MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session March 27, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, March 27, 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 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Chris Freeman, Nevada Division of Conservation Districts; Dan Greytak, Nevada Division of Forestry; Dick Hubbard, Nevada Division of Forestry; Joe Johnson, Coalition for Nevada Wildlife; Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation; Terry Crawforth, Division of Wildlife; Rod Mier, NVACD. Chairman de Braga called the meeting to order and roll call was taken. She noted the meeting today would be a work session. SENATE BILL 63 - Broadens authority of state department of conservation and natural resources to regulate disposal of hazardous wastes on or near waters of State of Nevada. Mr. Bennett said S.B. 63 would directly affect him since he was a prime contractor to the Nevada Test Sites and would not be voting on the measure. Mr. Dave Ziegler, Legislative Counsel Bureau Research, referred to a work session packet (Exhibit C), given to the committee on bills being discussed. He read from a prepared work session packet. Mrs. de Braga asked if there was opposition to the bill when heard in committee. Mr. Ziegler stated Mr. Verne Rosse testified in favor and there was no other testimony. She asked for other discussion from the committee. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the bill would override the authority of the Federal government. Mr. Ziegler said the Federal Facilities Compliance Act specifically said states could regulate the disposal of hazardous waste to protect water quality in compliance with state law. Nevada Department of Environmental Protection's point of view stated they wanted to strengthen state law to have the ability to regulate waste at the federal facility. Mr. Sandoval asked what NDEP was seeking to do through S.B. 63 which they could not do before. Mr. Ziegler stated he understood if low level radio active waste which were not explosive were stored underground in solid form, they would not be covered, because they were not explosive and not liquid. If they were stored on top of the ground, there was a narrow prescription of what would be permitted. Mr. Sandoval asked what entity was presently regulating the practice if it was occurring in the state at this time without S.B. 63. Mr. Rosse was asked based on Mr. Bennett's testimony, whether there were regulations going on at the Federal level, stated Mr. Ziegler. Mr. Rosse said the Department of Environmental Protection police themselves, were concerned with Federal budget cuts and whether the waste disposal problems at the test site would be taken care of. Mr. Neighbors asked where the bill originated. Mr. Ziegler said the bill was requested by the agency, NDEP. Mr. Humke said perhaps the committee should wait on the bill to see what comes out of Congress this session. He believed Congress was to give Department of Environmental Protection some different direction, which could benefit Nevada allowing for greater state regulations of waste. Chairman de Braga asked if it was the pleasure of the committee to postpone acting on the bill. Action was postponed on S.B. 63. ASSEMBLY BILL 148 - Requires establishment of programs to provide grants of money to conservation districts. Mrs. de Braga said the bill was concurrently referred to Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining and Ways and Means because it seeks an appropriation for soil conservation districts throughout the state. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 148. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman de Braga said there was some proposed language on an amendment to the bill. Mr. Ziegler was asked to look at some alternative language. He spoke to Division of Conservation Districts and they offered language which was on page 3 of the work session packet. He referred the committee to other language (Exhibit D), page 2. Option 1 was language Mrs. de Braga was more comfortable with and might be good for an amend and do pass version. Chairman de Braga asked Chris Freeman and Pam Wilcox to come forward and give their opinion on the change. She prefaced the change by indicating the words "administrative expenses," might send the wrong message. There were not established administration in the soil conservation districts as such and she was looking for softer language. Ms. Pamela Wilcox, Acting Administrator, Division of Conservation Districts and Chris Freeman, professional staff person for the division, stated she had no problem with either option. This was not an agency bill, primarily because it did not survive into the Governor's budget. She stated they work with conservation districts and if the bill passed they would like to see it work for the districts. As originally structured there were two grants, the first in section 2 and the second grant program in section 3. Section 2, as she understood the intent would have been a grant to give districts a little basic money for stamps, stationery supplies, make