MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session May 1, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, May 1, 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. Tom Fettic Mr. David Humke Mr. P. M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Chernock, Travel Systems, Ltd. Barbara Ellis William G. Ellis Mary Swickard Dave Menedew K. Derby R. Bell, Desert Rec. Ross Swickard, Zephyr Cove Home Owners Jim Weishaupt, Walker River Irrigation District Dave Cochocen Lou Groffman, Nevada Department of Transportation Jon Bunch, Nevada Department of Transportation Frank and Suzan Forvilly, Round Hill Pines Beach Pam Drum, Tahoe Regional Planning Association Pam Wilcox, State Lands Glenn Miller The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 496. ASSEMBLY BILL 496 - Makes various changes regarding fees of state land registrar for use of state land. Ms. Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, offered a brief introduction to the bill. She explained A.B. 496 was the only agency bill requested this session by the Division of State Lands. The bill is a revision to a fee schedule adopted by the 1993 Legislative session. As a history, Ms. Wilcox explained the concept embodied in Nevada law is those who use state lands should pay for their use. This has only worked out to those who have leases and easements and pay fair market value for use of land. All those who have lesser uses authorized by permit or authorization have historically not paid for the privilege of use. Budget cuts were being faced in 1992 for the 1993-1995 biennium. State Lands, being a small agency, had to choose between finding a way to raise revenues or endure layoffs. It was suggested revenues could be raised by charging fees for the permits which had been issued all along but had not previously had a fee associated with them. An application fee was also suggested. No fee had been charged for leases, easements or permits previously. No regulatory changes were requested in the 1993 session, only fee establishment. It was estimated the proposed bill would generate approximately $125,000 per year. This led to Assembly Bill 430 of the 1993 Legislative session, introduced on March 30, 1993, and enacted on July 9, 1993. The fee structure set up was for applications. One hundred dollars was charged for a general application fee, $200 for a commercial application fee, and $150 for an agricultural-commercial fee. A schedule of flat permit fees was also established, which could have been based on land value. The permit fees ranged from $100 to $1000 depending on the use. A waiver was included for uses which would benefit the state and for short term and no impact uses. It was agreed between the Legislature and the agency that the agency would keep track of any problems in administration of the bill and would come back with "fine tuning" legislation. This is the purpose of A.B. 496. Ms. Wilcox noted the fees effect all state lands, but mostly those which fall below navigable bodies of water, that is, submerged lands. The largest volume is at Lake Tahoe where state lands are occupied with piers, buoys, decks and other uses and on the Colorado River in the Laughlin, Nevada, area, where the primary use is piers. Public comment was invited on implementation of the fees and the fee structure itself. The four general complaints received included not having to pay for swim lines on state lands because the lines were there for safety purposes to keep boats and swimmers separated. A second complaint regarded the north-south issue. Those in the south have a longer season of use for the same fee than those in the north. The third type of complaint was to the unfairness relating to motorized rental vehicles. For rental vehicles berthed on state lands a flat fee was charged. A person who might take two or three charter customers out on weekends was charged the same amount as the M.S. Dixie. The fourth type of complaint involved two commercial entities at Lake Tahoe who are on Forest Service concessions. These entities would rather have a fee based on a percent of revenue than a fee for every buoy and pier. Currently these people pay the Forest Service eight percent and expressed preference for a fee based on a percentage of their revenue. A suggestion was received for five percent of revenue as a reasonable fee. A.B. 496 addresses all four complaints. Page 2, Line 21 of the bill removes the swim line requirement as well as taking out floating docks or platforms, and mooring buoys. Floating docks have been redefined as decks, also on Page 2, Line 21. Mooring buoys were moved to Line 24. No fees will be charged for swim lines. On Page 2, Lines 24 and 25, an optional monthly fee has been established for mooring buoys and for vessels berthed on state lands (Lines 29 through 40). Page 3, Lines 3 and 4 offers a provision for an optional monthly fee for a