adjourned the meeting at 9:40 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 May 10, 1995 Page