long distance calls, transcribe meeting minutes, those basic requirements districts do not have money for. Section 3 would have been a competitive matching grant for district programs and projects, like a stream restoration or range improvement project, or erosion control project. Ms. Wilcox said she did not know with option 2, how the two grants would be differentiated, and would appreciate any guidance of whether there should be two kinds of grants for the districts. Option one was with the understanding the department was talking about the basic paper and pencils kind of grant, and option two was broader, but felt either one would work. Ms. Wilcox said option one distinguished between the two funds, it would be more apparent. Mr. Ziegler said option one put together by the research staff was very similar to the option suggested by Pam Wilcox and Chris Freeman. The only change would be to leave out the word "administrative" which he was told might cause problems. He said at the staff level it was recognized there were two grants, one non-competitive and one competitive. Mrs. de Braga asked for any other questions, a brief discussion took place clarifying the motion. She called for the question. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLY BILL 159 - Makes various changes to provisions governing removal or possession of certain trees and flora. Mr. Ziegler noted A.B. 159 was requested by the Division of Forestry. The amendments proposed by the division were on page 4, Attachment B. He referred to Pat Murphy of the Nevada Division of Forestry who was in attendance to answer any questions. Mr. Carpenter suggested we needed to know what the problem was and if so what can be done to take care of the problem. He felt the bill was too broad based. Mr. Pat Murphy, Deputy State Forester Resource Management, Nevada Division of Forestry testified. He replied to Mr. Carpenter's question regarding the plants targeted. The cacti yucca was the main plant the division was most concerned with. The cacti yucca had been a big harvest item in Southern Nevada for about 10 years. The plants sell on the commercial market from $25 to $250 each, so harvest on all lands was a major concern. Private lands being targeted would be patented mining land. A harvester would make a deal with a landowner, harvest the plants and make a great deal of money off the plants. Mr. Murphy stated the law was weak on the Federal lands and it was the belief of the State Forester the state of Nevada did have a vested interest on all its vegetation on all lands in the state. Mr. Carpenter asked how wide spread was the taking of the cacti yucca. He asked if the taking of the yucca plant was endangering the species. Mr. Murphy said these particular plants take a long time to grow, between 60 to 70 years. By regulating the number of plants taken on all lands the flora would not be depleted and the state would have some say how they were regulated on Federal land. Mrs. de Braga asked if the harvest was regulated on private land as well as public lands. Mr. Murphy answered, there were two interests, they represent the private landowner's interest. The private landowner was usually contacted by someone in the market from the outside. The Division of Forestry would ensure the private landowner was not being taken and sufficient flora would be available. He discussed various ways the harvesters take the yucca unlawfully, and would be why they would like to see the bill encompass all lands. She said the private land- owner has the right to make an agreement with someone for what was growing on their land. The bill goes beyond regulating the commercial harvest of trees and plants on public lands and dealt with everything which grows. The bill was far too broad and would not deal with just the commercial harvest, stated Mrs. de Braga. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 159. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bache suggested amending the bill to three specific plants and dealing with them on public land. Mrs. Segerblom said around Searchlight there were areas cleared of the yuccas. She was in favor of stopping the eradication of the yucca plant. Mrs. de Braga said in Churchill County and other areas asparagus was a wild crop which grows at will on ditch banks. Asparagus has been harvested on both state lands, between the highway and fences of individuals, as well as on private lands, and illustrated why A.B. 159 seemed too broad. Mr. Bennett said even by amending the bill to include cacti and yucca, the intent of what was needed to be done would not be solved. Mr. Sandoval felt the Division of Forestry was here for a valid purpose but agreed the language on the first page of the bill was much too expansive to apply to any kind of vegetation or flora in Nevada. However, he felt there was a need to protect the cacti and yucca and if an amendment would help he would be in favor of it. A roll call vote was taken. THE MOTION WAS TIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, FETTIC SANDOVAL, SEGERBLOM AND DE BRAGA VOTED NO). (ASSEMBLYMEN