non-commercial mooring buoy. The applicant would be required to take the mooring buoy out of the water in the months when he is not paying the fee. This would make the fees cheaper at Lake Tahoe. Page 2, Lines 29 through 40, deals with a schedule relating to the size of the boat which is berthed, with fees varying from $250 to $1,000. Page 3, Lines 15 through 21, suggests a five percent cap on commercial applications. Other changes in the bill were described as "housekeeping" changes where definitions were clarified, and waivers relating to public benefit were redefined to make the language clearer. The bill has a fiscal impact. It is estimated fee revenue potential will be reduced by approximately $50,000 per year. Ms. Wilcox described the efforts of her agency to inform concerned citizens about A.B. 496. Mrs. de Braga asked how much revenue would be received. Ms. Wilcox explained the original estimated revenue was $125,000 per year. She declared an estimate for the future was difficult to calculate because the fees are a combination of application fees, which are new, and annual fees. Based on an estimate of annual fees, the first year of the biennium is predicted to bring in $120,000 and $150,000 is predicted for the second year. Assemblyman Bennett, referring to Page 2, Line 34 of A.B. 496, asked if a nonmotorized vessel would include a sailboat with a five horsepower auxiliary engine. Ms. Wilcox stated it would probably be considered a motorized vehicle. She reminded the committee the fees applied to rental vehicles only. She thought the only rental sailboat to which this applied was the Woodwind at Lake Tahoe. This applies to boats people can buy a ticket for and go out on or those which could be rented and used by individuals. Assemblyman Segerblom asked if this applied only to state lands, and not Lake Mead or Lake Lahontan. Ms. Wilcox replied it applied to state lands. Assemblyman Bache expressed his surprise regarding removal of the reference to the swim line as well as repealing the definition of swim line. He asked if it were needed anywhere else in the statute. Ms. Wilcox stated she did not believe it was anywhere else in the statute. She thanked Mr. Bache and stated it would be checked out. Assemblyman Sandoval asked if any fees were being created or increased. Ms. Wilcox replied they were not. Mr. Sandoval asked if the policy was being revised for fees already in place. Ms. Wilcox replied Mr. Sandoval was correct. Chairman Carpenter asked for clarification on the fiscal note. Ms. Wilcox informed the committee she was asked to prepare a fiscal note. The changes will not alter the enforcement so the fiscal note included stated estimated revenues would be reduced approximately $50,000 by A.B. 496 as opposed to what will happen if the bill is not passed. This is especially possible because of the monthly fee provision. Mr. Carpenter asked what Ms. Wilcox felt the net amount would be. Ms. Wilcox reported the revenue projections for the budget of the agency was based on A.B. 496, with the assumption the bill would pass. Mr. Carpenter asked if any potential loss was taken into consideration. Ms. Wilcox stated there was no real loss but a loss of potential revenue with this bill. Mrs. Segerblom asked if slip rents at Lake Tahoe would possibly increase. Ms. Wilcox was unsure. She suggested asking commercial operators for the information. Chairman de Braga asked how much revenue was generated by the fees last year. Ms. Wilcox stated $178,000 was received last year. This included annual permit fees of $122,099, one-shot permit fees of $9,650, application fees of $18,500, and lease and easement fees of $28,000. A.B. 496 will only effect the annual permits. The number of permits increases yearly. Chairman de Braga asked if the agency was assuming the same number of permits this year as last year. Ms. Wilcox explained the number would have gone up without the bill, and with the bill anticipated revenue is $120,000 for the first year of the biennium and $150,000 the second year. Mr. Bache asked if increased enforcement problems would occur as a result of the passage of the bill. Ms. Wilcox said the only enforcement problem would be to see if those who opt for the monthly fee have removed their mooring buoys or whatever from the lake. Inspectors are at the lake fairly regularly, the impact will be small. Mr. Dave Menedew, Zephyr Cove Property Owner's Association, stated he felt modifications to the statute were moving in the right direction. He noted how most people would prefer no fees and the fees were originally generated because of state financial problems. He complimented the removal of swim line fees which he felt would encourage safety. The monthly fee is more realistic for pleasure boaters, especially those in the north who do not leave their boats in the water all year long. Mr. Menedew suggested the fees be $10 per month or $120 per