MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session April 24, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:25 p.m., on Wednesday, April 24, 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: Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman Mr. John Carpenter, Chairman Mr. Max Bennett, Vice Chairman Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman Mr. Douglas Bache Mr. Thomas Fettic Mr. David Humke Mr. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Johnson, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation Rose Strickland, Sierra Club Walt Leberski Harvey Barnes, N-1 State Grazing Board, First Vice President, Nevada Cattlemen's Association Gary McCuin Secretary, Nevada State Grazing Board Ed Depaoli, N-3 State Grazing Board Dan Heinz Joe Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association ASSEMBLY BILL 409 - Revises provisions governing state grazing boards. Joe Johnson, representing the Sierra Club and testifying in favor of A.B. 409, stated he was not present to debate range land reform or range conditions. What A.B. 409 proposed was bringing a degree of accountability to the management and activities of the range board. Mr. Johnson distributed background information on the Taylor Grazing Act which the United States Congress passed in 1934, (Exhibit C.) Mr. Johnson noted the grazing act provides that a total of 12 percent of the money collected as grazing fees and 50 percent of the revenue from leases for grazing on rangeland owned by the public be transferred to the state in which the grazing districts, or lands producing the money, are located. He added the money was "to be expended as the state legislature of each state may prescribe for the benefit of the county or counties in which the grazing districts or lands producing the money are located". Mr. Johnson explained five of the states, Nevada among them, allocate grazing fees and revenues to range improvements and other activities directly related to ranching, while three states place that money within the local school districts, either wholly or in part. Mr. Johnson introduced Elsie Dupree, representing the Nevada Wildlife Federation, who continued with testimony in support of A.B. 409, (Exhibit D.) Assemblywoman Segerblom mentioned grazing board meetings are open to the public. Ms. Dupree agreed they were posted someplace. She added when she had written requesting copies of agendas and minutes, she would sometimes receive them however they usually arrived either the day of the meeting or a day later. Mrs. Segerblom inquired whether these were state boards. Ms. Dupree responded there was a state board, but the board she was concerned about was the district board. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the district boards were responsible to the state board. Ms. Dupree did not know. Assemblyman Carpenter asked if Ms. Dupree had requested records from the county treasurers. She replied she had in many situations as well as writing to the district boards themselves but in most cases was referred to a county treasurer who would send a letter back telling her to go to the auditor. Mr. Carpenter queried whether Ms. Dupree had asked the accounting firms that perform county audits for the information. Ms. Dupree responded an auditor would simply show a check to the grazing board for a certain amount that had been written. Rose Strickland, Chairman of the Public Lands Committee for the local chapter of the Sierra Club, stated there had been confusion between the federal grazing advisory boards and the state grazing boards. Ms. Strickland mentioned information from district boards about use of grazing fees had been requested by Governor Miller and she noted some boards had complied, some had not and some had sent incomplete information. Ms. Strickland also complained she was not being notified by the state grazing boards or the central committee of their meetings, agendas or minutes. Ms. Strickland stated she would like to see greater accountability for the use of the public funds, a specific requirement to comply with the open meeting law and more specific language linking the grazing fee funds to range improvements. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the state had no control over the federal funds sent to it for grazing. Ms. Strickland replied as far as she could tell, the state passed the money to the counties to be held and used by the different district grazing boards, some of which include more than one county. She added it was an accounting nightmare and very difficult to track. Ms. Strickland said the district grazing boards did not appear to be subject to having a budget, being approved by the legislature nor being audited by the state. Mrs. Segerblom wondered if the boards spending the money were just advisory ones. Ms. Strickland replied they were called state advisory boards. In fact, she commented they seemed to spend the money received any way they wanted to. Some minutes of advisory board meetings she received did not say why the boards were spending the money. Mrs. Segerblom asked if there was a state agency controlling grazing. Ms. Strickland stated she did not know who within the state was responsible for the boards. Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, referring to Nye County, explained the money for the grazing board is received and placed in one of 50 or 60 funds set up by the state treasurer. He stated the grazing board goes to the Nye County Commissioners with their plan and the commissioners must authorize the expenditures. Mr. Johnson replied as the statutes read, the auditor issues a check upon the request of the board. He added the counties may have another process, but he doubted every county required approval by the commission. Mr. Neighbors referred to page 2 of A.B. 409 where the current bill already reads, "subject to disposition by the board of county commissioners of each county concerned for range improvements . . ." He reiterated it was his understanding district boards go to the county commissioners who authorize the expenditure, and the county treasurer "cuts the check". Ms. Strickland stated she was unaware there was an actual item in statute, she thought payment approval was more like a rubber stamp. Mr. Carpenter interjected when he was an Elko County Commissioner, that body authorized every voucher. All requests for funds went through the county commissioners and were O.K.'d by them. Mr. Johnson testified his principle concern was with fees paid to the central committee. He was uncertain where those accounts were and who approved spending that money. He added he was not accusing anyone of anything immoral or illegal however he believed accountability was difficult to discern. Mr. Carpenter mentioned he had been chairman of the central committee for many years and stated a certain amount of money was allocated from the district boards to the central committee. The committee used that money on projects it felt were beneficial to the livestock industry, for instance one was commissioned on grazing fees. He noted the Sierra Club might not think that project was beneficial, but the committee did because without that study there was no way to back up their contentions about what constituted good science or useful projects. He surmised county auditors keep records of where funds go because the grazing boards did not have bank accounts. Mr. Fettic stated he was unfamiliar with the Taylor Grazing Act and inquired who paid the fees. Mr. Johnson responded the livestock industry paid the fees. Mr. Johnson took the Committee through A.B. 409. He pointed out the first page contained housekeeping measures recommended by the Legislative Counsel Bureau but the second page contained the most controversial proposed changes. Mr. Johnson stated federal statutes allow broad latitude for usage of the funds and the Nevada legislature has also given broad statutory authority. However, Mr. Johnson felt since the origin of the money was intended for forage on the range the money should be returned for that use and to that end, A.B. 409 removes the existing language of permitted uses and inserts more specific projects involving the range. A.B. 409 also adds at least one member to the state grazing board who represents wildlife and would be appointed by the governor. The final change addressed by A.B. 409 concerns state grazing boards complying with open meeting laws as provided in chapter 241 of Nevada Revised Statutes. Mr. Johnson, feeling language pertaining to record keeping of board minutes was too broad, would require the minutes to reflect the substance of whatever topic was being discussed. He believed it was difficult to tell from minutes of the meetings what moneys were being spent for. Mr. Johnson pointed out studies funded by the grazing boards were not readily identifiable in the public record and he believed the public would like to see the results of the studies funded by this money. In summary, Mr. Johnson requested the Committee review the excellent study describing grazing boards prepared for Assemblywoman Freeman by Legislative Counsel Bureau staff he initially supplied. He stated he had attempted to put forward a reasonable bill (A.B. 409) that would not be onerous to the industry, nor drastically change the majority of the boards' activities. They do, however, question independent consulting studies which support lawsuits and would like to see an improvement in record keeping and compliance with Nevada's open meeting laws. Chairman de Braga inquired which provisions of the open meeting law were the boards currently bound by. Mr. Johnson replied he was not sure they were bound by any and added an Attorney General's opinion would be necessary plus some direction from the Committee. He would like to see passage of A.B. 409 so there would be no argument or question about it. Mr. Johnson pointed out the boards had given a good faith effort to posting of notices. Mrs. de Braga asked if it were Mr. Johnson's opinion that none of the money generated from grazing fees and leases should go to educational or promotional materials. Mr. Johnson replied even though the money is public and should be spent where the legislature determines, the Sierra Club was recommending the money go to range improvements. Mrs. Segerblom queried whether the suggestions contained in A.B. 409 were what the staff researchers at the Legislative Counsel Bureau had recommended. Mr. Johnson replied the research document was staff response to what had been requested and proposed. Should A.B. 409 be passed the Sierra Club would like some legislative intent to show that this bill applies to the central committee as well. Secondly, they would like to see A.B. 409 effective upon passage. That request was based upon a report that the Elko County Board had distributed its reserve fund in response to a perceived threat that the Attorney General was going to "regroup" the money back to the state. Mrs. Segerblom again asked if research by the Legislative Counsel Bureau staff had been conducted based upon what Assemblywoman Freeman requested they study and Mr. Johnson concurred. Mr. Neighbors asked how many grazing boards there were. Mr. Johnson replied there were