MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session April 17, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, April 17, 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: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Douglas Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau; Stephanie Licht, Nevada Woolgrowers; Brian Wallace, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California; Gaylyn Spriggs, Rayrock Mines; Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation; John Pappageorge, Silver State Disposal. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Marcia de Braga and roll call was taken. ASSEMBLY BILL 449 - Revises provisions governing recycling programs of counties. Mr. John Pappageorge was asked by Assemblyman Hettrick to introduce A.B. 449 to the committee. He noted he would speak on both sides of the bill. The bill allows an alternate recycling program and was intended for Douglas County where they have a problem with curbside recycling. Douglas County attempted to put in a curbside recycling program and it involved a rate increase. The voters petitioned and voted down the rate increase and the county could not continue with curbside recycling. Mr. Hettrick the sponsor of the bill had been talking to Mr. Pappageorge for several weeks regarding A.B. 449. Many areas of the bill would hurt Silver State Disposal's operation in Reno and Las Vegas. It would allow the commingling of solid waste which in essence would allow anyone with a pickup or station wagon to pick up commingled waste and haul it. This would violate franchise agreements and current contracts Silver State has with local municipalities. Mr. Pappageorge was trying to be a proponent of the bill without being an opponent of the bill. Mr. Hettrick agreed A.B. 449 would cause some problems and he did not want to hurt anything Silver State was doing and had asked Mr. Pappageorge to prepare language for an amendment which would be acceptable to everyone involved. Mr. Pappageorge met with Mr. Hettrick and told him they would have the language for an amendment within a few days and come up with a solution. The bill would not only affect Clark and Washoe Counties but Reno Disposal has four other counties they service and Clark County also services other communities. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Pappageorge about the 40 thousand population and if the figure was a census number or what the state considers to be the population of Douglas now. Mr. Pappageorge said the figure was what they considered Douglas County population was now and Mr. Hettrick would like to raise the figure to 100 thousand so it would not have to be addressed next session. The way the bill was written it would affect Elko County also, remarked Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Bache provided information regarding the population clause. This problem arose last session and the committee was advised the population from the 1990 census would be used and in the year 2001, when the next census was taken, they would amend the population clause to up it appropriately. Mr. Neighbors asked if Douglas County had mandatory county wide pickup. Mr. Charles Joerg representing Douglas Disposal, Inc., the franchisee for Douglas County, said two issues had been brought up he would like to address. The population would be assessed as of the last census. The reason Douglas County and Douglas Disposal were interested in the alternate provision was they wanted to start planning for the year 2000. It would take two to four years in order to get a facility to do this type of recycling. Mr. Joerg said in the Tahoe basin portion of Lake Tahoe they have mandatory pickup, in the valley portion they do not. South Tahoe Refuge an affiliate picks up the Tahoe basin, and Douglas Disposal picks up the valley. Mr. Pappageorge in meeting with Mr. Hettrick said there were six thousand dwellings in Douglas County and only three thousand have garbage pickup. Mr. Joerg noted, on behalf of Douglas Disposal, they recognize the concern of their colleagues in the big cities and want to work with them to address those concerns, and therefore would ask the bill be held for a possible amendment. Mr. Carpenter asked if Douglas County was over the 40 thousand census. Mr. Joerg said the last census had them in the high 30's. Mr. Carpenter said there was a need to look at the census in 1990 and address the bill accordingly. Mrs. Segerblom questioned what would happen to Boulder City and Mesquite as the county was over 40 thousand. Mr. Pappageorge said there would be all kinds of legal problems. Anyone could move to Boulder City and start a garbage business. They would call it recycling and pick up your recyclables for four dollars a month which would be all your garbage, take it to a warehouse, throw it on the floor and separate it out. The rest of the garbage would end up who knows where, stated Mr. Pappageorge, maybe in the landfill, maybe in the desert. Mrs. Segerblom said Boulder City has recycling now, so it would not affect them. Mr. Pappageorge said it would affect the franchisee as their business was based on numbers. They buy the equipment, build the facilities, and provide the services and pay the wages based on the contracts, and advised the percentage profits were low in the disposal business compared to other kinds of businesses. He stated, disposal businesses were allowed to make so much profit by the county and cities, and the companies go into business based on so many customers. If someone comes out and takes half those customers away, they have no other choice but to ask for an increase in price. Mr. Pappageorge said he had painted a bleak picture which might not happen but that would be the potential. Mrs. Segerblom said the city gives the contract in Boulder City so no one else could move in. Mr. Pappageorge said not if this bill passed in the present form. Chairman de Braga asked if anyone wished to testify for or against A.B. 449. Hearing none she closed the hearing on A.B. 449. The committee will hear the bill again when the amendment is completed. The hearing was opened on S.J.R. 8. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 8 - Urges Congress of United States to adopt various amendments to Endangered Species Act of 1973 in order to provide for consideration of economic impact of Act. Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, stated they were involved in drafting the reprint before the committee. He said they believed very strongly the Endangered Species Act needs reform. A series of three hearings will be held this week and next in California as Congressional groups were going across the country to hear people's desires with regards to the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Busselman noted what they were trying to do in reforming the Endangered Species Act was to bring about some balance and also some accountability and responsibility on the part of Federal agencies who were charged with administrating the act. The main area the Farm Bureau was involved with were lines 16-22, page 2. Once an endangered species has been designated endangered or threatened there was a burden on the Federal agency to do a recovery plan and the agency would need to come up with a cost benefit analysis and the assessment on the impact of private property rights. They have been trying to bring about some balance to this burdensome act. Ms. Stephanie Licht, Nevada Woolgrowers Association, would like to go on record supporting the legislation. The Big Horn Sheep in Nevada was a local problem, but she had sheepherders who have been told they could not even trail their sheep any where near the two mile buffer zone around endangered Big Horn Sheep. Even though they understand the conservation of the Big Horn Sheep, they felt it was wrong to have to pay to truck their sheep down a road several miles, which adds cost to the business, when they could have trailed using the forage as permitted in grazing permits. This was one instance in her own industry she was aware of and would appreciate support of S.J.R. 8. She noted to please include an analysis of the cost and benefits to a business when a species was listed. Ms. Gaylynn Spriggs, Rayrock Mines, was in favor of the resolution. She said they did not believe when the act was enacted that they meant to protect, "flies in Bakersfield," and some of the things which are happening. They would like to see the act go back to something reasonable. It costs Rayrock Mines a great deal of money each year to comply with the onus regulations and the company could do a good job without all the regulations. Mrs. Segerblom stated she would not want to vote for anything that would hurt the endangered species. She did not know if everyone would be supportive of the endangered species. She asked if they could think of anything which might happen to lessen interest in them. Ms. Spriggs said she believed when most of the people talk of the endangered species they think of the condors, giraffes, bears, different species of animals we did not wish to be lost. Where there was a problem was as an example, a particular basin in Nevada, with a particular type of plant, which has been proliferated throughout Nevada, but they do not want the plant disturbed in the particular region, even though it could be replanted and was not really endangered. She said if the cost benefit analysis and economic analysis were taken into consideration, the cost would be too great for the benefit reaped, and there were other ways to mitigate. Those would be the things her company was talking about, they did not want to see any of the endangered species eradicated. We think the Endangered Species Act goes far beyond and maybe has another purpose besides saving the endangered species. The people who are opposed to mining would consider the Act to be a good way to stop mining, when it does not really have an impact on mining at all. Mrs. de Braga said from her personal observation, part of the problem with the Endangered Species Act would be, the government does not hand down to the local level to implement the conservation and preservation of the species they were preserving. If this were done the local level would take into consideration the people who were involved and nowhere in Congressional Legislation were people considered in this equation. She felt this was what the resolution was speaking of, to bring it down to the proper level to implement what needed to be done, but still consider the people who would be affected by the Act. Ms. Spriggs said Rayrock Mines was in favor of state primacy and local jurisdiction. Mr. Brian Wallace, Chairman Washoe Tribe, Nevada and California, spoke on behalf of the tribes. "He wished to outline the experiences of the tribe with the Endangered Species Act. In our development processes on the reservation we comply with it and we built those particular values in