year instead of $15 per month and $150 per year. The Zephyr Cove Property Owner's Association is concerned about several things. In the first two years following the enactment of the fees, the fees were inequitable. The association paid when asked but there were many commercial businesses and other homeowner's associations who did not. Mr. Menedew stated he worked with the staff at the Division of State Lands over the last two years and complimented them for their courteous, helpful and fair treatment. Ms. Pam Drum, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), stated TRPA has a process by which single family homeowners, homeowner's associations, and commercial recreation providers can apply for buoys, piers, and other shore zone structures. TRPA has found there are many more of these structures in the water than permits on file. Problems have occurred over the years in monitoring and tracking of unpermitted structures, especially buoys. TRPA would support any program which helps them keep track of permitted structures. Ms. Drum noted a continuation of coordination with the Division of State Lands to make sure of the same definitions as to what should and should not be permitted. Mr. Bennett asked if TRPA had a program in addition to the one at the state. Ms. Drum stated TRPA has a process by which users in the shore zone can apply for shore zone structures. Mr. Bennett asked about cost for the application. Ms. Drum reported there was an application fee to cover the expenses of staff review. Mr. Bennett asked the cost of the fee. Ms. Drum stated it varies depending upon the size, type and complexity of the project. Mr. Bennett asked for high and low figures. Ms. Drum stated she could not provide them at this time. Chairman de Braga asked if a user would be paying twice if A.B. 496 is passed. Ms. Drum said users do not pay an annual lease fee to TRPA. They pay a one time project application fee. Mr. Bill Chernock, Travel Systems, Ltd., spoke in opposition to A.B. 496. His organization operates the M.S. Dixie II at Lake Tahoe, Zephyr Cove Resort and Snowmobile Center, Lake Tahoe, and the Desert Princess at Lake Mead. Mr. Chernock stated it was difficult to determine if he was for or against A.B. 496 because it reduces the fees which commercial operators felt were excessive. He and those he represents are in favor of this change. In the sense the bill imposes fees for services Mr. Chernock and those he represents believe they are already paying for, they are against it. In the original language of the bill and the statute is a clause which exempts governmental and quasi-governmental entities as being defined as commercial operators. When the bill was passed they believed their organization fell under this definition because they operate off of U. S. Forest Service lands as Forest Service leaseholders and pay those fees. The Division of State Lands did not see it this way. A bill is coming from the Senate which would clarify that Forest Service leaseholders are to be considered exempt. Speaking to the specifics of the $150,000 generated by the original bill, Mr. Chernock noted his organization's part of the amount was $30,000 for 1994. He discussed net proceeds for his business over the last two years and how he felt the permit fees to be excessive. Mr. Chernock noted the 5% clause included in A.B. 496 was put up as a mechanism in discussions. No agreement in terms was made between those involved and the Division of State Lands. This can push some commercial operators into the red in some years. The way the clause is written 5% of the operator's gross revenue would allow the state to define gross revenue as including Dixie II passenger tickets, parking revenue, sale of food and beverages on the beach, etc. The long term effect on the state could be similar to what happened in the luxury boat industry. A large tax was imposed, people quit buying boats, the industry slowed down, jobs were lost and the net benefit to the government was negative. The possibility exists for the closure of M.S. Dixie II which Mr. Chernock described as "a public service from public lands". Instead they would operate a long term mooring situation, cut down the number of moorings, and provide less service at a higher cost which will move business elsewhere. Mr. Chernock predicted economic loss to the state. He reiterated his organization paid twice, once to the U.S. Forest Service and once to State Lands. He explained the boats do not earn money tied to buoys, which is where they are stored. They earn money from federal lands on land. He suggested having the cap relate to net revenue and not to gross revenue and within the areas effected specifically by the fees. Mr. Frank Forvilly, Round Hill Pines Beach, testified in opposition to A.B. 496. He stated when the original bill, A.B. 430, began, he received information on it in October, 1993. The Forest Service