MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session June 27, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, June 27, 1995, Chairman Joan A. 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 Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District; Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, District 33 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Joe Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association; Mr. R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, State of Nevada; Mr. Peter G. Morros, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; Mr. Mike Baughman, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority; Ms. Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands; Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau; Ms. Susan Lynn, Executive Director, Public Resource Associates; Mr. Charlie Joerg, Eureka County; Mr. Joe Johnson, Toiyabe Chapter, the Sierra Club; Ms. Naomi Duerr, State Water Planner; Ms. Audrey Cawthorne; Ms. Ann Kersten, Public Resource Associates; Ms. Jan Gilbert, League of Women Voters of Nevada (see also Exhibit B attached hereto). SENATE BILL NO. 96 - Enacts provisions governing acquisition of water rights on public lands for purposes of watering livestock. Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, testified. He provided some background on the origin of S.B. 96. He advised Secretary of the Interior Babbitt's proposal for range land reform provided future water rights, on public lands, used for livestock would be owned and controlled by the United States. He asserted that provision contravened Nevada's water law and said Secretary Babbitt was informed of Nevada's water law, as it pertained to livestock grazing, on three separate occasions. Senator Rhoads explained, pursuant to Nevada's water law, there were three ways to obtain water for livestock grazing, which were: "... Number one, in the name of the permittee, number two, the permittee and the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) and number three, if the federal government shows beneficial use, they can get a water right for livestock grazing." He indicated Secretary Babbitt agreed the federal government would comply with Nevada's water law, however, Secretary Babbitt's range land reform proposal, which was to take effect on August 23, 1995, provided, in the future, water for livestock grazing would be owned and controlled by the United States government. Senator Rhoads read aloud subsections 1(a) and 1(b) of Section 1 of S.B. 96 and advised the provisions of those subsections constituted the crux of S.B. 96. He contended it was time for Nevada to test the federal government as to who legally owned and controlled water in the state of Nevada. Chairman Lambert invited Senator Rhoads to provide testimony on Senate Bill 101. SENATE BILL NO. 101 - Requires development of statewide water plan and revises provisions governing composition and duties of advisory board on water resources planning and development. Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, testified. He stated S.B. 101 would enlarge the advisory board on water resources planning and development. He advised, although 80 percent of the water in Nevada was in rural areas, the original advisory board had few members who represented those rural areas. He indicated S.B. 101 would enlarge the advisory board, as set forth on lines 18 through 22 of page 3, to include representatives of the farming, manufacturing, mining, ranching and wildlife industries. Senator Rhoads pointed out S.B. 101 also would require the water plan for Nevada be approved by the advisory board prior to being submitted to the legislature. At the direction of Chairman Lambert, the hearing on S.B. 96 resumed. SENATE BILL NO. 96 - Enacts provisions governing acquisition of water rights on public lands for purposes of watering livestock. Mr. Joe Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, testified. He urged the committee to support S.B. 96. He indicated he participated in the dialogue held with Secretary Babbitt and said Secretary Babbit asked that he write him a letter, on behalf of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association, explaining Nevada's current water law with respect to the three ways in which a permit to water livestock on public lands could be obtained. He indicated he complied with Secretary Babbitt's request after having done extensive research. He said the law being discussed stemmed from a court case entitled "State vs. Morros" and the state of the law was as Senator Rhoads had explained it. Mr. Guild stated S.B. 96 would change Nevada's water law, with respect to obtaining a permit to water livestock on public lands, to make it very clear, in order to obtain such a permit, the proposed permittee must demonstrate actual ownership of livestock. He advised in the case of "State vs. Morros" the state supreme court held "...the federal government could stand in the shoes of any other prior appropriator and obtain a permit and it did not matter that they did not own livestock because...there was a right in situ for recreational purposes...and that there was an ability by the federal government to obtain a permit for wildlife." He said, as a result of that decision, the federal government applied for livestock watering permits and obtained hundreds of them but, to his knowledge, did not own hundreds of head of livestock. He explained, pursuant to S.B. 96, if the federal government did own livestock, it would be able to stand in the shoes of any prior appropriator of water and obtain a permit, however, it could not obtain livestock water permits on its own. Mr. Guild advised, if S.B. 96 was passed by the legislature, in order for someone to obtain a livestock watering permit on public lands in Nevada, that person would have to both own livestock and prove he would put the water obtained from such a permit to beneficial use. He said, practically speaking, a livestock operator would never be able to obtain a permit in his own name to water livestock on public lands because the BLM required a cooperative agreement be entered into before it would issue a "Section Four" permit to do the work necessary to get water out of the ground with which to water livestock. He contended, through S.B. 96, Nevada would send a subtle message (to the federal government) that Nevada's water belonged to Nevada and not to the federal government and Nevada did not want the federal government to touch its water. Assemblyman Bennett asked Mr. Guild to explain what would happen to Nevada's livestock industry if the trend of reductions in AUM's (animal unit months) continued. Mr. Guild replied, during the past 10 to 15 years, there had been a drastic reduction in the number of AUM's permitted by federal agencies for the purpose of grazing livestock on public lands. He said if the federal government tied up much of the potential for watering livestock on public lands it could prevent livestock operators from seeking to develop those livestock watering resources, either individually or in cooperation with the federal government. He indicated that situation might be occurring at the present time. He suggested the committee remember most, if not all, livestock watering rights which pertained to surface water were, primarily, in private hands at the present time. He advised what was being discussed was future development of water rights and the potential to either expand or maintain the status quo with respect to watering livestock on federal lands. Assemblyman Nolan asked, "Has there been a legal witness to this type of scenario, perhaps in another state somewhere, or are we going to find ourself in a protracted legal battle, come August or early on, with this?" Mr. Guild responded it was common knowledge, if Secretary Babbitt's proposed regulations were implemented, there would be a legal challenge to those regulations by the entire western livestock industry. He asserted whatever happened with respect to S.B. 96 would not affect that "...large picture." He said he believed Mr. Pete Morros would testify that sensitive negotiations were being conducted with the federal government which might be affected if the legislature passed S.B. 96. Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, District 33, testified. He expressed his support for S.B. 96. He advised, under the range land reform proposed by Secretary Babbitt, the federal government would gain control of Nevada's water rights. He indicated he disagreed with Mr. Guild and believed S.B. 96 would have a great affect on the proposed range land reform. He contended Nevada must protect its water rights no matter to what purpose those water rights were to be put. Mr. Carpenter said he thought testimony would be given that there was a court case which held the federal government could acquire water rights for the purpose of livestock watering. He observed the legislature often passed laws which were in direct conflict with supreme court decisions which the legislature believed to be erroneous decisions. He contended the legislature had the authority to pass such laws and should do so. Mr. Carpenter asserted, with respect to appropriating water for the purpose of watering livestock, the only person who could put such appropriated water to beneficial use was the person who owned the livestock. He suggested, in certain instances, Nevada's wildlife department should apply for permits to water wildlife. Mr. Carpenter stated S.B. 96 went a long way toward establishing what should be done with Nevada's water. He declared Nevada's water should be under state control and contended those who applied for permission to put water to beneficial use should be those who could, in fact, put that water to the beneficial use for which they applied for it. Mr. Carpenter said he also wished to discuss S.B. 101. He suggested all users of water should have input into any water plan enacted by the state and suggested the purpose for expanding the advisory board was to allow them to have such input. He pointed out the only utility companies represented on the advisory board were those which supplied water to the two largest communities in the state and suggested, perhaps, S.B. 101 should be amended to provide for a representative of those utility companies which supplied water to smaller communities. He contended water was the most important thing in Nevada and that there should be broad representation on boards which made decisions about water. Mr. R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, State of Nevada, testified. He said he concurred with previous witnesses there was a need for Nevada to send a message to Secretary Babbitt but was not convinced S.B. 96 conveyed the correct message. He advised, in its original form, S.B. 96 would codify "...the three-way system that they talked about." He pointed out S.B. 96 had been amended to provide that an applicant for a permit to water livestock be legally entitled to place livestock on public lands but was silent with respect to who the owner of the livestock must be. He said the former version of S.B. 96 required such an applicant be the owner of the livestock while the present version required the applicant be legally entitled to place livestock on public land, which would include the United States government. He explained the definition of "person" contained in NRS 533.010 included both the United States and the state of Nevada. Mr. Turnipseed indicated S.B. 96 did not address situations in which water was captured at one point and diverted for use at another point and he was unable to determine to whom he could issue a water permit in some such situations. He posed a hypothetical situation in which the point at which water was diverted was on land belonging to the BLM and the troughs for watering livestock were on private land. He said he did not know whether, in that situation, he could issue a permit in either the name of the BLM or the name of the livestock operator. He pointed out S.B. 96 required the State Engineer to issue a permit to a livestock operator even if the application for that permit was filed by the BLM. He said he was uncertain whether that requirement was either legal or constitutional. Mr. Turnipseed declared all natural resource managers had an interest in keeping cattle off stream banks and said doing so was good for land management, for livestock, for wildlife and for water. He contended, as written, S.B. 96 was counterproductive with respect to such efforts. He maintained if the BLM denied ranchers access to BLM land no water development would occur on public lands and, therefore, cattle would remain on stream banks, which would result in erosion of those banks. Mr. Bennett asked whether Nevada's water law permitted transfer of water so long as the water remained within the same basin. Mr. Turnipseed replied it did. Assemblyman Ernaut indicated his understanding of S.B. 96 differed from that of Mr. Turnipseed and said he believed the bill to be fairly straightforward. Lengthy discussions ensued between Mr. Ernaut and Mr. Turnipseed. Mr. Turnipseed reiterated he believed Nevada needed to send a message to Secretary Babbitt but was uncertain whether S.B. 96 conveyed the correct message. Mr. Peter G. Morros, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified. He said he believed both Mr. Guild and Senator Rhoads alluded to negotiations with the Department of Interior in which Nevada was involved and through which it was attempting to deal with the impacts of the proposed regulations (for range land reform), which were to go into effect on August 28, 1995. He said following the decision rendered in "Nevada vs. Morros," Nevada had a three-tiered system in which an individual range user could hold 100 percent ownership of a water right, the Department of Interior, through the BLM, along with the United States Forest Service, could hold 100 percent ownership of a water right and allowance was made for joint ownership of a water right, through which the BLM or the United States Forest Service, together with a range user, participated in developing a water source. He contended that system was working very, very well and said he agreed with Senator Rhoads that, with respect to the proposed regulations (for range land reform) and Secretary Babbitt's activity with respect to those regulations, "...we really didn't need this." Mr. Morros asserted the negotiations between Nevada and the Department of the Interior were going well and Nevada was close to developing a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Interior which would reestablish Nevada's three-tiered system. He advised the main concerns expressed by either representatives of the BLM or the Department of Interior were associated with water being made available for wildlife and with its "...being separated from the public land. In other words, those stock watering rights, at some time in the future, being converted to other uses...and then being taken from the public lands." He contended the amounts of water involved in those concerns were minuscule. Mr. Morros said he believed S.B. 96 would scuttle the current negotiations and suggested if that occurred and if S.B. 96 became law Nevada's three-tiered system would be destroyed. He stated the unreasonable burden which would be placed on the State Engineer's office, with respect to the necessity for that office to determine the ownership of cattle each time an application for a permit to water stock was filed, should be considered. He contended Nevada faced expensive and prolonged litigation if S.B. 96 became law. Mr. Morros suggested there would be a bad response to the provisions of S.B. 96 with respect to land management. He questioned whether the BLM would be willing to spend money for development of additional stock watering sources on public lands if it could not hold a stock watering right. He suggested there was also a question as to whether the BLM would issue "Section Four" permits to ranchers. He said, "It's almost a hostage-taking situation. We don't issue you a Section Four permit until you agree to transfer ownership of that right over to the federal agency that's responsible for managing the land." Mr. Morros contended a basic constitutional question existed regarding discrimination against the United States government