our own planning and development standards that govern those processes and we kind of find it is also part of who we are. Values to have to do that as well. Primarily, also, because our belief that the habitat values are very closely related to the overall values of these resources. Also, I have been involved, actually worked with Mr. Ziegler for awhile, in helping to comply with those standards which are very thorough, in Lake Tahoe development processes as well, and I certainly understand the cost of addressing those concerns and those potential impacts, in that particular area but also throughout the state, certainly. I can very much emphasize with previous witnesses' considerations and points. But, I think as a whole we would still have to, ourselves anyway, not be so adverse to being faithful to the standards as they exist today. In a historic sense I am also very much aware of the supreme courts' hearing today, actually. On a case to consider the scope of application of the Endangered Species Act. Historically the Washoe Tribe resided in this area of Lake Tahoe and come to see many changes in this area over the years. But just thinking about, sitting in the audience and kind of writing down my testimony here. I was just thinking, there is really no phrase or no word in Washoe, if I had to think to explain this to an elder person after I left here, how I would explain what we are talking about an Endangered Species. Our management capability or jurisdiction of Lake Tahoe, for instance, ended not that long ago, and so you can see how things can quickly change over a short period of time and that is something we have come to appreciate as well. But I think what you're talking about is a scientific impact on classifications. When I was coming back from Easter visiting with my family today and remembering how beautiful it is coming through the Sierra's over here to Carson City and how blue the lake was today, but it was kind of hard to forget what has happened in that place in the past and many of us have probably seen photographs not that long ago, how the forest was denuded and life was pretty much scraped off that particular area right outside Carson City. I was also reminded of a letter that was sent by an Indian agent, Campbell, about 1889 or something like that. When he was sent out here to survey the conditions of the Washoe and this was after the Comstock and the Gold Rush, and he wrote back in a letter to the President saying that further consideration of a geographical land base within the boundaries of the homeland of the Washoe didn't need any further consideration because of the sicknesses and everything else they were susceptible too. Consideration level wasn't warranted and they were predicting the extinction of the Washoe people. We always have believed that was very much related to everything else that thrived in this area. I just want to argue that these values, these habitat values, these biological values that are discussed in the Endangered Species Act, they're just not animals they're plants as well, could be framed in economic terms. Our religion believes that Lake Tahoe was the life giver of everything in this area, and if you got up in a plane you can see that scientifically it is, but economically as well. The environmental quality of Lake Tahoe very much converts into an economic value of the commerce and trade that goes on in this area and its preservation very much figures into the long term value of those economic values as well. So I think there is a place and a balance that can be arrived at with regard to economic self determination and the preservation of the biological values and where we live. I had a recent experience with a developer from Las Vegas, Clark County, here in Douglas County, where we had a conflict over the Endangered Species Act and also the Historical Preservation Act. We entered into a relationship that wasn't that harmonious but discussing alternatives and arriving at other options we actually ended up becoming business partners. Some of the development processes that were scheduled for this site we were trying to save, were actually transferred over to more viable property on the reservation, and became a part of the overall development process. That part of the reservation now has some economic potential as well as that developer also was able to actually appreciate the value in their development process here in Douglas County. So I think there can be ways of overcoming some of more plainer conflicts between the act and development and I just wanted to have the opportunity to share our experience and that there is harmony between these two sectors and probably takes a little work and hope and ambition and I think you can probably arrive at some answers. On the issue of Endangered Species and why we appreciate the plant life value of it. Washoe people are historically known as malcontemporary but some of the finest basket work in the world. Some have sold at Sothabys for a quarter of a million dollars per piece. That was a very thriving but now a dying technology in art form. One of the reasons it is coming back is not only our determination to see it happen, but also I think somewhat responsible is the Endangered Species Act protecting some areas that can almost be classified or thrive in areas where there are Endangered Species of plant materials that were historically used by native peoples for these technologies that are now disappearing. Part