MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session April 3, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, April 3, 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 GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Dean A. Rhoads STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Gerald A. Lopez, Colorado River Commission; Wade Stellon, Nevada Public Lands Access Coalition; Helen Leveille, Nevada Public Land Access Coalition; Willie Molini, Nevada Division of Wildlife; Pam Wilcox, State Lands; Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau; Fred Wright; Stephanie Licht, Nevada Sheep Commission; Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation; Frenchy Montero, Rancher; Joe Johnson, Coalition for Nevada Wildlife; Larry Johnson, Coalition for Nevada Wildlife; Ed Wagner, Coalition for Nevada Wildlife; Joe Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association; Brian Wallace, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman de Braga and roll call was taken. SENATE BILL 46 - Repeals prospective expiration of provisions authorizing issuance of deer or antelope tags as compensation for damage to private property. Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District spoke in support of S.B. 46. He informed the committee legislation had been passed in a previous session. He stated the reason for introduction was damage to crops by wildlife of several constituents who owned ranches and farms. In the past the practice was to call the Wildlife Department and they would destroy the deer, sometimes up to 200 animals. Research was conducted and the genesis of the bill was conceived. He said if the property owners could identify every 50 deer destroying their crop, one deer tag to sell would be given to them, above and beyond the quota. Wildlife would check for a legitimate loss of crops or hay. Senator Rhoads said since the inception of the bill he did not believe the Division of Wildlife had to have any depredation hunts. The landowner wins because he sells his tags, the wildlife people win because the deer population could continue and the compensation works for all. With deer population there has been an imbalance between winter feed and summer feed. There usually would be an abundance of summer feed but not much winter feed, so this encourages winter habitat areas for deer and antelope. Senator Rhoads said there were three amendments to the bill on the Senate side. The sunset has been removed, the Division of Wildlife was to report back to the Legislature every two years with statistics, and landowners wanted to hunt later in the season on their private land. There was no opposition when the bill was heard on the Senate side. Mr. Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, agreed with Senator Rhoads and stated the bill had worked well. He said it did provide a little more habitat for deer because landowners were more tolerant of the deer and antelope problems by receiving financial enumeration through the sale of tags. This last year 124 tags were authorized and 119 actually issued. Forty eight landowners participated in the program. Mr. Molini said there was a bit of an issue regarding access provisions. He noted someone else would be testifying on the issue and he would be available for questions or comments. The division was supportive of the bill, removing the sunset and also of the amendments entered on the Senate side. Mr. Wade Stellon, Nevada Public Land Access Coalition, spoke on private property rights regarding compensation tags. Private property rights were not a consideration and not an infringement on those rights but rather a lease of access between the sportsmen of Nevada and the landowner in return for the issuance of compensation tags. This would not be a forced contract but a cooperative agreement leaving the landowner the option of applying or not applying for the compensation tags. Sportsmen of Nevada and Division of Wildlife officials seem to agree there were few problems with the program. He said there was no documentation of the effectiveness of the program, pro or con. Cost effectiveness and herd size had not been documented. Therefore Mr. Stellon said his coalition believed the sunset should stay. A landowner who receives compensation tags should grant primary access through their property. The way the bill was written, reasonable access, stated in the cooperative agreement was too vague and argumentative. Access should be for the calendar year, allowing archery and muzzle loader hunters these accesses. Approximately 40 percent of regular deer tags issued in unit 032, for example, were landowner compensation tags. With this large portion of the tags, all license holders should have access to the public lands for other types of hunting and fishing. The Legislature and the Division of Wildlife should grant the sportsmen, and the landowner/tag holder, the greatest opportunity fairly and equally. Chairman de Braga asked if Mr. Stellon was opposed to the bill. He said he would like to see the bill extended. Mr. Bennett noted Mr. Stellon mentioned keeping the lands open for archery, muzzle loaders and black powder. Mr. Bennett asked if on page 2, lines 5 and 6 would it not allow for an archery or muzzle loader season to have access to the public land. Mr. Stellon said the issue as written was unclear to him. Ms. Helen Leveille, President of the Public Land Access Coalition, said they did not oppose the bill regarding compensation for the ranchers. The maps presented to the Division of Wildlife were unreadable. Ranchers applying for compensation tags should present the Division of Wildlife a Bureau of Land Management Map (Exhibit C), showing public and private lands, at a cost of four dollars. If the rancher could not afford the map the Public Land Access Coalition would pay for them. The coalition wants the primary access not the alternate access. The maps would show how much public land exists and how little private land there was. The NPLAC would like to see an amendment to the bill which would be more effective from the Legislature than from regulations by the Division of Wildlife. Mr. Carpenter asked if the ranchers were not allowing access to the Federal lands. Ms. Leveille said, the cooperative agreement with the Division of Wildlife the private landowner signs, has a provision in section 5 accessing hunters to public land. The landowner would write on the provision in section 5 "not applicable." Mr. Carpenter said he surmised anyone holding a tag would be provided access. Ms. Leveille said access was not being given. The cooperative agreements signed by landowners and accompanied by maps were not legible. She noted if the colored BLM maps were required there would be no question of the public access roads. Defining the type of map to use would take the pressure off all concerned. Mrs. de Braga asked if Ms. Leveille had a written amendment for the proposal. Ms. Leveille had written up an amendment on (Exhibit D). Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President for Nevada Farm Bureau spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit E), in support of S.B. 46. Mr. Fred Wright spoke for himself although he was involved in the bill during the 1991 and 1993 session and the proposed amendments. He gave background of the bill as it traveled through the sessions. The issue of access would be best handled by the Wildlife Commission Committee who would meet with ranchers and sportsmen, make recommendations to the Wildlife Commission and then put the recommendations into the regulations. Mr. Wright asked for support of S.B. 46. Mrs. Elsie Dupree, representing Nevada Wildlife Federation, spoke in support of S.B. 46. The federation believes the access problem can be regulated by the Commission. Mr. Frenchy Montero, Pine Forest Land & Stock Co., Inc., said he was the one who encouraged Senator Rhoads to originally introduce the bill. The bill was to compensate the ranchers and farmers for damage deer and antelope were doing to their property. The Division of Wildlife had killed 90 does one year and 50 the next year on Mr. Montero's land. His family did not like seeing the animals killed. The access has been agreed upon and the issue should be dead. He did not believe as a property owner he should let anyone on his land. He had pictures of the deer on his property. The deer were in his fields seven months of the year. Damage to his haystacks was incredible during the snow this year. Since they have the compensation tags they do not ask the Division of Wildlife to use netting, etc., on his haystacks. Mr. Montero said hunters did not drive through to public land but would stop and shoot on deeded ground even though posted. He noted there were up to 2000 deer in his fields in the fall. Mr. Bennett asked how many tags he was awarded last year. He said six tags last year, six the year before and seven the year before. Mr. Joe Johnson, Coalition for Nevada Wildlife introduced Larry Johnson who spoke for the Coalition. He stated members were polled and supported S.B. 46. Mr. Johnson named the many sportsmen organizations in support and noted two groups did not favor the bill. The Ormsby Sportsmen Association wanted the program to continue, but only on private lands, not the entire management area as presently allowed. The Fraternity of Desert Bighorn from Las Vegas were also in opposition and shared a similar position as the Ormsby group. He gave background on the public access issue. The purpose of the public access in the original language was to allow public access to deer hunters during bow season, muzzle loader season, and rifle season. Out of the 130 tags issued there were only two problems with access. Mr. Bennett asked if there were any public lands which could not be egressed over private lands. Mr. Johnson did not know of any areas where access was totally unavailable. Mr. Ed Wagner, Coalition of Nevada Wildlife and Nevada Wildlife Federation, both support the bill, and said what problems have arisen due to access were very few and handled best by commission regulations. Mr. Joe Guild, Cattlemen's Association, noted everything said before in favor of S.B. 46 would be echoed by the association. He said he had not seen so many diverse interests come together where everyone basically won. Mr. Guild had been with the project since inception. Ms. Stephanie Licht, Nevada Woolgrowers, echoed the sentiments of the cattlemen and the Farm Bureau and backed their testimony in support of S.B. 46. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 46. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Carpenter said in view of the overwhelming support generated from the diverse groups for S.B. 46, the legislation needs a stamp of approval. Mrs. de Braga noted suggestions were given in the form of a possible amendment and did not wish to ignore them. The best process would be through the regulatory body and to make sure there was some improvement in how the access was noticed to the public. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. SENATE BILL 168 - Requires conveyance of certain state land to American Baptist Home Mission Society in exchange for certain transfers of land by Society. Ms. Pam Wilcox, Administrator of Division of State Lands, testified on S.B. 168 which authorizes an exchange of land. She noted everyone seemed to think it was a good idea. Ms. Wilcox gave the committee two maps (Exhibit F), which showed the Stewart Indian School, south of Carson City, and the second was a survey map which showed lands to be exchanged. She said for reasons which were lost in history, the church was physically located on land which was owned by the state and the church owned land which was not in their yard. The street which was one of the main accesses into Stewart goes through land which was actually owned by the church. The idea would be to even up the ownership so the church owns the land they were occupying and in exchange gives up the land they were not occupying. This could be accomplished without an act of the Legislature but the statute only authorizes exchanges when values were exactly equal. In this case it did not seem to be worth it to do an appraisal to establish the value. The church already paid for the