with respect to the right to hold a water right for the purpose of watering stock on public lands. He declared that issue was the one litigated in "...the blue lakes matter." He said his position was then and continued to be that the federal government must be treated in the same manner as any other applicant for water. He advised he had denied applications of the federal government in instances in which "...there was no unappropriated water at the source..." and in which issuing the federal government a permit would have had an adverse effect on an existing right. He said, when those applications were denied, the federal government recognized and complied with Nevada's state law and did not appeal those denials. Mr. Morros maintained S.B. 96 would be damaging to ranchers who wished to cooperate with a federal agency in developing water sources. Mr. Morros stated the controversy between the state of Nevada and the federal government (over water) had been going on for many years, however, he did not believe passing legislation which would disqualify federal agencies from holding water rights for the purpose of watering stock on public lands, which Congress had mandated those agencies administer and manage, was the answer to the controversy. He contended passing such legislation would merely aggravate the existing problem. Mr. Ernaut referred to Mr. Morros' testimony S.B. 96 would not convey the appropriate message to the federal government and asked what alternative there was (to conveying that message.) Mr. Turnipseed responded to Mr. Ernaut's question. He said, near the end of the Senate hearing on S.B. 96, an amendment was proposed which would provide notice be given to both the BLM and "...the permittee of the livestock..." when an application was made for water rights so whichever of those had not filed the application could file a concurrent application. He indicated if a rancher filed an application for a permit to water livestock the BLM could then file an application for a permit to water wildlife. He explained, if that were done, each application could be processed separately, each of the applicants could receive his own permit and his own certificate and neither could change the source of the water or its place of use without the other's permission. Mr. Ernaut asked whether the process Mr. Turnipseed described might create a "stalemate." Mr. Turnipseed replied it could do so but contended the result of the process would reflect to some degree what had been occurring over the past ten years, during which time the BLM had insisted on joint ownership of the water rights being discussed. He indicated such joint ownership had worked out well. Mr. Ernaut asked whether the BLM was legally entitled to place livestock on public lands. Mr. Morros responded to Mr. Ernaut's question. He drew an analogy in which Mr. Ernaut resided in a house served with water by Sierra Pacific Power Company. Mr. Morros said, in that situation, Sierra Pacific Power Company held the water rights used to provide water to Mr. Ernaut's house but Mr. Ernaut owned the house and the property which made beneficial use of the water. He asked whether, in that analogous situation, Mr. Ernaut believed he should be issued the certificate for that amount of water which he put to beneficial use or, rather, the water purveyor should be issued the certificate under its permit. Mr. Ernaut responded, "If I made my living out of my house, I would think that I would want to have the rights. That's the difference. These people make their living off the livestock." A lengthy colloquy ensued between Mr. Ernaut and Mr. Turnipseed. Mr. Bennett commented, earlier in the legislative session, the legislature passed Senate Joint Resolution No. 12. He advised S.J.R. 12 urged the federal government to recognize that use, allocation, management and protection of water resources was primarily the responsibility of the states, to recognize the primacy of states' laws governing use, allocation, management and protection of water and to require all federal agencies to conduct their activities in accordance with those laws. Mr. Bennett stated S.J.R. 12 was already in Secretary Babbitt's hands and asserted S.B. 96 "...gives us some teeth to back this up." Mr. Nolan referred to testimony passage of S.B. 96 would jeopardize negotiations which, he said, sounded tenuous at best and which were being conducted "...with an administration which has met with you on three previous occasions and have done nothing but indicated that they approved of and seemed to conform with existing state law, and then they turned right around and issued Babbitt's range land act that they're trying to push on us now." He suggested Mr. Morros' and Mr Turnipseed's testimony also indicated the federal government only complied with state law occassionally. He maintained if Nevada did not have something in place when the range land reform regulations were enacted it would place itself in the position of attempting to slap the hands of the federal government and of again being engaged in litigation. Mr. Nolan asked what difference it made who owned the water rights as long as the federal government could water livestock on public land. Mr. Turnipseed replied the federal government feared if water rights on public lands were solely owned by ranchers those rights would be divested from the public lands and no water would be left on those lands with which to water wildlife. Mr. Turnipseed advised, with respect to the memorandum of understanding being negotiated, the federal government was not opposed to water rights on public lands being solely owned by ranchers as long as the federal government was protected from the possibility of those water rights being moved from those lands. He said, in Nevada, change applications (for water rights) were advertised in the same manner in which new applications were advertised. He suggested the only thing which needed to be done to satisfy the federal government was to notify it when change applications were filed. He explained a change application was required to change either the point at which water was diverted from its source or the place and/or manner of its use. Mr. Morros said there was a need to emphasize the Department of Interior was receptive to use of Nevada's three-tiered system but was seeking assurance that wildlife would not be left without water. Chairman Lambert said, based on her review of the proposed federal regulation, it appeared the federal government was taking advantage of Nevada's three-way system to ensure it would be a one-way system for the federal government only. Assemblyman de Braga said it appeared to her much more was being read into S.B. 96 than it actually contained. She stated she saw nothing in S.B. 96 which would allow water to be "...transferred for some other use." She contended S.B. 96 said only that the State Engineer could not issue a permit to anyone not legally entitled to place livestock on public land nor could he issue a permit or a certificate of appropriation unless the subject water had been put to beneficial use and further said those restrictions should not be construed to impair an individual's vested right to use a water right nor construed to prevent any transfer of ownership of a water right for purposes of watering livestock. Mr. Turnipseed pointed out subsection 1(b) of Section 1 of S.B. 96 prohibited the State Engineer from issuing a certificate in a name other than the name of the livestock operator. He said he had hundreds of permits which reflected joint ownership of water rights and, under S.B. 96, he would be required to eliminate one of the joint owners, presumably the BLM. Mr. Morros interjected, "When that occurs, if Mike arbitrarily changes the ownership of a permit, which is a form of a property right -- when that occurs, there's going to be a real question as to whether it's almost a reverse taking on the part of the state, giving that property right -- taking it from ownership of a federal agency and handing it over to a private citizen." He suggested S.B. 96 would create extensive litigation. Mrs. de Braga asked whether, by his testimony, Mr. Morros was saying the federal