BENNETT, HUMKE, NEIGHBORS, OHRENSCHALL AND CARPENTER VOTED YES). Mr. Fettic said if there has been a problem with the harvest of Christmas trees, yucca and cacti and reasonable evidence can be given to the committee, an amendment might be in order. He discussed the reasons for not having such a broad law. Mr. Carpenter suggested the Division of Forestry come back with amendments and be more specific. Discussion took place regarding the amendments. Chairman de Braga advised the Division of Forestry, the committee would be agreeable to hearing another bill which would specifically deal with commercial harvest. Mr. Humke and Mr. Bache discussed a tie vote when the action was to Indefinitely Postpone. The consensus was a motion to Indefinitely Postpone would not go to the floor and would be posted as No Action. The bill would be open to be brought back to committee. The work session was closed on A.B. 159 ASSEMBLY BILL 178 - Revises certain requirements for defining boundaries of mining claims. Mr. Ziegler reported to the committee the amendments were not available as yet from the Bill Draft Advisors and therefore no discussion took place. ASSEMBLY BILL 212 - Makes various changes to provisions governing hunting and fishing licenses. The Division of Wildlife proposed A.B. 212, stated Mr. Ziegler, and referred to (Exhibit C). The subcommittee met and recommendations for amendments were listed on Attachment C of (Exhibit C). Pie charts from the Division of Wildlife (Exhibit E) were given to the subcommittee and to the committee. Mr. Sandoval inquired about the documentation the Division of Wildlife was asked for at the last committee meeting. Mr. Ziegler stated the testimony was the need for the cost of living increase or salary increase for state employees. The increases would be from the Division of Wildlife's account and not from the General Fund. Mr. Neighbors agreed and stated the subcommittee went through every item on the issue, both the revenues and expenditures. He stated the division has a $15 million budget with approximately 200 employees, some part time employees. A discussion took place on the ending and opening fund balance which was substantial. The revenue chart was discussed thoroughly, stated Mr. Neighbors. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the Boat Account Transfer was for boat licensing. Mr. Ziegler said the Division of Wildlife received revenues from boat licensing which was transferred into the Wildlife account. Mrs. de Braga asked Mr. Ziegler for the reasoning behind requiring a duck stamp and not requiring a trout stamp on the one day hunting and/or fishing license. There was objection to the exemption on the duck stamp and less of an objection on the trout stamp. Young people might want a one day fishing license and could be discouraged for the need to have a trout stamp. Mr. Bennett said the feeling was a trout stamp would discourage the one day fisherman more so than the one day duck hunter. This was from testimony both NDOW and various groups reported in subcommittee. Mr. Terry Crawforth, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife, stated Mr. Bennett was correct. The division had originally proposed no stamps be required on the short term licenses to encourage people to take a once or twice opportunity to get into hunting. There was concern state waterfowl duck stamp dollars targeted for wetlands projects would be reduced. The division would like to encourage people to fish and if a trout stamp were required for the short term license it would discourage those individuals wanting to try fishing. Mr. Sandoval asked Mr. Crawforth what the percentage raise would be for the division. He stated the Governor's recommendation of four percent the first year and an additional three percent the second year. Mr. Sandoval asked if the salary increases would be funded entirely through A.B. 212 or in any other way. Mr. Crawforth stated the provisions outlined in A.B. 212 would fund the raises with the exception of about six positions funded out of the general fund in the non- game program. Mrs. Segerblom asked if a person held a Nevada fishing license and an Arizona stamp for Lake Mead would one need a Nevada trout stamp. Mr. Crawforth replied in the affirmative and stated they had started to stock Lake Mead with trout. Mr. Sandoval asked if A.B. 212 did not pass, how would raises be paid for. Mr. Crawforth said they would not be able to pay for the raises. He noted some of the "Idea Team" proposals such as the one-day fishing and hunting license would help in the day to day operations. The increase in the regular resident fishing, hunting and combination licenses and the raise in the non resident fishing license would generate about $900 thousand over the biennial and be used for the salary increases. He stated in the past the division had tried unsuccessfully to have the general fund pay for salary increases. If A.B. 212 did not pass and the general fund would not pay for the increases the division would be smaller. Mr. Sandoval said the situation was difficult as each time a raise was proposed for