of our lives disappear when some of the biological diversities become more monochromatic. Anyway I just wanted to add to the debate and didn't mean to be obstinate. I think on behalf of the tribe and our values we pretty much agree the Act is fine the way it is. Respectfully submitted." Mrs. de Braga thanked Mr. Wallace and asked for anyone in opposition to the bill. Ms. Elsie Dupree with the Nevada Wildlife Federation testified against S.J.R. 8. She noted the Endangered Species was the old "Miners Canary" of years past. It was a significant indicator that something was going wrong. If an endangered fish was dying and it is an endangered species we should find out what the problem was, why it was dying. Maybe it is a domino effect, there might be something further down the line which would also die. She said the Endangered Species Act was a good act, it might need some work, and it was being worked on now. Ms. Dupree said it should not be trashed, junked or thrown out, it should be kept so we could keep endangered species, to keep our environment clean and healthy for all of us. "The domino effect it may be a fish and a mouse today but it could be us tomorrow." She urged the committee not to scrap the Endangered Species Act, try to work out a way to help everybody and everything. People have to work, but plants and animals were an indicator like the "Old Miners Canary." ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 8 AS AMENDED. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM VOTED NO). Chairman de Braga said there was a Bill Draft which needed a committee introduction. The bill related to state land and revised fees of the state land registrar for the use of state land, expanding the authority of the state land registrar to waive fees for the use of state land. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 26-562. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Carpenter said a lawsuit had been filed by the National Wildlife Federation, and one by State Wildlife Federation as well as a local group in Elko. What the lawsuit was attempting to do was to require the Forest Service to show cause why livestock could not be turned out on 83 allotments within the state of Nevada based on the consensus allotments were overgrazed. Mr. Carpenter would like approval by the committee for an introduction of a resolution to have a hearing on this subject. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF A RESOLUTION ON THE CONCERN OF EFFECTS OF LITIGATION ON LONG STANDING GRAZING ALLOTMENTS IN NORTH- EAST NEVADA. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Bennett asked what was the thrust of the resolution. Mr. Carpenter said until he read the lawsuit he was not sure. He would come back to the chairman and other members. Mr. Carpenter noted the issue was bad because it effects so many permeates, and this was his reason for the resolution and having a hearing, if warranted. Mrs. de Braga said in the past there had been abuses, but the idea someone would intentionally destroy what they make their living doing, or what they make their living on, was pretty far fetched. A few weeks ago several legislators were on a tour along Highway 50, and met with people along the way in Austin, Eureka and White Pine where this has been a problem. They heard testimony from a man named Gallagher who was in his 70's. He has had a permit for 350 head for six months of the year, most of his life. For no reason he was aware of, the permit was cut to 60 head, for three months out of the year. He had no history of over-grazing or problems in that area. She said this was happening consistently with ranchers in the northeast area of Nevada. Whether or not there are some cases that had been overgrazed, she did not know, but she felt it was not probable one would intentionally destroy their own pasture. Mr. Neighbors asked about the wild horses. Mrs. de Braga said the wild horses were a problem to ranchers. If one remembered how the wild horse law started with Wild Horse Annie, "God rest her soul," opposed mustangers chasing the horses with airplanes. She thought it was inhumane and a terrible abuse, which it no doubt was. However, now the BLM were chasing the wild horses with helicopters. Mrs. de Braga had seen them rounded up in dry corrals, how long they were left there she did not know. There was a simple solution, as the horses did need to be harvested in some fashion and controlled. What the Federal government did, does not accomplish either end, and we have come full circle on the inhumane treatment of horses. The horses should be harvested and controlled either by Department of Wildlife or another entity. Mr. Carpenter said we had received the resolution from the Senate for the regulations on BLM grazing and perhaps we could hear both resolutions at the same time. Mr. Neighbors was notified that near Beatty the Amargosa Toad was going to be put on the Endangered Species Act. He said he had been in and out of the area all his life and had never heard of the Amargosa Toad. Mr. Bennett will do the floor statement for S.J.R. 8. The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _________________________ Pat Menath, Committee Secretary APPROVED: __________________________________________ Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Chairman _______________________________________ Assemblyman Marcia de Braga, Chairman Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining April 17, 1995 Page