government did not meet the qualifications established in S.B. 96. Mr. Morros replied, "But how do you defend that in court? How do you discriminate against the federal government and defend that in court?" He contended federal agencies were subject to congressional mandates to manage and administer public lands. He asked, rhetorically, what would happen if the Department of Interior reported to Congress it attempted to negotiate with Nevada to arrive at an acceptable system for administration of water rights but Nevada passed a law which disqualified any federal agency from holding water rights for certain uses and, therefore, the Department of Interior could no longer do an effective job of managing public lands in Nevada and the Department of Interior requested Congress to create a federally reserved water right on public lands and Congress complied. Mrs. de Braga asked whether S.B. 96 could be amended to provide for joint ownership of water rights and still send the same message. She contended, at present, nothing existed to protect those who made their living by using public lands for their livestock. Mr. Morros responded he did not perceive any great conflict. He indicated he believed Secretary Babbitt had erred "...with that regulation..." but suggested there was a better way to deal with the situation than by passing S.B. 96. He said he feared the long term ramifications Nevada might experience as a result of such legislation. Mr. Mike Baughman, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority, testified. He explained the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority consisted of the counties of Elko, Humboldt, Eureka, and Lander and said Pershing County's board of county commissioners had budgeted resources to join the water authority. He advised the Humboldt River Basin produced approximately 300,000 acre-feet of water per year. Mr. Baughman said representatives of the counties he enumerated testified before the interim study committee regarding those counties' concerns about the range land reform proposed by the Department of Interior. He advised those counties remained convinced it was necessary for the legislature to pass S.B. 96 in order to prevent the federal government from filing for water rights in its name only. He explained, pursuant to the federal government's regulations, after August 21, 1995, all applications for permission to water livestock on public lands would be made solely in the name of the federal government. Mr. Baughman provided a packet of documents (Exhibit C). He said the first page of the packet (Exhibit C) was a copy of the federal regulation and pointed out the language which was the subject of controversy commenced in the first column, under the heading "4120.3-9." He contended, pursuant to that language, all future water rights would be solely in the name of the United States Government. Mr. Baughman referred to the negotiations to which Mr. Turnipseed and Mr. Morros had testified and said, as far as the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority was able to determine, those who had a stake in the outcome of those negotiations had not been involved in them. He asked what confidence users of the water rights in question could have that those negotiations were addressing the issues of most concern to them or that, if those negotiations resulted in a memorandum of agreement, that agreement would be to their benefit. He advised one of Eureka County's county commissioners testified before the Senate that his county had a great deal of experience with memorandums of agreement entered into with the federal government and that experience told him the federal government would expect the state to live up to its part of the agreement, however, the federal government would do as it chose. He declared counties whose economies were, in part, dependent upon the livestock industry were concerned a memorandum of agreement entered into between the state of Nevada and the federal government would not provide them with the protection they needed. Mr. Baughman said, "...we are talking...about, in part or in whole, reversing...'Nevada vs. Morros'." He maintained that court case took place a long time ago and Nevada must deal with the situation it faced at the present time and contended it was appropriate to reverse the decision which resulted from that case. Mr. Baughman referred to testimony the BLM and other federal agencies were concerned about preserving water for wildlife on public lands. He stated NRS 533.367 guaranteed wildlife access to historic sources of water on public lands. He said, traditionally, when the State Engineer approved a water right on public land, he assured himself water would be made available for wildlife. He said the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority was concerned about why the federal government was raising the issue of preserving water for wildlife on public lands because, in fact, that was not an issue. Mr. Baughman indicated the federal government appeared to be concerned water would be removed from public lands. He said the amounts of water being discussed were very small and suggested it would be economically unfeasible to combine and to move that water. Mr. Baughman suggested if the federal government was successful in causing livestock watering rights on public lands to be held solely in the name of the federal government it might then pursue obtaining sole rights to water on public lands used for other purposes. Mr. Baughman pointed out S.B. 96 did not preclude "joint filings" and indicated, if the federal government wished to continue to require its name be included in an application for a Section Four permit, S.B. 96 would allow that to happen. Mr. Baughman advised the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority researched all records pertaining to water rights. He said there were hundreds of either applications or permits in the name of the BLM indicating water was vested or reserved. He contended the federal government presently recognized reserved water rights and its doing so did not constitute a new threat. He said, "I am concerned that the state has been before us on all these hearings, in the Senate and here today, seemingly defending the federal government to the hilt, alarming us about the prospects of what's going to happen if this bill passes, and it concerns us as users of water that they're not protecting our interests, because under state law they're required to do that as well. Why are we protecting, in this case, the federal government so staunchly." He said the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority encouraged the committee to pass S.B. 96 and believed S.B. 96 was important for the purpose of protecting the future of the livestock industry in rural areas and that industry's contribution to Nevada's economy. Chairman Lambert asked what Mr. Baughman would think about the legislature passing S.B. 96 at this time if its doing so resulted in the federal government determining it would issue no more Section Four permits for the purpose of putting water to beneficial use and nothing could be done to deal with that situation until the next legislative session. Mr. Baughman replied there were many administrative appeals available if the federal government denied a Section Four permit and declared the stake holders were willing to take the risk of the result Chairman Lambert described. Mr. Nolan summarized the situation presented as being one in which, if the legislature did not pass S.B. 96 and federal regulation 4120.3-09 was enacted, the legislature was, in essence, giving away Nevada's water rights but, if the legislature did pass S.B. 96, the federal government would find a way to take Nevada's water anyway. He suggested the question involved was why the legislature should not proceed to pass S.B. 96 and, thereby, give the state "...a leg up on what the federal government is, inevitably, going to attempt." Mr. Baughman indicated it would be correct for the legislature to pass S.B. 96 and the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority would support its doing so. He pointed out the federal regulations being discussed would affect all states and suggested if the states responded by establishing laws to protect their interests it would not be simple for the federal government to single out Nevada for punitive action. Ms. Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, testified. She advised her division not only had jurisdiction over state owned land but also represented the state in its dealings with federal land management agencies. She said she had been involved in the review of the range reform regulations since the time those regulations were first proposed and had spent much time with representatives of other state agencies in attempting to arrive at a solution to the problem in which Secretary Babbitt had involved those agencies. Ms. Wilcox suggested those individuals who were state officials and were attempting to protect the state's interests must first consider the protections which presently existed in state law. She indicated both state officials and ranchers maintained Nevada's protection lay in its present "...three-way system..." She said that system allowed a rancher to hold a water right solely in his name, when he alone perfected development of that water right, allowed the BLM to hold a water right solely in its name when it alone perfected the water right and also provided for water rights to be held jointly when ranchers and the BLM cooperated in perfecting water rights. She declared the growing cooperation (between ranchers and the BLM) was the best thing happening on Nevada's range lands. She said she perceived the livestock community, which was angry about the regulations proposed by Secretary Babbitt, was attempting to enact vengeance and by doing so was destroying the three-way system which had protected it. She contended state law should be left as it was because in its present form it provided everyone with the protections they needed. She suggested, under present state law, a memorandum of understanding could be arrived at with the Department of Interior which would allow Nevada's three-way system to exist in the future. Ms. Wilcox asserted S.B. 96 would discriminate against not only the federal government but all public agencies, including the Division of State Lands. She explained the Division of State Lands had livestock leases and said, if S.B. 96 was passed, the Division of State Lands would be precluded from developing new water sources on the lands it leased in order to improve the capacity of those lands for livestock. She said "...the short-term lessee...would have to hold the water right..." She maintained it made no sense, either for a private property owner or for the state, as a property owner, for a property owner to be told if he leased his land to another party that party had to hold the water right on his land. She said that also made no sense with respect to the federal government. She contended such a situation represented an unfair and unwise solution to the problem at hand. She declared S.B. 96 was destructive and contentious and would damage Nevada. Ms. Wilcox read the preamble to federal regulation 4120.3-9, which contained language providing for co-application or joint ownership (of a water right) when such was permitted by state policy. She advised the Department of Interior and "...the solicitor's office, at the highest levels..." had offered assurance it was not the intent of the federal regulation to provide only the federal government could hold water rights on public lands and had said they would be happy to make it clear in a memorandum of understanding with the state that the state's three-way system could continue in effect. Ms. Wilcox urged the committee not to alter existing state law. Mr. Ernaut asked where in S.B. 96 it said the Division of State Lands could not hold a water right and further asked whether the Division of State Lands was not legally entitled to place livestock on land. Ms. Wilcox responded S.B. 96 was difficult to interpret. She discussed what she believed was the intent of those who drafted S.B. 96 but indicated she was uncertain how a court would interpret the language of S.B. 96. Mr. Ernaut asserted the Administrator of the Division of State Lands and the state's Water Engineer would administer the provisions of S.B. 96 and it would be up to them to interpret it, and said, therefore, since the legislature was expressing its intent, he failed to understand why there was confusion about the interpretation of S.B. 96. Ms. Wilcox asked, "Is it your intention that the law be interpreted to mean that only the person who owns the livestock and not the land managing agency can hold the water right?" Mr. Ernaut replied, "It is my intention, in this, that we do not disrupt joint ownerships, but, when it is the appropriate place that the owner of the livestock hold the permit...that's obvious, but, in those hundred or so that are in joint tenancy, certainly those should be allowed." Further discussions ensued between Ms. Wilcox and Mr. Ernaut regarding the intent of S.B. 96. Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit D). He advised the Nevada Farm Bureau supported S.B. 96 and urged the committee to recommend it be passed by the legislature. He reiterated previous testimony regarding the federal range land reform regulations and their effect. He declared the Nevada Farm Bureau supported ranchers having the ability to use public lands to develop and own livestock watering rights and contended the changes to Nevada's water law S.B. 96 would provide were needed to maintain that ability. Mr. Busselman reiterated previous testimony regarding concern about attempts by the federal government to gain control of Nevada's water. He maintained nothing in S.B. 96 discriminated against either the federal government or anyone else and said the Nevada Farm Bureau strongly encouraged the legislature to pass S.B. 96. Mr. Bennett indicated much time had been spent discussing the question of whether or not both the federal government and the state were being discriminated against by S.B. 96. He asked whether Mr. Busselman believed that question could be resolved by inserting the words "or joint holders" after the word "holder" on both line 18 and line 21 on page 3 of S.B. 96. Mr. Busselman indicated the Nevada Farm Bureau would concur in such an amendment. Ms. Susan Lynn, Executive Director, Public Resource Associates, testified. She said she was appearing to oppose S.B. 96. She stated, while she agreed the state of Nevada had been affronted, she did not believe S.B. 96 was the appropriate means by which to deal with that situation. Ms. Lynn said, "I can cite you an instance where the federal government holds water rights within the Walker River Irrigation District. It applied those waters to meadows. It does not charge the permittee for the water. It only charges the amount for AUM's, and the cost of water is considerably higher than the cost of the AUM." She characterized that situation as an example of the federal government cooperating with local ranchers and declared she had heard no testimony, during the present hearing, that any rancher was denied the opportunity to graze his livestock based on (ownership of) water rights. Ms. Lynn stated, currently, the forest service was required to reserve water rights and said, if S.B. 96 became law, she believed it would force the BLM to do likewise and, thereby, eliminate Nevada's three-way system. Ms. Lynn read aloud excerpts from the code of federal regulations pertaining to water rights for livestock grazing on public lands and the intent of the federal government with respect to those water rights. Mr. Charlie Joerg, Eureka County, testified. He stated Eureka County had a long history of ranching and farming and said its board of county commissioners believed S.B. 96 was needed to protect that industry. He concurred with Mr. Baughman's testimony that, if there was a risk involved in passing S.B. 96, Nevada's rural areas were willing to accept that risk. Mr. Joe Johnson, Toiyabe Chapter, the Sierra Club, testified. He advised the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club opposed S.B. 96. He contended S.B. 96 addressed a problem which did not exist, regarding the state's