MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session March 8, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, March 8, 1995, Chairman John C. Carpenter 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: Assemblyman John Marvel STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Cy Wilsey, Nevada Landmens Association; Susie Mason, Nevada Landmens Association; Doug Driesner, Nevada Division of Minerals; Nancy Carr, Lyon County Recorder; Lew Dodgion, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection; Russ Fields, Division of Minerals; Joe Johnson, Sierra Club; Joe Guild, Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corp. ASSEMBLY BILL 178 - Revises certain requirements for defining boundaries of mining claims. Assemblyman John Marvel, District 34, explained A.B. 178 was requested by Mr. Russ Fields, Director of Division of Minerals. Mr. Marvel turned the testimony over to Mr. Fields. Mr. Fields informed the committee A.B. 178 was requested to clarify and correct A.B. 2 of the 1993 Session. He stated representatives of the Nevada Landsmens Association pointed out some of their needs which needed to be clarified to the Division of Minerals. Mr. Fields asked Mr. Marvel to sponsor A.B. 178. A.B. 2 of the 1993 Session was approved by both houses and provided the statutes for monumentation of mining claims for the state of Nevada. It was a state prerogative how the corners of claims were established. The purpose of A.B. 2 of the 1993 Session was to remove or disallow the new use of plastic pipe as corner monuments. He stated any pipes which were in existence on the date of passage of A.B. 2 of the 1993 Session either had to be replaced or all of the perforation in the tops capped. The whole purpose of doing so was to prevent wildlife from being trapped in the pipes and dying. Both the mining and the environmental community agreed to the bill and were happy with the outcome. However, there has been a problem and the witnesses from the Landmens Association will detail their request. Mr. Fields remarked A.B. 178 would clarify the need for not filing an amendment to the claim. He suggested an amendment would put a shadow on the title and it would cost money to file the amendment. It was not the intention of the Division of Minerals to cause a problem for the industry. A.B. 178 would clarify the issue and a notice would be the only change needed to advise the posts had been changed. Mr. Fields supported the amendments the Landmen proposed. He urged the passage of A.B. 178 with the amendments presented to the committee. Mr. Cy L. Wilsey, U.S. Land Manager for Homestake Mining Company and a certified professional Landman, testified from prepared testimony (Exhibit C). Mrs. Segerblom asked who were the Landmens Association. Mr. Wilsey stated the Landmens Association was made up of approximately 100 individuals located primarily in Reno and in Elko who dealt with real property matters pertaining to mining. He said most of the Landmen work for mining companies and a number of the members were individual consultants, title attorneys, surveyors and claim stakers. Mrs. Segerblom asked if mine owners belonged to the organization. Mr. Wilsey replied there were a few mine owners but not many. Mr. Bennett asked if the State Division of Mines was in concurrence with the amendment suggested by Mr. Wilsey. Mr. Fields reiterated his support of the proposed amendments. He suggested there was a misreference of the line numbers, but the spirit and intent was supported by the Nevada Division of Mines. Ms. Susie Mason, Vice President and Manager of Land and Administration for Pittston Nevada Gold Company and a Certified Professional Landman and Current President of Nevada Landmen's Association spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit D). She added the importance of the legislation being effective upon passage of A.B. 178. The requirement of the existing law was to have the monumentation changed by August 31. The comments and suggestions made could appear to be small points and minor details but comments were made with collective experience working with title attorneys rendering opinions on unpatented mining claims in relationship to offering stock on the stock exchange or of obtaining financing for capital improvements or the development of a mine. Mr. Bache referenced Ms. Mason's request to delete Section 2 and 3 and asked if it would only delete the section not the statute. Ms. Mason said they were only looking to delete the changes proposed as to the scale of the map. Mrs. de Braga asked if August 31st would be a reasonable time to accomplish the changes. Ms. Mason said yes, when A.B. 2 of the 1993 Session was passed the bill put mining on notice to take the steps to bring claims into compliance. Clarification of the documentation for county records was needed. Mr. Joe Johnson, Sierra Club noted support for A.B. 178. Ms. Nancy Carr, Lyon County Recorder, Yerington, Nevada, spoke on behalf of all the recorders. She made it clear they were not in opposition of A.B. 178 but supported the amendments. She spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit E). Mr. Bennett asked Ms. Carr what the current fee was for recording. She replied, $7 for the first page and $1 for each additional page. Mr. Neighbors asked if the recording fee of $1 covered the administrative fee. Ms. Carr said it did not cover the cost. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Fields and the Landmen to testify regarding the size of the scale of the mining maps. Mr. Carpenter felt it needed to be resolved. Mr. Fields explained the requirement to file mining maps in Nevada had existed since 1971 and is a very good addition to the Nevada statutes. The map scale in existence at this time would be on a scale of not less than 500 feet to the inch, which on a mining claim would be close to three inches long by a little over an inch wide, which would be quite easily seen. The discussion of going to 2000 feet to the inch would have conformed the scale to other commonly used maps. In view of the testimony from Ms. Carr and the concern for the maps being used by the public, to reduce the map further would defeat the purpose of the whole mapping process. Mr. Carpenter confirmed with Mr. Fields' agreement to leave the language on maps as it was written in A.B. 2 of the 1993 Session. Mr. Wilsey and Ms. Mason also agreed the scale of the maps be left as 500 feet to the inch. The hearing was closed on A.B. 178 and the committee was asked for action on the bill. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 178. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Carpenter emphasized the bill would be effective on passage and approval. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Neighbors would present the bill to the Assembly. ASSEMBLY BILL 162 - Requires certain persons to participate in period for solicitation of public comment to preserve their right to appeal certain administrative decisions related to air pollution. Chairman Carpenter read a letter from the Attorney General, Frankie Sue Del Papa asking that A.B. 162 be indefinitely postponed. Similar legislation is currently being challenged in Virginia (Exhibit F). ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B.162. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Lew Dodgion, Nevada Department Environmental Protection, if the committee indefinitely postponed A.B. 162 would the NDEP agree. Mr. Dodgion approved of indefinitely postponing A.B. 162. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Chairman Carpenter informed the committee there were three bills to be considered in work session. Mr. David Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst, updated the committee on bills to be considered and spoke from (Exhibit G). ASSEMBLY BILL 10 - Revises provisions prohibiting herding or grazing of livestock on land near municipal water supply. Mr. Ziegler went over the areas the subcommittee had discussed and pointed out the areas concerned with. He did remark one area of concern would be to include counties as one of the units of government which could take advantage of the protection in A.B. 10. The state engineer had no problem listing counties in the statutes. Mr. Ziegler said Line 13 of A.B.10 could be changed to include cities, counties, municipalities or unincorporated towns. Mr. Carpenter said the changes would bring it back to the local level to deal with the concerns. Mrs. de Braga asked if there was any problem with Austin, Nevada not knowing who actually owned the water. Mr. Ziegler noted according to the state engineer the water purveyor almost always owns the water right. There was some discussion in committee and subcommittee regarding ownership of the water rights. Whoever was delivering the water owns the water rights. He believed the sewer and water district in Lander County would own the water rights. Mr. Ziegler did not see it as an issue. Mrs. de Braga said they had indicated the town of Austin had 1863 water rights. The state engineer had looked at A.B. 10 many times, stated Mr. Ziegler, and did not have a problem with the bill. Mr. Carpenter said adding counties was a necessary change and they should get the water rights updated to be in compliance with the state engineer's records. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 10 WITH THE 3000 FEET AND ADDING COUNTIES. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Carpenter asked Mrs. de Braga to present the floor statement for the bill. ASSEMBLY BILL 155 - Prohibits person who has received refund for hunting license from being denied bonus points for additional chances to obtain hunting tag. Mr. Ziegler gave background on the bill and spoke from (Exhibit G). The Department of Wildlife had sent the information the committee requested regarding hunting license refund/bonus point information. The number of hunting license refunds for residents was smaller than for nonresidents in 1994. He said Mr. Sandoval had suggested amendments which would narrow the applicability of the bill to Nevada residents only. A Nevada resident who did not draw a deer tag and asked for a refund on the hunting license would not lose the bonus point. An out-of- state resident who asked for a refund on the hunting license would not get to keep the bonus point. Mr. Crawforth, Deputy Administrator, Department of Wildlife, explained, the Division of Wildlife would like to keep this level of detail in the regulations of the Wildlife Commission. Mr. Sandoval said there was concern about nonresidents paying $100 and retaining their bonus points. He felt it was important to insert resident in the statute so residents can maintain their bonus points if asking for their license fee to be returned. Mr. Sandoval had the Legislative Counsel Bureau research the constitutionality of treating out-of-state and in- state hunters differently in this regard. The research by LCB provided the opinion it would be constitutional to have this in the statute. The Wildlife Division felt there would be a loss of revenue, however, the groups which had supported the bill felt very sensitive to the environment and preserving hunting for all. The groups felt their bonus points were being held hostage and would like to have the option of obtaining a refund on a hunting license they could not use. The majority of the members believed most would not ask for a refund as they hunt other animals. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 155 WITH THE AMENDMENTS STATED IN ATTACHMENT D OF (EXHIBIT G). ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Sandoval will handle the floor statement for A.B. 155. ASSEMBLY BILL 156 - Clarified period which certain replacement tags to hunt big game mammals are valid. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Ziegler to provide the background on the amendment for A.B. 156. He stated when the bill was heard there was testimony from Mr. Arterburn, a hunter, regarding a replacement tag for a diseased antelope. The intent of A.B. 156 was to clarify when replacement tags were available and for what period. The one issue was the split seasons usually back to back and they often overlapped. Mr. Ziegler paraphrased Mr. Sandoval and stated if you needed a replacement tag and hunted in the split season, one could use it for the rest of the split season the first shot was fired in, the next split season, or the following year in the same part of the split season for which you had drawn the previous year. Mr. Sandoval agreed with Mr. Ziegler. Mr. Crawforth felt the language needed to be changed to distinguish between a hunting year and a hunting season. He referred the committee to Attachment E of (Exhibit G). Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Sandoval if Mr. Ziegler had fairly echoed comments and his feelings on A.B. 156. He stated the amendment was more than accurate and had nothing to add. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 156 AS PER ATTACHMENT E OF (EXHIBIT G). ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Bennett will present the floor statement for A.B. 156. The next meeting minutes would be approved. Chairman Carpenter encouraged the committee to read them. The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 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 8, 1995 Page