survey for the legal description. The two pieces were approximately equal, both of them were slightly over 12,000 square feet. Mrs. de Braga asked if the church was moving and who owns the land the church was sitting on. This would allow them to have land they already use and we would have title to what the state was using. Mr. Brain Wallace, Chairman, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, testified in favor of S.B. 168. He noted the area was within an area which surrounds state property entirely, the Washoe reservation, south of town. Mr. Wallace's interest went back to the original Federal conveyance in 1982, where he worked on the process and was involved in the quick claim deed, when the state of Nevada began to acquire its initial interest in the Stewart School campus. The bill had been amended to remove part of section 2, which talked about the private conveyance between the church itself and the Washoe Tribe. The church and the tribe will continue with the private conveyance. He gave his support to clarify title for the state and the church in the area. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 168. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. SENATE BILL 177 - Revises provisions governing inspection of sheep and issuance of sheep permits. Ms. Stephanie Licht, Executive Secretary, Nevada State Board of Sheep Commissioners, was asked to present the bill in support of S.B. 177. She noted the office was in her home and someone was not there at all times to give out permits. A permit number was needed to move sheep in and out of state lines and not always available. The Division of Agriculture, Division of Veterinary services contacted Ms. Licht and asked if they could issue sheep permits as long as they kept track of where the sheep were going and how many. Ms. Licht and the Division of Veterinary Services both issue sheep permits to allow them into Nevada. To comply with the law the statute needed to be straightened out and this was the reason behind the bill. She gave a background of the sheep inspectors and money loaned from the state of Nevada to set up the program. Sheep were taxed to pay the debt back to the state. Sheep in Nevada were at 20 million and now 75 thousand. Dipping was no longer required as each state gives a certificate of health inspection at the point of origin. A thirty cent per head tax to the sheep commission would be paid by herds coming in to graze from other states. Ten cents was given to the sheep inspection fund and twenty cents was for predatory animal control. The thirty cents per head tax would be prorated if only in the state for a period of time. The bill would allow anyone from the Division of Agriculture to go out to sheep camps who had not registered and collect the thirty cents per head. Mrs. de Braga asked if there was an extra charge by the Division of Agriculture to give the inspection number. Mrs. Licht said no, they would look at the list and the health certificate and give a number to them. A letter from Jack Armstrong, Acting Administrator, Division of Agriculture (Exhibit G), was read into the record. Mr. Bennett asked about the mechanism to confirm the number of sheep grazing in a particular area. Mrs. Licht said there were livestock assessment committees in each county. The people who have sheep in the county pretty well know who has sheep in the area. Mr. Neighbors asked how the assessor appraised the sheep. Mrs. Licht said each year the Board of Sheep Commissioners meet and owners provide the number of sheep they own, the commissioners inform the county assessor. If property was owned in the state the sheep tax would be added to the property tax. A declaration was needed to be filled on the number of sheep owned. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 177. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9 - Expresses support of Nevada Legislature for exchanges of land involving Bureau of Land Management and Colorado River Commission which would result in additional land for Laughlin. Mr. Gerald Lopez a senior deputy attorney general serving as counsel to the Colorado River Commission testified from prepared testimony (Exhibit H). Mrs. Segerblom asked where the land would be in relationship to Laughlin. Mr. Lopez said Section 16 was west of the center of town and would be used for residential development and would not characterize it as low cost housing. He noted there would be a fire station and public facilities envisioned in the Clark County plan and some commercial development. Mr. Bennett asked if section 16 was currently state land or BLM land. Mr. Lopez said BLM land. Mr. Bennett noted if BLM land came into the state it would be designated school lands. He said the law in section 16, section 36 was originally designated for schools. Mr. Lopez said he was unaware if that would be the result and he would check into the law. Mr. Humke commented the rule was in effect when a township size portion of land was granted from the Federal Government to a state. Mr. Lopez said they had talked to BLM regarding the issue and the school lands issue was not raised. Mr. Carpenter said it was his understanding, in certain states, particularly Utah, the school lands issue was the case. In Nevada in most areas this has not been the case. He did not believe it was a concern in Nevada. Mr. Carpenter said he understood this was land which would be traded and the town of Laughlin would end up with it. Mr. Lopez said the Colorado River Commission as a state agency would acquire the land directly from the BLM and in turn, consistent with the counties master plan would sell the land to developers. The proceeds from the sale would go into the Fort Mohave development fund, as required by law, to be used to finance infrastructure in the Laughlin area. Mr. Carpenter gave a review of the state lands acquired for schools in Nevada. Mrs. de Braga said she had several requests from various government agencies who were seeking to purchase BLM land outright or annex the land when adjoining a city. She asked why wasn't a method like those appropriate for Laughlin. Mr. Lopez said he was