six. Mr. Neighbors inquired, on average, how much money Nevada received from grazing fees under the Taylor Grazing Act. Mr. Johnson stated in 1993 it had been $350,000 per year but was less now because grazing fees had been reduced. Upon being asked what other money under the grazing act is distributed, Mr. Johnson stated both moneys are distributed but differently. Twelve and a half percent of the grazing lease fees are distributed to grazing boards. Fifty percent of fees are distributed where the land lies outside the district and that occurs where there are isolated parcels. The preponderance of funds are generated from grazing fees and are distributed and available in Nevada to one fund. Mr. Fettic mentioned section 1, line 14 of A.B. 409 states the money is subject to disposition only by the state grazing board and noted that language was being left intact. He moved to page 2, line 3, and read that each county can use the money for range improvements. Mr. Johnson agreed that was existing statutory language. Mr. Fettic pointed out range improvements would have to be authorized by the state grazing board and Mr. Johnson again concurred. Mr. Fettic inquired why new language enumerating "fences, reservoirs, wells, the development of water, related maintenance and other range improvements approved by the state grazing board" was necessary because the state grazing board already authorized those improvements. Mr. Johnson assumed the language was a bill drafter's interpretation of the Sierra Club's request. The club had not asked specifically for that language just requested funds be used strictly for range improvements. Mr. Fettic asked if the Sierra Club had been in touch with the Attorney General's office about whether the funds were taxes, which apparently clouds the open meeting law. Mr. Johnson replied they had not. Dan Heinz urged the Committee to pass A.B. 409, (Exhibit E), because he believed private interests were allocating public funds without public oversight. He stated the bill was not a radical bill, but merely proposed very moderate changes. Mr. Neighbors asked what Mr. Heinz meant in his testimony when he referred to public funds being diverted to private interests and asked some be named. Mr. Heinz replied funds set aside to study the grazing fee issue, which effects the financial interest of the permittees. Another example he mentioned concerned the financing of Range magazine out of the funds. Mr. Carpenter pointed out the way the legislation currently reads, the two examples mentioned by Mr. Heinz were well within the scope of the grazing boards' authority. He added if the legislature wanted to change that statute it could but he disagreed that the funds had been used for unethical purposes. Mr. Heinz agreed those expenditures had not been illegal under the act and he had not intended to imply they were. As a citizen, he just felt those were not appropriate uses of public moneys. Joe Guild, representing the Nevada Cattlemen's Association, testified he was formerly manager of a Nevada cattle ranch that had a livestock grazing permit on the public lands. As a result of his experience, he believed he was qualified to speak about the Taylor Grazing Act, the state grazing boards and the central committee. Mr. Guild stated A.B. 409 was absolutely unnecessary as were all the proposed provisions except one on page 3, line 28, which states the state grazing boards are subject to Nevada's open meeting laws. Mr. Guild believed the grazing boards were already subject to those laws because they are quasi state entities and added they had complied with the open meeting law as long as it had been in existence. Mr. Guild quoted from the Taylor Grazing Act in the first section of chapter 568 of Nevada Revised Statutes which states, "an act to stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for the orderly use improvement and development and to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range and for other purposes." Mr. Guild remarked the Taylor Grazing Act was enacted at a time when the livestock industry in this nation had done some serious damage to the western ranges. The Taylor Grazing Act was enacted to stabilize what was going on in the western ranges. People with no land of their own would take herds of livestock and graze them at will on public land. The people with an established ranch would suddenly have a renegade sheep or cattle person come by and completely decimate their range. Mr. Guild stated there was some overstocking by ranchers at the time as well. The response to this was enactment of the Taylor Grazing Act which was to prevent overgrazing and soil deterioration and provided for orderly use, improvement and development of the ranges by livestock raisers. As a result the range is in better condition than it has ever been. Mr. Guild believed it should be very clearly stated why there is a grazing act, why there are grazing boards and why 12 « percent of the money comes back to Nevada. The money is used for the improvement of the range or, as is stated in Nevada and five other states, "for the construction and maintenance of range improvements or any other purpose beneficial to the stock raising and ranching industries". That is why an expenditure to help publish Range magazine is not unauthorized under the act and fulfills the purposes for which the act in Nevada was passed--to benefit the livestock range industry. Mr. Guild, referring to lines 3 through 5 on page 2 of A.B. 409, noted the language stating money can be expended for "related matters directly beneficial to the livestock raising and ranching enterprises of the