held it up and Mr. Forvilly was not able to reset fees. He explained the effect it had on his business and distributed information regarding his business to the committee (Exhibit C). Mr. Forvilly stated the new fees suggested in A.B. 496 would still cost him over $10,000 yearly. He suggested simplification of the bill where small businessmen would know exactly how much they would owe at the outset. Mr. Forvilly also stated he felt some of the fees were exorbitant, such as the dock fee of $1,000. The dock at his business is considered a commercial dock in the eyes of the state but he cannot charge anyone for its use. It is an open dock because it is on U.S. Forest Service property and it must be kept open to the public. The only thing he is allowed to charge for is parking. Mr. Forvilly explained the gas tank on the dock is another $250 and expenses are added continually. A shuttle boat used to take people out to their boats costs $250 to moor to the dock. A mooring costs $250 with a jet ski attached and $250 for the jet ski rental. Mr. Forvilly described some of the fees as a "double fee". If he puts gas back onto his facility he will be charged $250 or 5% of the gross on gas, which will come to five to eight cents per gallon on each gallon pumped. For a small business, the bill is very detrimental. He reminded the committee that if a buoy is taken from the lake, TRPA does not allow it to be put back in. Also it is illegal to move moorings in the lake. Mr. Forvilly discussed the cost of adding buoys. Chairman de Braga asked if the fees paid to the U.S. Forest Service were eight percent of his gross and what they were for. Mr. Forvilly said he was a special lease permittee. A certain percentage is paid off the top of their gross to pay the rent for the facility. He explained he tried to ask why the state and federal government were both paid and the reply was he could not reach the dock or buoys without crossing federal land. Chairman de Braga said Mr. Forvilly paid a permit fee to TRPA, an 8% federal charge and a 42% buoy fee, and asked Mr. Forvilly if this was correct. Mr. Forvilly explained he paid 42% out of the $600 he made on the buoy. The new bill would decrease the amount he would pay. Mrs. Segerblom asked if Mr. Forvilly rented slips. Mr. Forvilly replied he had two slips but they have been unusable the last three years due to low water levels. Mrs. Segerblom asked if Mr. Forvilly rented moorings. Mr. Forvilly stated he has fifty moorings and has applied for and been accepted to put another twenty in. Mrs. Segerblom asked what the charge was for a mooring. Mr. Forvilly stated he charged $600 for the buoy for the season, which is four months long. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the moorings were moved. Mr. Forvilly explained the buoys were out in the lake. He reminded the committee again TRPA did not allow for removal of buoys. Mr. Bennett said he hated to see small business owners make so little money. He said he wished to pursue the issue of TRPA not allowing buoys to be removed. Ms. Wilcox stated it is her understanding TRPA would have no problem with the suggestion of the Division of State Lands which is to remove the buoy and leave the chain and anchor in the water. This will be required on new TRPA permits. Mr. Forvilly told the committee when a buoy is dropped there it costs $50-$100 to get a diver to pull the chain up and reattach the buoy yearly. Another problem is when the anchor for the buoy is at the bottom of the lake the shifting sands and rising water cover or make finding the anchors almost impossible. Ms. Barbara Ellis, Lake Tahoe resident, testified in opposition to A.B. 496. In 1993 and 1994 she paid $600 to keep her buoys and never had a chance to put boats in the water. She recommended dropping the fee completely. Ms. Ellis asked how the bill would be enforced. Her homeowner's association has a property manager who checked the buoys and made sure those who had not paid did not have boats tied to the buoys. If someone did have a boat tied to an unpaid buoy, the property manager hunted down the boat owner and had them move the boat. Ms. Ellis did not feel it was the responsibility of the association to police the buoys. She wondered how enforcement could occur fairly, noting property adjoining Zephyr Cove is Forest Service lodge property and they and Marla Bay have not paid any fees. Negotiations are currently underway for payment. Property owners were required to pay immediately for each buoy or there was no guarantee they would have a buoy again. Next year those wishing buoys will pay only $15 per month. Ms. Ellis termed the inequity "discrimination against people who want to have boats in the water". Ms. Ellis did not understand why the charges were necessary when a surplus exists in the state budget. Mr. Dennis Deillo, representing three property owners in Incline Village, spoke in