employees would a raise in fees be generated also. Mr. Crawforth agreed and said on occasion new funding sources were found, license sales were up or use of the unobligated reserve monies over the years were used to maintain programs. Most of the new programs in the last ten years have come with new funding. Chairman de Braga said Mr. Crawforth's statements were the reasons to better describe what funds came from the general fund and how much was in the Governor's budget, and what affect would come from the committee's decision on A.B. 212 regarding the division's whole budget. Mr. Crawforth stated the five dollar increases in the resident and non resident license were not in the executive budget. The balanced budget was developed with $2 thousand in reserve not knowing how much salary increase would be recommended by the Governor. An amendment was made to the bill draft to cover those salary increases. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Crawforth how the one day license plus additional days be enforced. He said they would buy a one day plus the additional days needed at one time. Requests had been made to institute the one day permit for fishing. Mr. Bache asked if the bill was not passed in some kind of form then the division would be cutting staff and programs in the game and wildlife area. Mr. Crawforth agreed. Mr. Bennett said the general fund money which would go to NDOW was earmarked specifically for non-game programs and was not much of the overall mission or budget. Mr. Humke said he understood the increases in the license fee schedule contained in pages 2 and 3 of A.B. 212 would fund the state employees' cost of living increases. Mr. Crawforth said the resident hunting, fishing and combination and the non resident fishing increases would fund the raises. The other items such as the one day permits were in the executive budget and should bring some additional revenues. Mr. Humke questioned, section 7 of A.B. 212, an appropriation for each year of the biennium of $400 thousand, and asked if it would be needed. Yes, NDOW had been receiving the money and it was in the budget request. In the current biennial and the previous biennial NDOW had received an amount of money which would be the difference between the price of the low cost license and what the license would have cost, stated Mr. Crawforth. The money supported general fish and game operations. The amount of money received was in the $400 thousand range but NDOW had not received the amount in either biennial, a percentage cut was taken as all of the general fund agencies had. Mr. Crawforth remarked, section 7 of A.B. 212, was an attempt to put into statute a money agreement process. Mr. Humke asked if tourism of $200 thousand was in the current budget. Tourism money had been received by NDOW for ten years, said Mr. Crawforth. Mr. Humke believed tourism money came from the general fund and was not broken out. Mr. Crawforth stated there were three reasons for receiving general fund money. Money from the difference of the low cost license money, the non game program and tourism was the other reason for general fund money. Mr. Humke and Mr. Crawforth did not agree on where the general fund money came from and what category it would be in. Mr. Fettic asked Mr. Crawforth if the increase in fees for licenses would be going for the four percent and three percent raise. He questioned what would happen if the raise was not given or the raise was 12 percent. Mr. Crawforth stated if a raise was not given NDOW would be "bucks up." If the increase were 12 percent they would have to cut programs, raise licenses more, etc. Mr. Fettic asked if NDOW had taken time to decide what programs were to be cut and who would be laid off if the fee increase were not approved. Mr. Crawforth said they were optimistic. He asked if they were the only agency who had to work outside the general fund for raises. Mr. Crawforth said there were others but not many. Mr. Fettic said fishermen and hunters would be paying for the raises of NDOW personnel. A short recess was called by the Chairman. The meeting was called to order and discussion continued on A.B. 212. Mr. Neighbors asked Mr. Crawforth if pay raise would be given regardless of the fee increase. He asked Mr. Crawforth to supply the committee with a list of where cuts would take place if A.B. 212 were not passed. Mr. Neighbors asked Mr. Crawforth to assume there would be a four percent pay raise and what areas would be cut assuming the bill were not passed. Granted there would be an opening balance of $2 million, however, all but $200 or $300 thousand was earmarked, said Mr. Neighbors of information given to him by Mr. Crawforth. Mr. Neighbors asked if the information was correct. He answered the money was used for cash flow every year but the obligated reserve portion would be reestablished at the end of the fiscal year. The obligated reserve included duck stamps and elk damage money and some administrative money obligated by gift sources for a certain project, plus money from auction tags placed for special projects, replied Mr. Crawforth. How