primacy with respect to water law. He said no testimony had been given that any rancher's AUM's had been either denied or reduced based upon the federal government's ownership of water rights and contended it was unlikely that would happen. He asserted passage of S.B. 96 would have little effect on "...what is in existence..." but would interfere with any negotiations designed to reach accommodation on water rights. Mr. Johnson said one issue about which the committee had heard no discussion was "...how this affects the forest service." He said the forest service had never recognized nor had it utilized Nevada's three-way system of water allocation and the BLM had not done so prior to approximately 1981 or 1982. He said, in the period immediately prior to 1980, the BLM operated on the same basis as the forest service to-wit, water rights for livestock grazing were "...filed on by the BLM." He said, with respect to the forest service, if S.B. 96 was passed it would result in a situation in which the federal government spent money to develop water but the certificate of ownership of the water right would be issued in the name of a rancher who had only a contractual, lease-hold on the applicable grazing rights. He said no rancher had testified he lost money "...on his improvements that he put into the land based upon the denial of the use of that, either amortized or simply denied at the end of the leasehold." Mr. Johnson maintained the original language of S.B. 96 was preferable to its present language but contended there were other means by which to address the issue, the first of which would be by a statement of policy arrived at through negotiations with the federal government. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 96. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 96 BY INSERTING THE WORDS "OR JOINT HOLDERS" IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE WORD "HOLDER" IN BOTH LINE 18 AND LINE 21 ON PAGE 3 AND DO PASS S.B. 96. Chairman Lambert advised the committee S.B. 96 would be amended in any event because of a conflict between S.B. 96 and Assembly Bill No. 435. Chairman Lambert asked if there was a second to Mr. Bennett's motion. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussions were held among committee members. Chairman Lambert asked Mr. Turnipseed to giver further testimony regarding whether or not Mr. Bennett's proposed amendment would make any substantive change to current state law. Mr. Turnipseed suggested the proposed amendment would resolve the State Engineer's problem with respect to existing co-ownerships of water rights but said there were other problems it would not affect. He said, if he correctly understood Mr. Ernaut's comment, if an applicant for a water right for livestock grazing was legally entitled to place livestock on public lands, the State Engineer could issue a permit in the applicant's name whether the applicant was the Division of State Lands, the United States government or a rancher. Mr. Ernaut read from S.B. 96 and contended the situation Mr. Turnipseed described reflected what the language of S.B. 96 provided. Mr. Turnipseed advised, in that regard, S.B. 96 made no change to the way in which the State Engineer proceeded at the present time. Further discussions were held. Chairman Lambert called for a roll call vote on the pending motion to amend and do pass S.B. 96. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMEN BENNETT, BRAUNLIN, DE BRAGA, ERNAUT, HARRINGTON, KRENZER, NEIGHBORS, NOLAN AND LAMBERT VOTED "YES;" ASSEMBLYMEN FREEMAN, TRIPPLE AND BACHE VOTED "NO;" ASSEMBLYMEN SEGERBLOM AND WILLIAMS ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATE BILL NO. 101 - Requires development of statewide water plan and revises provisions governing composition and duties of advisory board on water resources planning and development. Mr. Joe Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, testified. He asked the committee to support S.B. 101. He declared Nevada had long needed a water plan and opined there was presently an individual in the water planning office who had the energy, desire and ability to "...create a good vision for our water future in this state." Mr. Guild advised, over the past several years, there had been much contention between the rural areas of Nevada and the Las Vegas Valley Water District. He said he had engaged in discussions with the head of the Las Vegas Valley Water District which resulted in a sincere desire to establish a dialogue through which to create a vision for Nevada's water future and in a clear understanding that everyone with a stake in Nevada's water should be involved in that dialogue. Mr. Guild asserted S.B. 101 emphasized and expanded upon the legislature's statement that water planning was of the utmost importance. He contended S.B. 101 recognized pre-existing water rights to be of paramount importance in water planning and also recognized water planning must take all factors affected by water into account. He pointed out S.B. 101 would expand the advisory board on water resources planning and development to include representatives of all those who had expressed an interest in being part of the water planning process. Mr. Guild stated, at the present time, no member of the advisory board represented the owners of the largest amount of water in Nevada. He asserted everyone recognized that ranching and farming communities owned most of the water in Nevada and pointed out S.B. 101 would provide representation for those communities. He said one group of "...significant water owners..." which was not represented on the advisory board was that which consisted of the various Indian tribes of Nevada but said he had heard no member of any Indian tribe express an interest in S.B. 101. Mr. Guild discussed having an advisory board consisting of 18 members. He suggested everyone who had a stake in the issue of water should be represented on the advisory board and contended an 18 member board could function because all its members would have a stake in the issues before it. He suggested such a board would be able to reach a consensus on a state water plan. Mr. Guild urged the committee to recommend S.B. 101 be passed by the legislature. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Guild if he was familiar with the Desert Research Institute and whether it had "...ever been brought in the loop on this." Mr. Guild replied he was familiar with the institute but it had not been brought into the loop. Assemblyman Freeman said she supported having a state water plan but could not support the language in S.B. 101 which required the Division of Water Planning to accept the recommendations of the advisory board before a water plan could be brought before the legislature. She maintained that provision placed the advisory board in the position of being policy makers and contended that was an improper use of an advisory board. Assemblyman Neighbors expressed several concerns about S.B. 101. He suggested having 18 members on an advisory board practically insured the board would accomplish nothing. He referred to subsection 6 of Section 4 and pointed out no member of the advisory board who was not a resident of either Washoe County or Clark County could be chairman of the board. He questioned why that should be the case. He also expressed concern about the provision of S.B. 101 which provided for investigation of the possibility of importing water. He indicated he had yet other concerns which would need to be addressed before he would feel comfortable about S.B. 101. Assemblyman Bache said his concern with S.B. 101 was similar to the concern expressed by Mrs. Freeman. He referred to subsection 4 of Section 3 and questioned whether the advisory board was to be made a full time board which would create and submit a water plan to the legislature or, rather, the Division of Water Planning was to create the plan and the advisory board was then to submit recommendations to the division's director if it disagreed with the plan. Mr. Guild responded the advisory board would not be a full time board and it would be up to the State Water Planner to create a water plan. He asserted the purpose of