opposition to A.B. 496. He explained he has 58 buoys, three piers, 30 boat slips, three swim floats, and one breakwater and pays over $15,000 yearly to Nevada for the privilege of having the items. Most of these items were placed in the lake thirty years ago. He noted Nevada was the fifth largest user taxed state in the United States. Mr. Deillo recommended the state live within its means and quit looking for revenue and start looking for ways to cut government. He discussed TRPA fees and county fees and paperwork. He felt the fact Lake Tahoe is a seasonal water should be considered. Mr. Deillo discussed the varied income levels of those living at Lake Tahoe and the enforceability of the law. Ms. Terry Strucker stated Logan Shoals Harbor has been closed the last two years because there was no way they could meet the anticipated fees. She stated she had been working with Senator Jacobsen to reintroduce a bill draft request originally drafted by Jim Gibbons. Ms. Strucker discovered the bill draft has been lost. The purpose of the bill draft was to repeal A.B. 430 from the 1993 session, the original bill imposing the fees being discussed. She requested help with reintroduction. Chairman de Braga said she thought the bill was introduced as of this date in the Assembly. The number is A.B. 548. Ms. de Braga recommended Ms. Strucker examine the bill. Chairman Carpenter said he felt A.B. 548 asks for the repeal of A.B. 430, the original bill imposing the fees under discussion. A hearing will be held on A.B. 548 as soon as the committee schedule allows. Ms. Strucker asked how both bills would be handled. Mr. Carpenter assured Ms. Strucker no action would be taken on A.B. 496 until A.B. 548 is heard. The hearing was closed on A.B. 496. The hearing was opened on Senate Bill 103. SENATE BILL 103 - Authorizes board of directors of irrigation district to allow transfer of storage water to land excluded from storage benefits of district irrespective of size or ownership of parcels of land. Mr. Jim Weishaupt, Manager, Walker River Irrigation District (WRID), testified on S.B. 103 from prepared remarks (Exhibit D). He discussed the reasons S.B. 103 had been requested and explained the problems occurring in the Walker River Irrigation District in water rights administration. Chairman de Braga asked what restrictions were on storage rights. Mr. Weishaupt reminded the committee the irrigation district owns the right to divert the water from the Walker River, which is different from other irrigation districts. Once in storage, the storage is released to the individual member and he becomes the beneficial use owner. The restrictions presently are the individual cannot transfer the stored water rights unless it is greater than forty acres or he owns the existing place of use and the proposed place of use. WRID is asking for the reduction of the forty acre limitation to zero and allow a transfer to take place between two or more parties. Chairman de Braga asked if transfers could be made from one owner to another within the basin. Mr. Weishaupt said yes, as long as it meets the limitations in the law. He reminded the committee it referred to a transfer to lands which used to have water rights which have been previously removed. Mr. Neighbors said his interpretation of the bill is passage would almost guarantee Walker Lake would not get any water. Mr. Weishaupt said he thought it would work the opposite way. Now the water rights become locked up under the homes, streets, roads, curbs and gutters and remain there. The proposal is to allow all the small water right acreages collectively to come into one concentrated place of use. It is hoped it would go into a "water bank", putting the flexibility of the water back into the storage reservoirs to supply other stakeholders on the river system. Mr. Neighbors asked if this were just for Lyon County. Mr. Weishaupt said he felt it would apply to Lyon, Mono and Mineral Counties. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the water rights would be sold back. Mr. Weishaupt stated the law presently allows the relinquishment of stored water rights and they go into the pool. In a subdivision situation the water rights become tied up under the subdivision. The owner of the land and water rights would sell it and transfer it to a second party. Mrs. Segerblom asked if it took less water to have four houses on an acre than it does to raise crops. Mr. Weishaupt said in this area it takes 3.2 acre feet (af) per acre and 4.3 af per acre for crop production. The state engineer requires 2.02 acre feet per household. A subdivision may have up to four houses per acre. Mr. Neighbors asked for clarification of the 2.02 acre feet per household, noting it was a figure he had not heard previously. Mr. Weishaupt explained the state engineer recommended the adoption of an ordinance in Lyon County requiring 2.02 acre feet per year per