MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session March 6, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, March 6, 1995, Chairman Marcia de Braga presiding in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John C. Carpenter, Chairman Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman Mr. Max Bennett, Vice Chairman Mrs. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman Mr. Douglas A. Bache Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mr. David E. Humke Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Chris Freeman; Eddie Venturacci, Lahonton and State Conservation Commission; Ray Huxtable, Conservation Commission and Washoe/Storey Conservation District; Robert Baum, National Association of Conservation Districts; Bryant W. Robison, Clark County Conservation District; Mr. & Mrs. Frank Williams, Lahonton Conservation District; Carl Uhlig, Elko County Conservation District; Patsy Tomera, Eureka County Conservation and State Commission; Nelo Mori, Lovelock; Vance Vesco, Lovelock; James Nakada, Nevada Tahoe Conservation District; Frank Soares, Nevada State President Conservation Districts; Richard Mieldazis, Nevada Tahoe Conservation District; Rod Mier, Nevada Association Conservation District; Pam Drum, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; Lyle de Braga, Stillwater Conservation District; Charles Welch, Carson Valley Conservation District; Bill Goff, Reno Nevada Spiculture Society; Joe Muncey, Sparks, Nevada Spiculture Society; John O'Brien, Nevada Department of Agriculture. Chairman de Braga called the meeting to order and roll call was taken. ASSEMBLY BILL 148 - Requires establishment of programs to provide grants of money to conservation districts. Vice Chairman Ohrenschall acted as Chairman while Mrs. de Braga testified on A.B. 148. Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Assembly District 35, said A.B. 148 sought two kinds of funding for the Natural Resource Conservation Service. The Soil Conservation Service, the prior name of the service, was created in 1935 nationally and in Nevada in 1937 to help conserve and protect our states' natural resources for present and future generations. The bill has been referred to Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining for approval or changes in language and to Ways and Means for the funds. She said there were 28 districts in Nevada who have changed their focus from 90 percent rural to 60 percent rural and 40 percent urban. Mrs. de Braga asked the committee to refer to page 1 of (Exhibit C), which lists the projects the Conservation Service was responsible for. Nevada was one of the few Western states which did not provide funding even though the NRCS had mandated responsibilities under state law. In the handout were figures the other Western states were currently receiving. In order to comply with legal requirements districts need a source of funding to support routine activities and soil and water conservation programs. Mr. Frank Soares, Chairman of the eight Conservation Districts said the 28 conservation districts were created by the Nevada Legislature. The districts need a source of funds to support both routine administrative activities and soil and water conservation programs. Conservation District supervisors were volunteers and received no compensation for their time. The districts were involved in many projects working not only with private landowners but also sponsoring coordinated resource management projects. The projects involve local, state and federal agencies as well as special interest groups. A.B. 148 would set two funding programs for conservation districts in Nevada. The first part of the bill would provide 5 thousand dollars for each district, a total of 140 thousand dollars for a fiscal year. The second half of the bill would allow the State Conservation Commission to develop a program of matching grants for soil and water conservation programs. The amount requested for part two of the bill would be 300 thousand dollars per fiscal year. The Nevada State Association of Conservation Districts fully support A.B. 148. Mr. James Nakada, Nevada Tahoe Conservation District Supervisor, was in support of the bill which was mandated by the state without funding. Other sources of funding have been tapped to support tasks at Lake Tahoe. He asked the committee to question members about funding which has been a serious problem in Nevada. The second part of the funding would give districts the opportunity to gain matching funds. Mr. Rod Mier, District Manager, Nevada-Tahoe Conservation District spoke in support of A.B. 148 from written testimony (Exhibit D). He said the 300 thousand dollars per fiscal year requested would be matched with at least a 50 percent match and in some cases 75 percent or better. Mr. Mier referred to a publication given to the members by the Nevada Conservation Districts (Exhibit E) which contains over sixty resource conservation district projects within Nevada since the 1993 Legislative Session. Mr. Carpenter asked how the districts have