county" would be removed. Mr. Guild emphasized removal of that language would gut one of the original purposes of the act. Mrs. Segerblom, noting a secretary's wages were mentioned previously in testimony, stated there must be minutes of the meetings. Mr. Guild replied there are minutes of every meeting. Mrs. Segerblom asked if people could get on a mailing list and have the minutes mailed to them after every meeting. Mr. Guild did not see why not. Harvey Barnes, first vice president of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association and chairman of the N-1 Grazing Board, explained the Nevada state grazing boards had been established by state statute in 1939. Board members are elected by other permit holders (BLM grazing permits) in that district. A member must hold a permit and be from that district so as to be familiar with the area, its problems and needs. Mr. Barnes explained the N-1 board was a multiple use board, functioned as such and dispersed its funds accordingly. The first cooperative agreement undertaken by the N-1 board was a crested wheat seeding by Lee Livestock Company. The University of Nevada, Reno supplied the technical information and the BLM approved and observed the project. That project was the foundation of many subsequent seedings which were of tremendous benefit to range lands in the district. Mr. Barnes mentioned projects the N-1 board sponsored included water projects such as deepening wells and helping to re-drill sloughed-in wells, placing new pipelines or replacing deteriorated pipelines and other projects needed to supply water where no other water was available. He testified those were of huge benefit to the range, wildlife, the livestock industry and other multiple users. He supplied a copy of an Elko Free Press newspaper article about one of the water projects sponsored by the N-1 board, the Salmon River Cattlemen's Association and the BLM, (Exhibit F.) Mr. Barnes emphasized the Salmon River Cattlemen's Association was composed of 42 small operators who had purchased property and grazing rights in the N-1 district. The article explained some of the hurdles that must be overcome to accomplish range improvements at this time. Mr. Barnes commented the cost-benefit ratio for money expended is high. For the preceding project it was about ten to one and the board supplied about $30,000 including the pipe and troughs. Salmon River Cattlemen's Association provided all the labor and bore all costs of installation. The BLM contributed 12 miles of fence to the project, did the seeding and all environmental analysis required and their cost was about $300,000. Mr. Barnes testified the board also helped with fire rehabilitation work including funds for re-seeding and fence re-establishment. They have also helped with snow removal so stranded livestock may be removed during blizzard situations. The N-1 board also helps during drought situations, which are very common. Mr. Barnes pointed out state grazing boards are the only entity involved with range lands that can perform projects on an emergency basis. Other entities do not have those capabilities, for instance the BLM must plan two years in advance for any project. Mr. Barnes stated one of the most frequent requests made of the board recently had been assistance with cattle guards. The increase in vehicular traffic through grazing areas had led to more incidents of gates being left open so cattle were free to roam the highways. Cattle guards are one way to ensure much needed safety from that hazard. Mr. Barnes emphasized meetings of the N-1 grazing board are noticed and an ad published in the local newspaper announcing the time and place of their meetings. Notices are also placed in three public places including the Elko County Courthouse, the city hall and the U.S. Post Office by the secretary who works on an as-needed basis. He maintained Nevada grazing boards have functioned for over half a century using the multiple use concept and they have benefitted not only the stock grazing industry of Nevada but other range users as well. Mr. Barnes believed the grazing boards get a lot done for the money mainly due to the labor expended by permittees at no cost to anyone but themselves. The boards are efficient and effective operating under the present statutes and Mr. Barnes saw no need for modifications or amendments. Mentioning accountability, Mr. Barnes gave an example of a permittee with a request for a project. The board will usually ask that two bids for materials be presented. They approve the project up to, but no more than, a certain dollar amount. When the project is completed, the cooperator comes in with his actual bills which are stapled to a voucher that is submitted to the county. The county commissioners review the voucher and the bills attached to it and send it to the county treasurer and the treasurer issues the check. The check may either be to the company the materials were purchased from or to the cooperator. Mr. Barnes maintained every penny expended from the grazing board's funds is handled this way. He added the Elko county treasurer had stated anyone who comes in is welcome to look at their computer printouts. Referring to 1995 minutes not being available, Mr. Barnes stated the N-1 grazing board had not had a 1995 meeting yet. He mentioned years ago all minutes were sent to the Secretary of State however the state of Nevada notified the boards their minutes were not needed nor wanted. He added a few years ago a deputy attorney general requested copies of their minutes and agendas for the preceding five years and the board did submit those. For