household. Mr. Neighbors asked what the requirement is currently. Mr. Weishaupt stated this is what is being done currently. Mr. Neighbors related this is double what is required in other areas. Mr. Weishaupt explained this is very consistent with the state engineer's recommendation to Lyon County. Chairman de Braga asked if statistics were available to back up the information since the recommendation is higher than usual. Mr. Weishaupt offered to provide the committee with the state engineer's recommendation to Lyon County and to a subdivider. The hearing was closed on S.B. 103. A work session was opened. The work session hearing on Assembly Bill 429 was opened. ASSEMBLY BILL 429 - Requires reclamation of aggregates and sand pits. Mr. David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, noted he distributed a work session document (Exhibit E). He explained the genesis of and history of A.B. 429. Mr. Ziegler stated he had spoken with Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club who indicated some written comments may be submitted on this bill. He noted there were people in the audience who were interested in the bill, if the committee desired to hear their comments. Mr. Glenn Miller explained A.B. 429 would bring sand and gravel operations under the same reclamation requirements as hard rock mining. The original legislation in 1989 did not initially exclude sand and gravel. It was meant as a general reclamation bill for any major disturbance or temporary impact on the land. There was no chance of the bill being passed unless sand and gravel was excluded. Therefore, language was added to exclude sand and gravel reclamation. Mr. Miller believed sand and gravel reclamation is as important as hard rock reclamation for several reasons. First, sand and gravel operations have the same impact on surface productivity and aesthetic values as hard rock mines only they are near urban centers where visual impacts are greatest. Most hard rock mining occurs in rural areas. Second, those in the hard rock mining industry feel it is unfair to have sand and gravel excluded from the reclamation requirements. Third, counties have a mixed record on reclamation. Some do a reasonably good job of reclamation and others have no reclamation requirements for sand and gravel. Since the state bill excludes sand and gravel from being considered, there are no requirements on private land. Mr. Miller did not believe any counties have regulations and staff to do the job the state does. Fourth, the state brings a strong regulatory ability. The 1989 bill is deemed by many in the mining industry as the best regulatory bill in the nation. The bill is used by mining companies as an argument they are complying with environmental regulations. Also, companies say they can mine in Nevada because good reclamation laws exist. Mr. Miller felt the same thing should be said for sand and gravel. Discussing the issue of who should regulate, Mr. Miller offered the choices of counties, municipalities or the state. He declared the state has the strongest and best ability to regulate because they have developed a strong staff who consider the chemical issues involved with hard rock mining as well as aesthetics and getting things to grow again. Most years it is difficult to get things to grow on disturbed lands. The state staff has an increasing ability to do so and develops new methods yearly. The counties do not have the staff available. In those counties which have the ability to regulate, like Washoe County, and demonstrate they can comply with the state revegetation requirements, Mr. Miller suggested they be given the authority to handle sand and gravel. Until they do the state should have the authority and regulatory ability. Because sand and gravel is excluded some of the most visually impacted areas are excluded. Mr. Miller noted he has examined the reclamation requirements of Washoe County and they do not contain any strong revegetation requirements similar to what exists in the state. He recommended the state regulations be the standard, allowing for the possibility of the state delegating the responsibilities to counties. Mr. Bennett asked what it would entail to revegetate and if it would include replacing soil. Mr. Miller reiterated the difficulty in getting things to grow in Nevada. However, the hard rock mines are accomplishing the task very successfully. Mr. Bennett asked if soil was being hauled in from other areas. Mr. Miller said it was not. Usually the existing topsoil is removed, the underlying minerals extracted, the area is recontoured and the topsoil is replaced. Then replanting occurs. Mr. Miller said there were issues regarding how the topsoil is cared for. The standard is for vegetation similar to what was growing before topsoil removal and mining to be replanted. It is more costly to push off the topsoil, save it and push it back when work is