requiring the advisory board's approval of a water plan before that plan was presented to the legislature was to create a reason for the board "...to be at the table." He said, at the present time, the advisory board had no such right of approval and if a water plan was presented to the legislature by the State Water Planner it was possible each of the 13 members of the board would then come before the legislature to express his concerns about that plan. He contended requiring the board to arrive at a consensus and approve a water plan before that plan was presented to the legislature was a more efficient way in which to create a good water plan. Ms. Naomi Duerr, State Water Planner, testified. She declared S.B. 101 would have a significant impact on the Division of Water Planning and upon the development of a state water plan. She contended, while there were a number of positive provisions in S.B. 101, the bill was fatally flawed and would have a negative impact on the Division of Water Planning. She said the division recommended the committee either "repair" S.B. 101 or reject it. Ms. Duerr discussed the history of the Division of Water Planning. Ms. Duerr advised, during the past two years, the division had developed approximately 25 publications dealing with water planning. She declared the division had worked hard to begin developing a water policy and a water plan and indicated a preliminary draft of the water policy had been sent to each member of the legislature. She explained, in developing the preliminary draft of the water policy, the division conducted 23 workshops throughout the state of Nevada in which more than 1,000 people participated. She said the division received many letters indicating people felt, for the first time, they had a say in the development of something as important as the state water plan. Ms. Duerr said the provisions of S.B. 101 to which she and the Division of Water Planning were opposed were those which would enlarge the advisory board, making it too unwieldy to be able to arrive at a consensus of opinion, and would invest in the advisory board the power to direct and to veto the state water plan, a power which she and the Division of Water believed belonged to the legislature. She said the Division of Water Planningwould like the opportunity to present to the legislature a water plan developed in conjunction with the advisory board, the public and such groups of water users as the division needed to confer with. Ms. Duer explained her concern about enlarging the advisory board was based on the fiscal impact of doing so. She said each board member would receive $60 per diem plus travel expenses and lodging expenses for attending meetings. She advised the estimated total cost for those expense items was approximately $8,000 and said, because the division's budget was very small, the division did not know how it would support the advisory board. Ms. Duerr indicated she was more concerned about the proposed change in the board's role, from that of an advisory capacity to that of a governing and regulatory capacity, than she was about the proposed increased size of the board. She said she did not believe any coalition of interests should be delegated power which belonged to the legislature unless the legislature consciously wished to delegate that power to it. Ms. Duerr expressed concern about the fact S.B. 101 provided seven members of the eighteen member advisory board would constitute a quorum. She suggested the committee might wish to consider establishing a larger quorum. Ms. Duerr advised it had taken 30 years to arrive at the point where the first preliminary draft of the first chapter of the state water plan had been developed and declared she did not wish to see anything occur which would hinder or slow down the process of developing that plan. She said she firmly believed all interests should be represented on the advisory board, within the constraints necessary to form a workable board. Mrs. Freeman observed S.B. 101 was introduced in the legislature on January 10, 1995, and asked why it was only now being brought before the committee. Ms. Duerr explained the original version of S.B. 101 consisted of only three or four paragraphs, however, as it was processed in the Senate various amendments were added to it. She said the Senate had taken final action on S.B. 101 only a week and a half earlier and had acted on amendments which neither she nor Mr. Morros had seen and which changed the scope, the size and the role of the advisory board. She indicated that made it difficult for her to get input from either the advisory board or the public with respect to S.B. 101. Mrs. Freeman said she believed S.B. 101 needed to be amended to delete the provision that "...the recommendations of the board be mandatory." and to include representation of Nevada's Indian tribes on the board. She suggested the number of members of the board which would constitute a quorum was also a very important issue and one which should be addressed. Mr. Pete Morros, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified. He stated his primary concern about S.B. 101 had to do with funding. He said, when the reorganization of state government took place during the last legislative session, his department eliminated three or four of its boards and created a natural resources advisory board, consisting of seven members, in lieu of those boards it eliminated. He explained the purpose of doing so was to "down-size" government and make it more efficient. He said, "...it just seems to me, now, we're going to go in the other direction; we're going to create a bigger board." He reiterated his primary concern was funding. He suggested the Division of Water Planning would not have sufficient funds to support the proposed 18 member board and would have to seek funds from the Interim Finance Committee. He asked, if the legislature was going to create an 18 member advisory board, the legislature provide the funding needed to make that board function. Mr. Ernaut asked whether Mr. Morros would have no problem with S.B. 101 if adequate funding was provided. Mr. Morros replied he was concerned about the ability to obtain a consensus of opinion on something as important as the state water plan from a board consisting of 18 members. He advised he thought there should be as much representation as possible on the advisory board but believed the legislature should be the entity to pass final judgement on any proposed state water plan. He suggested if the State Water Planner, in the process of developing a water plan, could not obtain a consensus of the advisory board with respect to a plan that plan should be brought before the legislature and the legislature should pass final judgment on the merits of the plan. Mr. Neighbors said he, too, was troubled by providing seven members of an eighteen member board constituted a quorum. He referred to the provision contained in subsection 2(a) of Section 4 of S.B. 101, that six members of the advisory board were to be representatives of counties and cities, and asked from where those representatives would come. Ms. Duerr replied individual counties and cities made recommendations to the Governor as to who should be appointed to the advisory board. Assemblyman Tripple suggested if the advisory board was to act in a policy making capacity rather than an advisory capacity it would then be a policy board and should be so designated. She referred to the provision of S.B. 101 that the advisory board meet at least once each calendar quarter and contended that did not allow the board to meet frequently enough to be well enough informed to set policy. Assemblyman Marcia de Braga, District No. 35, left her seat in the committee and testified from the witness table. She said she supported S.B. 101 but agreed it needed to be amended. She provided proposed amendments to S.B. 101 (Exhibit E). Ms. de Braga referred to the provision of S.B. 101 which required a proposed water plan be approved by the advisory board and pointed out S.B. 101 also required the Division of Water Planning to obtain the legislature's approval of the plan before the plan was implemented. She said she believed