the preceding reasons, Mr. Barnes urged defeat of A.B. 409. Mr. Carpenter inquired how the central committee situation was handled. Mr. Barnes explained every grazing board in Nevada has two elected representatives who sit on the central committee. The central committee works at the request of the grazing boards. If a majority of the boards request the central committee perform some function, it does and he mentioned a recent project the committee participated in with Resource Concepts involving wild horses. Mr. Carpenter asked who handled the central committee's funds. Mr. Barnes replied the committee had a secretary-treasurer and all checks were co-signed by the chairman and secretary-treasurer and approved by the board. Mr. Carpenter queried if moneys to the central committee were disbursed out of the county treasurer's office and Mr. Barnes agreed they were. Mr. Carpenter wondered if anyone besides grazing board members ever attended the board meetings. Mr. Barnes replied they do on occasion including the press as well as BLM personnel and other permittees. Mr. Carpenter asked if any representative from wildlife was on the boards and Mr. Barnes said not specifically. He added the former supervisor for the Nevada Department of Wildlife in the Elko area regularly attended the N-1 board meetings and mentioned the new head of wildlife had occasionally sent a representative. Mr. Carpenter mentioned when he was on the grazing board, the board always considered wildlife when making their decisions and inquired if wildlife representatives ever suggested any projects. Mr. Barnes stated when pipelines and troughs were placed in arid areas, wildlife officials asked the permittees to put in bird and wildlife walks so they can get drinks and leave without drowning in the troughs. Mr. Carpenter asked whether studies mentioned in Range magazine and other places had benefitted the livestock industry. Mr. Barnes agreed those studies had been a definite help. He added stories in the magazine about ranching families, how they evolved and their lifestyles had provided useful general information which in the current era with agriculture being two generations removed from most people's lives was helpful in understanding a rancher's life. Mr. Neighbors inquired how many members were on the boards. Mr. Barnes responded the N-1 had ten members but he thought by statute the minimum was five and the maximum was twelve. He agreed most boards probably had eight to ten members. Mr. Neighbors asked how a vacancy would be filled. Mr. Barnes believed if there were only one vacancy, the board would probably wait until the next election to fill that vacancy. There are elections every three years, he added. He believed the boards had the authority to appoint an interim member. Mr. Fettic, mentioning both Mr. Barnes and Mr. Guild had indicated they were currently adhering to Nevada's open meeting law, asked whether they believed the grazing boards fall under that law. Mr. Barnes replied because they operate under state statute, they are a state entity. Mr. Fettic asked if there was any objection to just passing line 28 of page 3 of A.B. 409 which concerned complying with the open meeting law. Mr. Barnes replied he personally had no objection because they were currently meeting those requirements. He added their meeting notices were placed in the newspapers at least ten or twelve days in advance of the actual meeting date. Mr. Guild reiterated in the testimony he gave earlier, the only part of A.B. 409 the Nevada Cattlemen's Association would agree to was lines 28 and 29 on page 3. Mrs. de Braga, mentioning Elko County Commissioners approved all the grazing board's expenditures, inquired if that was common practice among all the boards. She also asked what happens when the grazing district covers more than one county. Gary McCuin, current secretary for the central committee, responded all counties, by statute, have grazing board funds for their districts. How those counties handle the funds individually is not up to the central committee. He testified most boards have a voucher system but some counties give their boards funds in one lump sum. For instance, Mineral County receives less than $100 per year from grazing fees. They keep those funds and if a project is proposed for Mineral County, the other grazing boards contribute to that project. Walt Leberski testified he had been an employee with the BLM and became familiar with the state grazing boards in 1952 and had been executive secretary for the central committee for 25 years. He stated he does a lot of resource work for a law office currently. When he first became familiar with the grazing boards, the grazing fee was 15 cents and the boards received 12 1/2 percent of that. He mentioned there was not much controversy regarding uses of the range at that time. The concentration back then was on improvements utilizing federal and private funds in addition to any state and county funds that were available and those funds were the only ones available for an immediate or emergency project. Mr. Leberski remembered most of the immediate projects were connected with drought and benefitted wildlife as well as domestic animals. He also mentioned purchase and planting of crested wheat grass after fires had also been accomplished with grazing board funds and added revegetation activity would not have happened otherwise. Mr. Leberski mentioned over the years pressures against the livestock industry had developed from environmental sources and grazing fee increases and funds had not been readily available for some of the studies mentioned