gotten by with administrative, clerical assistance and dues paying expenses. Mr. Mier said at a minimum, by the sponsorship of counties and district conservation groups throughout the state. Dues have been paid by some districts and others have not been paying. Travel expenses, cost of paper and supplies and whatever might be necessary to convey the message of conservation would be paid by the funding. Mr. Mier said his district received funding from both Douglas and Washoe Counties. There were districts throughout the state which could not avail of their counties for funding or support. Mrs. de Braga said some districts raise money by rental of equipment. Mr. Chris Freeman, Nevada Conservation District Program Specialist, on annual leave, said he works with the 28 conservation districts throughout the state and assists them in getting whatever funds available. He noted, District Supervisors for the most part pay their own way to association meetings and district meetings. Mr. Freeman pays his own way when attending range and pasture meetings. Mrs. de Braga asked if he knew how many of the 28 districts received funding from their counties. Mr. Freeman said about 10 districts received some funding from counties. He gave a synopsis of those receiving funds from counties but prefaced by stating most districts were on their own and had no funding or limited funding. Mr. Sandoval asked Mr. Freeman from what source would the counties seek matching money and what assurance do they have of obtaining matching funds. Mr. Freeman said part of the responsibility as State Conservation Commissioner would be to set up guidelines and procedures for how the money would be used and expended. A project would have to be formalized before money would be allocated to a district. The source of matching funds would be 319 Environmental Protection Agency money. This last year 100 percent of the grants were funded. He said every supervisor who attends a meeting could be counted as a soft match at an hourly rate. In theory the NARCS could obtain state funds, federal funds and soft match. There were funds through Partners in Wildlife, for doing wildlife habitat improvement. Foundation grants were available for the districts including Forest Service Challenge grants and a variety of Federal funds and other resource funds if matching funds were available. Mr. Eddie Venturacci, Chairman of the State Conservation Commission, a rancher in Fallon, Nevada and Chairman of the Lahonton Conservation District testified in support of A.B. 148. One of the projects of the Lahonton Conservation District was sponsoring the lower Carson River Coordinated Resource Management Project. The project was a cooperative effort among federal, state, local agencies, land owners and special interest groups to help restore the lower Carson River to a healthy environment. A grant program administered by the Conservation Commission would allow funds for other districts to become involved in projects of local importance. There were standards set by the Conservation Commission which districts must follow in order to be in good standing. Currently 25 of the 28 districts in Nevada were in good standing. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Venturacci if the reference to dues, administrative costs and money for travel should be outlined in the bill, although he agreed funding was needed for the districts. Mr. Venturacci said before his time all the districts had grant equipment to rent which paid for dues and costs. The equipment over the years had worn out and only a couple of districts still rent out equipment. Mr. Carpenter would feel more comfortable if the bill could be reworked to give the authority to the Commission and not have it written out in the law. Mr. Freeman said the state of Washington's legislation reads, "the district may use the funds for any way deemed legal by the Commission." The Nevada Commission would be setting up the guidance for how funds would be allocated based on the legal requirements of the state. He said the bill was written to be up front on where funds would be spent, but the bill could be reworded, "anything deemed legal by the Commission." Mrs. de Braga said it did appear some amendments could be made which would cover the total intent but without specified administrative costs. Mr. Freeman referred to the Washington State Law. Mr. Fettic asked Mr. Freeman how the figures were arrived at. The figures were based on what other states put in their funding packages. Mrs. de Braga stated the 140 thousand dollars would give 5 thousand dollars to each of the 28 districts and the 300 thousand dollars would be for competitive grants. Mr. Ray Huxtable, member of the Conservation Commission and Washoe/Storey Conservation District said the districts have many ongoing projects and change with the times. Mr. Huxtable's district deals mainly with urban issues. His district reviews subdivision plans and other issues in Reno, Sparks and Washoe County. Funding has been available in other states and Nevada has been an orphan