Ms. Tripple's point was well taken and stated it was important the language of S.B. 101 be crafted to provide that the water plan which was developed be developed based on expertise supplied by the members of the advisory committee and by any technical experts the board wished to consult. Mrs. de Braga stated she was concerned about both the present constitution of the advisory board and the proposed constitution of the board. She pointed out, currently, the members of the board represented mainly utilities and indicated she had a problem with the idea of a "...for profit utility..." establishing policy for the state. She asserted it was vitally important a long range water plan be developed, because of both Nevada's rapid growth and the fact water was its scarcest resource, but contended the constitution of the advisory board did not require any of its members be representatives of owners of water rights. She suggested it was fine for utilities to be represented on the board but declared other areas of interest should also be represented. She proposed the board be comprised of 13 members but suggested those members should consist of one representative of cities, one representative of counties, one representative of the farming and ranching industries, one representative of the mining and manufacturing industries, and one representative of wildlife or conservation, with the remaining members to consist of "...the five member finance board...," a representative of utilities and a member of the general public. She said she had no problem with Nevada's Indian tribes also being represented on the board so long as "...the Indian tribes are held to the same plan that is developed and special rules are not provided for Indian tribes." Mrs. de Braga expressed concern that the provisions of S.B. 101 skirted the democratic process by establishing who the chairman and vice chairman of the advisory board were to be and pointed out provided those individuals be representatives of utilities. Chairman Lambert announced the hearing on S.B. 101 would continue when the committee met the following day and said she would like to call upon those to testify who would have difficulty returning on the following day. Ms. Audrey Cawthorne testified. She advised she had resided in Nevada for 30 years and was a member of the Washoe Water Protection Association, a group comprised of well owners. She asked, rhetorically, what the result would be of having no state water plan. She suggested the result would be an economic free- for-all and indicated in such a situation short-term needs were often met to the detriment of "...long-term, sustainable use of water resources." She declared Nevada did not have enough water to meet everyone's needs fully and contended a water plan was needed which "...would not make everyone happy." She said the important criteria for such a plan was that it balance competing needs and desires for water so that no one group's needs were met "...to the total exclusion or detriment of another group." Ms. Cawthorne maintained the amendments to S.B. 101 which enlarged the membership of the advisory board and required it approve a water plan prior to that plan being submitted to the legislature precluded any meaningful water plan being presented to the legislature. She declared crisis management of water issues would result in a decline in both the quality and the quantity of water in Nevada, which would cause a serious impact on future generations. Ms. Ann Kersten, Public Resource Associates, testified. She provided both oral testimony and written testimony (Exhibit F). She stated Public Resource Associates supported the amendment to S.B. 101 proposed by Mrs. de Braga (Exhibit E) and urged the legislature to pass S.B. 101 with those amendments. Mr. Mike Baughman, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority, testified. He said the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority supported S.B. 101 and particularly supported the concept of an enhanced advisory board to ensure any water plan which was ultimately instituted adequately reflected the diverse interests of the varied stakeholders in Nevada's water. He advised tremendous progress had been made in techniques designed to bring about a consensus of the membership of rather large groups. He said, "The benefit then is people are vested to the plan, and the likelihood...that it comes to the legislature and...falls apart is greatly reduced." Mr. Baughman suggested the provisions that the advisory board have some authority to approve a proposed water plan and that the legislature have (final) approval authority was very important to the counties in the Humboldt River Basin. He indicated "...this whole endeavor..." originated from attempts to identify the amount of water in Nevada, who needed to use that water and whether water not needed by smaller counties and smaller communities could be used to support urban growth. He contended, from the perspective of Nevada's rural counties, it was very important that any plan which might be used to justify moving water from rural to urban areas be developed with input from rural areas and that those rural areas have an opportunity to participate in approving that plan. Mr. Baughman maintained if any interest group was excluded from being represented in development of a water plan there was a risk such a plan would get as far as the process involved in its final approval and then fall apart. He suggested developing a plan which everyone could support required "...having a lot of stakeholders at the table." Mr. Bache observed inter-basin transfers of water were under the authority of the State Engineer and said Mr. Baughman's testimony seemed to indicate he was saying the advisory board should be the entity to recommend such transfers. Mr. Baughman responded, "The State Engineer approved the request to move water from one basin to another. It's not inconceivable that this plan could ultimately recommend or, in a sense, embrace proposals to make water that goes beyond what's, perhaps, required--say in the City of Winnemucca--and maybe they need 25,000 acre feet of water or X amount of water to support their growth--it's not inconceivable that this plan, the state water plan, could recommend that waters beyond that amount in that area be encouraged to be moved to, say, an urban area to support growth in that area--to an urban area..." He contended water planning was needed to protect rural areas because inter-basin transfers of water occurred at the present time. Mr. Bache asked whether the provision originally contained in S.B. 101 which said the provisions of S.B. 101 must preclude an inter-basin transfer of water which would unreasonably and adversely affect the economy or quality of life of a rural area was deleted to allow inter-basin transfers of water to be made regardless of their effect. Mr. Baughman replied he believed the reason that provision was deleted was because inter-basin transfers were permitted by law at the present time. Ms. Jan Gilbert, League of Women Voters of Nevada, testified. She said the League was concerned that the advisory board provided for by S.B. 101 be a balanced board and believed the general public should be represented on that board. She also expressed concern that Nevada's native Americans be represented on the board. She referred to Mr. Guild's testimony that no member of the Indian tribes had appeared before the legislature regarding S.B. 101 and said members of the Indian tribes had great difficulty in coming before the legislature and in dealing with the legislative process. She suggested it was unfair not to provide representation for the Indian tribes on the advisory board on the basis they had not appeared before the legislature. She pointed out the Indian tribes had numerous water rights in Nevada and stated they had been actively involved in water agreements on the national level. Chairman Lambert recessed the hearing on S.B. 101 until June 28, 1995, at 8:00 a.m. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Lambert adjourned the meeting at 10:55 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Government Affairs June 27, 1995 Page