previously. Commenting on those studies funded by grazing boards, he mentioned even board members wondered if those were proper expenditures so they went to considerable effort to obtain legal opinions at that time either through the attorney general's office or other attorneys throughout the state. In all instances, the legal advice received was that the test for expenditure of funds was whether it benefitted the livestock industry in the county where the request came from. Mr. Leberski testified over the years, that was the criteria the boards were told to use. Referring to accountability, Mr. Leberski stressed board members are elected so if the individuals who have permits become dissatisfied with the performance of their board member, they do not get re-elected. He added once funds are distributed by the state to the counties, they become county funds and the responsibility of the county. County audits plus the voucher system are the way the boards are accountable. Mr. Leberski stated when the open meeting law was passed, they made every effort to comply and developed a manual on how to comply. He believed grazing boards had done a good job of complying with that statute. Mentioning uses of the funds, Mr. Leberski, stated a grazing board member from Fallon was instrumental in bringing chukar to the state of Nevada in part utilizing state grazing board money. He emphasized much consideration by grazing board members was given to the proper expenditure of those funds. Mr. Leberski emphasized if many changes are made to the statute it would complicate expenditure of funds and take away the ability to meet emergencies. For that reason Mr. Leberski recommended A.B. 409 be defeated. Gary McCuin, current secretary of the central committee of the Nevada state grazing boards, stated the central committee, as pursuant to NRS 568.040, was created for the purpose of directing and guiding the disposition of the range improvement fund of each grazing district in a manner most beneficial to the stock grazing payers of the grazing fees from which such funds are derived and to the counties concerned. The central committee was established to provide a means whereby the individual state boards may act together in matters of common interest and of general, rather than local, concern in carrying out the provisions of NRS 568.010 to 568.210 inclusive. Mr. McCuin explained there had been considerable misunderstanding as to how much money they get and that the two million dollars over five years went to both the grazing advisory boards that are handled by the BLM as well as the district grazing boards. Each district within the state gets 12« percent of those fees and the state grazing boards get another 12« percent. Mr. McCuin agreed the grazing boards must abide by open meeting laws, however he noted there are more public places than simply the post office in any particular county. To post for the central committee, Mr. McCuin mentioned he did not use the same posting place every time nor post a notice in the Reno main post office. Typically he posts through various "cow counties" where people they believed would be interested might see them. Each secretary and/or chairman of the various grazing boards are notified and how they notify their members is up to them. Mr. McCuin stated he was basically a volunteer although he did receive $200 per month to do the work of the central committee. He added most of the secretaries of each board also work on a volunteer basis and none have the staff or time to mail a set of minutes to everyone who requests them. Under the open meeting law he is not required to do that but minutes are available to anyone who wishes to come and make copies of them. Mr. McCuin stated he felt the central committee and grazing boards had done a good job. They have tried to comply with the statutes and have benefitted the range livestock industry and for that reason he urged A.B. 409 not be passed. Mr. Carpenter requested another description of central committee meeting postings. Mr. McCuin replied he sends the agenda and meeting notice to at least three places throughout the state of Nevada. During 1994 he sent minutes to Elko County, Lincoln County and White Pine County. In addition, he personally contacted each chairman or secretary of each grazing board and they notify whoever is necessary. Mr. Carpenter wondered if the grazing boards post notices. Mr. McCuin responded they post for their own grazing board meetings but was unaware of what other postings for the central committee meetings they might make other than those he specifically requests. Mr. Carpenter asked how audits of central committee funds were handled. Mr. McCuin stated they had not had an audit. He added their funds were voluntary contributions which were equal for each grazing board. Their bank account is a state account and Mr. McCuin spends funds as he is directed by majority vote of the committee. Mr. Carpenter inquired whether a financial statement was submitted to members of the board and Mr. McCuin responded he submitted a financial statement twice a year. Mr. Fettic repeated Mr. Guild's statement that removal of lines 3 through 5 on page 2 would result in gutting the statute and noted the Taylor Grazing Act at 315i, disposition of moneys received states, "to be expended by the state legislatures of such states for the benefit of the county or counties in which the grazing district producing such moneys are situated". He mentioned Nevada's statute says the same thing and it seemed to him the changes proposed in A.B. 409 would allow use of the money over a wider area but the grazing act probably