unfamiliar with those efforts, but his understanding was the land had to be on a list of disposable property which BLM or the state line office puts together. Section 16 has been placed on the list and the list was part of the state line resource management plan Mr. Lopez referred to. Once the plan was adopted then the BLM would be authorized to proceed with the exchange. If the plan was not adopted because of opposition and had to go through public hearings, the other avenue would be to seek Federal Legislation. A bill by Congress to direct BLM to exchange the land. He said, as assurance they would ask the Nevada Congressional delegation to sponsor the legislation so they would move along on a parallel track. Whichever occurs first they would use. Mr. Neighbors asked if there was enough water for 640 acres. Mr. Lopez said yes, as a result of the Big Bend Water District who manages the water supply in the area for the county. Mrs. de Braga closed the hearing on S.J.R. 9. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16 - Urges Congress to maintain United States Geological Survey. Mr. Pete Morros, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, noted S.J.R. 16 was a resolution introduced by Senator Rhoads through his committee at the department's request. He noted there was some reinventing of government and overhauling of the Department of Interior which has his department greatly concerned in relation to the U.S. Geological Survey. Mr. Morros said the Division of Water Resources and Environmental Protection rely heavily on some of the scientific and technical data which was developed through various programs cooperatively with the Department of Geological Survey for a number of years. The federal state cooperative program has been in effect since the 1950's and had provided the state engineer with scientific data he utilizes in his decision making process. With some of the changes being proposed in the Department of Interior the particular program has been slated for a substantial reduction and privatizing of some of the data collection, primarily surface water data collection and groundwater data collection. The proposal was to turn some of the responsibilities over to the Federal EPA agency which has the department concerned. Secondly, there has been a water resource investigation program which was a state research program and has been recommended for elimination. This program was almost all funded through federal funds. The survey would be a scientific organization not a regulatory organization. The program has offered a great deal of benefits for the state of Nevada. Some of the items the federal government wants to do would be to privatize water quality labs, eliminating the Carson/Truckee studies and the hydro geology of aquifers of the Great Basin which would be eliminated. Water shed modeling would be eliminated, water resource assessment programs, the scientific and technical publications program would be reinvented, and the acid rain program would also be eliminated and data collection would be shifted over to the states. The thrust would be to shove the responsibility of a lot of the ongoing programs over to the states and have them carry the major portion of the funding for the continuation of the programs and eliminate some of the programs altogether which would hurt Nevada. Mr. Bennett asked if the budget axe would fall, did he have another plan in mind. He suggested Nevada has a capable agency to do the work which does a good job of soliciting federal dollars for projects. He referenced Desert Research Institute under University of Nevada at Reno. Mr. Morros said he was approaching the request strictly on the standpoint of the impacts on the water resources division of the USGS. He noted they had located the water resources division of the USGS in the same building as the Department of Conservation and integrated the computer systems and the water resource investigation effort. He was concerned with funds if the programs through USGS were eliminated. When a water resource investigation was initiated through federal state cooperative program, the federal government supplied 50 percent of the funds. His department had been successful going to the mining companies and others to provide the state's share of the funding. The Geological Service in the water resource budget was about $100 thousand a year which was just about enough to cover the state's share of the data monitoring program. Mr. Humke said in talking to an official at the Desert Research Institute he informed Mr. Humke that USGS has had funding problems for some time and had been directed to go out and secure contracts. They would do consulting work and were not playing fairly by competing with the Desert Research Institute for consulting contracts. They do not factor in labor costs, we the taxpayers pay the personnel. USGS can compete on consulting contracts without showing they have to pay their own labor costs. Mr. Morros was aware there had been some intense competition over the years between the DRI and the USGS. He said they look at the end product which comes out of the USGS. The only criticism Mr. Morros noted of the USGS would be the timelessness of producing the final reports. Their review program was a time consuming program. One reason they depend on the GS was their credibility in the courts, particularly the federal courts. The depth of GS expertise was almost bottomless said Mr. Morros. He noted he was not criticizing DRI, but did not do business with them as they did not provide 50 percent of the funding on what was needed. Mr. Humke and Mr. Bennett discussed the pros and cons of the DRI against the USGS. Mr. Morros gave his support to USGS and suggested it had paid off for the citizens of Nevada. He was in no way discrediting DRI. Mr. Neighbors said he has had a long working relationship with the USGS. Mrs. de Braga closed the hearing on S.J.R. 16. Floor statements were assignedwith Mr. Bennett assigned to S.B. 168, Mr. Carpenter S.B. 46, and Mr. Fettic S.B. 177. The meeting was adjourned. 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 April 3, 1995 Page