in funding available. He said although he had been working with two year old figures Utah gave their districts 850 dollars each year, but in Montana the districts received 12 thousand 500 dollars per year. Mr. Robert C. Baum, Convention Manager, National Association of Conservation Districts, stated the next national meeting will be held in Las Vegas. The last ten years two national conventions have been held in Reno with approximately 2000 participants. He served as Director of the State Conservation Commission in Oregon, Director of Natural Resources for the Governor's office, and in 1971 he was Regional Representative for the National Association which included the state of Nevada. He worked with the state association, the commission and the people who have testified to assist them. The biggest need was for seed money for the conservation districts. The history of conservation districts was unique and has been the connection between the Federal Agency and the Natural Conservation Service. The conservation districts have given technical assistance to landowners, small communities and others within their districts and under the guidance of locally elected people who were farmers, ranchers and urban representatives elected to the board by their peers. Mr. Baum's experience has been the people in those districts support the district programs because they trust their neighbors on the boards. He complimented the authors of A.B. 148 and urged strong consideration of the bill. The Clark County Conservation District and State Commissioner, Mr. Bryant Robinson, who farmed in Logandale, supported the legislation. He said his district had sent a letter to the Chairmen recommending changes which had been noted during the hearing. A.B. 148 was needed in most of the districts in the state of Nevada. Clark County has had better funding than any district in the state but have not been able to carry out the mandate required because of lack of funding. Mr. Bennett asked where the mandates come from. Mr. Robinson stated both the Federal government and the state of Nevada had mandates for the districts. Mr. Freeman said the conservation districts were locally elected boards who have authority to work on not only their own private land but lands within their boundaries. The conservation districts' concept was to have voluntary practices before it becomes a mandate. Districts have been working with EPA to stay ahead of "the curve" on conservation practices. They work also with the NDEPA to meet their guidelines through a voluntary practice. He explained areas the district had worked on throughout the state. Mr. Carl Uhlig, Elko County member of the Conservation Commission and representative of the eight conservation districts in Elko was in favor of A. B. 148. In Elko the current flood control system had become inadequate and they did not have funds to hire extra personnel needed to correct the flood system. Mr. Uhlig explained in the Lamoille area "Leafy Spurge" could threaten the whole Humboldt system and with proper funding control could be maintained. The onset of mining in the area had been turning the services of the conservation area from agriculture to urban and mining issues. Ms. Patsy Tomera, Eureka County member of the State Commission, and Vice President of the State Conservation Districts supported A.B. 148. She informed the committee the districts work with Federal Agencies such as the Forest Service, Department of Wildlife and Bureau of Land Management. Changes need to be made in the bill as previously stated. Eureka County fully supported the bill. Mr. Nelo Mori, Lovelock, Big Meadow Natural Resource Conservation District, supported A.B. 148. He said, funding was needed to send representatives to learn to deal with agencies such as the Department of Wildlife, School Districts and others. He said the districts no longer were ranchers and farmers. Boards were made up of people from different walks of life. He said the district developed 20 nesting islands in the Humboldt River Sink as protection from predators for nesting birds. He named other projects the district had accomplished. The projects' cost was over 200 thousand dollars and he emphasized, "not one penny came out of the county, state or government," the money came from private funding. Mr. Vance Vesco, Lovelock, voiced his support for A.B. 148. Mr. Lyle de Braga, Chairman, Stillwater Conservation District, supported A.B. 148. He stated their district was one of the few which has a small equipment program. If equipment were to break down the district would have a difficult time with paying for repairs, stated Mr. de Braga. State dues have been paid but only half of the national dues. He told the committee his district did not have many ranches but covered a large area including the Stillwater Wildlife Management Area. With additional funds the district could maintain the equipment and support projects. Mr. Charles Welch, Board Member, Carson Valley Conservation District, supported A.B. 148. He felt money could be leveraged with other agencies