intended those funds be returned to the grazing district where the need is. Mr. McCuin agreed. Mr. Fettic reiterated the grazing act reads "for the benefit of the county or counties in which the grazing districts producing such moneys are situated" and he assumed the Taylor Grazing Act intended the money be returned to the county where grazing is occurring. He added Nevada statute had also determined that the money should go into range improvements. Mr. Guild agreed and stated the intent of the Taylor Grazing Act statement that says "and other purposes" would be removed with passage of A.B. 409. Mr. Guild handed Mr. Fettic the statute, 568.010, which quotes the Taylor Grazing Act's intents and purposes section and noted that was what he meant when he referred back to the bill in earlier testimony concerning lines 3 through 5 on page 2 of A.B. 409 and mentioned five western states use almost identical language. Mr. Fettic stressed the language on lines 3 through 5 of page 2 should remain because the grazing act states that is where the money should go. Mrs. Segerblom requested an explanation for an expense in 1992 of $4,219 on secretary's salary and office expenses and inquired how often they meet. Mr. Guild replied that was the N-3 grazing board and not the central committee. Mrs. Segerblom still questioned why a secretary at $4,000 could not send out meeting minutes. Ed Depaoli, vice chairman of the N-3 grazing board, explained the secretary had sent minutes out. He added the board must meet at least once a year, but usually they meet three times. Mrs. Segerblom commented the secretary is not full time and had no office so the secretary just works at the meetings. Mr. Depaoli disagreed noting the secretary works throughout the year because he receives project requests, takes care of the funds, sees that the projects are paid and handles board member nominations and elections. Mrs. Segerblom insisted people who want minutes or an accounting of what had occurred be allowed access. Mr. McCuin interjected at the last central committee meeting it had been proposed to make their minutes available to the county clerk of each county so anyone who wanted could access them. He pointed out there are seven grazing boards, not six, seventeen counties and county treasurers to work with and approximately 70 board members. Mr. Fettic stated as he read the statute, only state grazing boards were responsible for disposition of the money. Mr. McCuin agreed, but noted only with approval by the county commissioners and audit by the county. Mr. Fettic asked whether the seven districts all had meetings to decide what to do and then send recommendations to the central committee for approval. Mr. McCuin replied they do not because the central committee does not tell the grazing boards what to do, the boards tell the central committee what to do. The boards handle their moneys themselves through their counties and their county commissioners. Mr. McCuin's job is to handle money contributed to the central committee. Ed Depaoli commented some of the money goes twice as far because of the addition of private funds such as permittees who want a project accomplished but are unable to fund it entirely. A lot of what his N-3 board does involves cost sharing where a permittee will provide labor and the board would provide materials. This cost sharing technique is also utilized with state agencies. Mr. Depaoli noted it acts as an incentive for some permittees to take on projects that otherwise might not get accomplished. Mr. Depaoli stated the BLM has categorized their public lands into three categories: the intensively managed allotments; the maintenance managed allotments and the custodial allotments. Each category has a priority and BLM spends most of their money on the intensively managed allotments which usually contain solid blocks of public land with most of the problems. He noted many allotments were a checkerboard of mixed public and private lands and BLM hardly spends any dollars on those allotments, yet they are just as valuable for many purposes and through grazing board money, work gets done on those. Referring to education, every board member Mr. Depaoli knows would rather spend money on a concrete, on-the-ground project, something you can see like water developments. However, the boards have not been able to do that because the very industry that creates the fees is at risk and it now has become necessary to save that industry. Because a lack of information and inaccurate information has exacerbated this problem, Mr. Depaoli mentioned Range magazine had been very helpful and a good educational tool. Mr. Depaoli requested the Committee leave things the way they are. Mr. Carpenter explained the comings and goings of the Committee members during today's meeting to the members of the public who had attended. He explained this time of year, when bills they had sponsored were being heard in various other committees and subcommittees, it became necessary for the assemblymen to leave for those other hearings. The activity had in no way been meant to be disrespectful to the people who were testifying but was simply assemblymen doing their legislative duty. He noted the Committee had lost a number of its members to those other committees and subcommittees and promised a vote on A.B. 409 would take place during a work session. Seeing no further business, Vice Chairman Ohrenschall adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Terry Horgan, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Chairman Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining April 24, 1995 Page