would the $400 thousand be spent from the general fund and could it be spent on salaries, asked Mr. Sandoval. Mr. Crawforth agreed and stated the low cost license reimbursement received from the general fund would be spent on general fish and game operation, including salaries. Would there be a way to seek additional funds from the portion of the bill for reimbursement listed in section 7, page 5 of A.B. 212. Mr. Crawforth noted they had attempted to do so in the past and had not been successful. Mr. Sandoval was uncomfortable increasing fees on Nevada residents and was trying to find alternatives to accomplish what the division needed without taxing the resident hunter and fishermen. He also asked if they had discussed raising the non-resident fishing and hunting licenses to offset the hole in the budget. Mr. Crawforth said the non- resident licenses had been raised more frequently in an attempt to stay in line with other states. Nevada did not have the resources as a destination for fishermen from out of state. Mr. Sandoval felt the Division of Wildlife was being penalized because other departments were receiving money from the general fund for raises. He would like to see the division go before Ways and Means for salary increases. Mr. Carpenter felt Mr. Neighbors and Mr. Sandoval had good points and the committee needed additional information before acting on A.B. 212. Money earmarked for administration and other categories need to be broken down. Mr. Crawforth named several areas where money was lumped under administration. He stated there were 24 administrative personnel in the division. Discussion ensued regarding all areas of the Division of Wildlife budget and the need of specifics. Mrs. Ohrenschall asked Mr. Crawforth to clarify if the fee increases were for the projected four percent salary increases. He stated the major increases on the hunting and fishing licenses for resident and the non-resident fishing were for salary increases. Some items like the one-day permit would generate more money because of the popularity. The fee increases were not on the original bill as the division was waiting to see what the salary increase would be. Mrs. Ohrenschall asked what the average percent of fee increase the division was asking for. Mr. Crawforth said the fishing license would go up 33 percent. Mrs. Ohrenschall asked if they needed a 33 percent increase to meet a four percent pay raise. She noted salaries were only 50 percent of the budget on the pie chart and the increase of four percent would translate to a two percent increase in the division budget. Mr. Crawforth said her figures were accurate but on the number of licenses sold the increase would generate the $900 thousand needed for the biennial salary increases. She asked if the percentage increase was not a large amount considering the salaries were only a two percent increase. Mr. Neighbors questioned if the two-pole bill was included in A.B. 212. Mr. Crawforth stated the revenue from the two-pole bill was included in the executive budget and should generate approximately $250 thousand . Chairman de Braga noted the problem with A.B. 212 would be a lack of agreement for the justification of increases. She said there was a lack of knowledge regarding the Governor's budget and how it relates to the proposed fee increases. Chairman de Braga asked the committee if they wished to pass A.B. 212 amending out the increases and send it to Ways and Means or hold it to another work session pending the information members have asked for. Mrs. de Braga stated the committee did not deal in budgets, but in order to approve the fee increases the committee needed to understand what would come from the general fund, how they relate to the increases asked for, and how many increases were already in the budget. Mr. Carpenter asked how long would it take to break down the figures. Mr. Crawforth was asked to come back with the information and give to members of the committee by next Monday. Mr. Neighbors asked for the breakdown, as an example, of miscellaneous revenue or an expenditure item. He also asked what the budget was for part time workers. Mr. Crawforth stated $150 thousand per year was the cost of part time workers which were paid for from gift sources for special projects such as the Forest Service and included in the budget. The hearing was closed on A.B. 212. ASSEMBLY BILL 307 - Limits use of money received by division of wildlife of state department of conservation and natural resources from stamps, tags, permits and licenses sold or issued by division. Chairman de Braga noted the committee had not taken action on the bill at the first hearing. The bill would be postponed until amendments to the bill heard at the first hearing could be brought to the committee. A committee introduction for a Bill Draft Request which would revise provisions governing state grazing boards was asked for. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BILL DRAFT REQUEST 50-1255. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 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 27, 1995 Page