and be a benefit to Nevada. Ms. Pam Drum, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, worked closely with the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Resource Conservation Districts on a number of projects. The projects included education and ground type projects. Currently TRPA had been working with the RCD on a program to educate homeowners about best management practices. The TRPA had enlisted the help of the RCD on the TRPA program. She remarked, as a nonregulatory agency the RCD plays a very important role in education programs. The last fiscal year the TRPA was able to help out the district with a 75 hundred dollar appropriation but would not be able to continue to maintain support of that kind. She said they would particularly support the bill regarding grant money to be spent on soil conservation and water quality projects, the areas critically needed at Lake Tahoe. Chairman de Braga said with staff and Chris Freeman's help the proposed amendments could be worked out before referring the bill to Ways and Means. She thanked all those who testified and asked if they would return when the bill came before the Ways and Means Committee. A one minute recess was called by the Chairman. The meeting was called back to order by the Chairman. SENATE BILL 44 - Revises provisions governing importation of bees, beehives, honeycombs and certain related appliances. Mr. Bill Goff, a Nevada state beekeeper, stated the purpose of S.B. 44 was to simplify the certification for migratory beekeepers who came in and out of Nevada. Nevada still had in force beekeeping regulations, some states had dropped regulations. California dropped their regulations and most of the beekeepers came in to Nevada from there. The word change would give the Department of Agriculture officials the privilege of inspecting out of state bees when they come in and set down in Nevada. The bees would be inspected for the standard diseases and mites which were infecting colonies today. Because of financial problems with beekeepers making a living, etc., the word change would cut down on the number of certification and inspections needed in one year. The beekeepers could come into Nevada, be inspected and certified to be free of diseases listed in the bee laws. The beekeepers could leave and go to other forging areas and within one year they could return to Nevada on the original certification. Mr. Goff supported the change in legislation. Mr. Bennett asked how often would a migratory beekeeper leave and reenter Nevada in the course of one year. Mr. Goff explained, most beekeepers due to the nature of seasonal needs of working the bees for profit , would be in and out once per year. Mr. Bennett asked if the inspection was upon entry. Mr. Goff said yes, California had been very stringent on regulations. Most regulations have been dropped in California and it would be difficult for them to be certified. The inspections would be paid for by beekeepers and the change in the bill would prevent them from having to pay several times. Mr. Bennett asked who was responsible for notifying Nevada's inspectors of the entry of a migratory beekeeper. Mr. Goff said according to law it was the beekeepers' responsibility to notify the inspector where they were going on entry into Nevada. The number of places were well known and limited and beekeepers would come in on their entry from the previous year. Mr. Sandoval asked where the inspections were conducted. Mr. Goff said on site, wherever the bees were set down after they were unloaded. He noted at times the bees would be unloaded in staging areas set up for certification. Mrs. Segerblom asked how long he had been a beekeeper. Mr. Goff answered about 20 years. Mr. Neighbors asked Mr. Goff about the economy of beekeeping and related questions. Mr. John O'Brien, Nevada Division of Agriculture, explained the bill facilitates entry of colonies into Nevada primarily from California. Twenty to thirty commercial beekeepers bring colonies in about May and generally leave in August or September. The three main areas where beekeepers set up are in Fallon, Lovelock, Orvada and Yerington. California had deregulated there apiary industry under budget cutbacks. The bill would enable the Agriculture Division, when they inspect the bees for foulbrood, a bacterial disease, to allow beekeepers back into Nevada without being inspected in California. Mr. Bennett asked what was the danger involved with foulbrood and how often has the disease been detected. Mr. O'Brien stated the disease was related to bees only, highly contagious among colonies. The disease would be routinely treated by beekeepers. The inspection program would be one way to keep the disease at a low rate. Mrs. de Braga closed the hearing on S.B. 44. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 44. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pat Menath, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Chairman Assemblyman Marcia de Braga, Chairman Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining March 6, 1995 Page