completed. The same contour will not exist, however. He complimented the hard rock mining companies for their efforts and successes in reclamation and revegetation. Mr. Miller recommended the same overlay of regulations for sand and gravel operations. Mr. Bennett stated a sand and gravel operation owner testified roughly thirteen percent of his cost was reclamation. Mr. Bennett asked what the cost was for hardrock operation. Mr. Miller said the costs for gold mining, for example, and sand and gravel were not comparable due to the different processes involved. A sand and gravel pit is selected because they are close, haulage costs are low, and not much stripping is required. Mr. Miller's argument is sand and gravel operations have no right to create long term, unrevegetated scars. There should be no competitive edge for those who reclaim versus those who do not. The long term benefit is when the top soil is replaced and the vegetative community is growing, it can be sustained by just letting it be. Mr. Miller also noted the land can be used for other things as long as it is a "productive post mining land use" according to current law. Mr. Bennett asked what the liability is for hard rock mining operations for guaranteeing the success of revegetation. Mr. Miller said there is an argument they have to have a diversity and density comparable to what existed prior to mining. If the land is very productive, they have to produce a very productive post mining land. If it is low productivity sagebrush country, the same has to be produced when they leave. Mr. Bennett asked if there was a liability involved if the revegetation does not grow. Mr. Miller said a bonding requirement comes into play with the hard rock industry. He noted hard rock mining organizations do not consider the bonding to be a major cost. Chairman de Braga asked how many years are required for establishment of vegetation. Mr. Miller stated it has to be a mix of vegetation with a diversity and density requirement. Companies can be required to come back within one to two years. Currently, closure of mines has not occurred to any great extent. Assemblyman Fettic asked if most hardrock mines were large. Mr. Miller said the bulk of gold mined comes from large mines. There are some smaller mines on the order of one hundred acres. He agreed sand and gravel operations are much smaller operations. Mr. Fettic asked how many operations in the state would be effected by the bill. Mr. Miller discussed a study by Public Resource Associates which looked at the number of sand and gravel associations in October, 1994. Some counties have a higher number of aggregate sources than others, notably the more urban counties. Mr. Miller noted some organizations such as Granite Construction and Pinson Mining have participated successfully in reclamation projects for some time because they are public spirited. However, relying on public spirit for regulation is generally not successful because a competitive disincentive exists. Mr. Jon Bunch, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), offered general information to the committee and spoke in opposition to the bill. Currently the NDOT has 1,123 material sites in the state scattered throughout the state wherever there are state highways. Approximately 100-200 of the sites are used yearly. The sites are kept on the record because a highway construction project may occur every ten to twenty years. When construction projects are completed, some reclamation of the land is done but the site is not disposed of because it can be used later. The main problem the NDOT has with the bill is duplication of efforts. Of the 1,123 sites operated by NDOT, all but nine are through a government agency. Eleven hundred of those are through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). NDOT has an existing memorandum of understanding with BLM which basically covers everything the bill covers. In the memorandum of understanding all federal regulations are being complied with, as well as compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and cultural resources. For another requirement to be added to NDOT is wasting their manpower, having state employees policing each other when the federal government is already doing the policing. Mr. Bunch stated he was unsure it was prudent in the age of attempting to save money. Chairman Carpenter asked what kind of reclamation would be done on a site where a highway project has been completed and another is anticipated in ten to fifteen years. Mr. Bunch said the contractor was required to reslope all excavated areas to a three to one slope. For every rise of one foot, you go three feet in a horizontal direction. When a contractor goes in and explores a new area he is supposed to remove the overburden, i.e., the topsoil, sagebrush and other items. This is to be stockpiled. After resloping three to one is completed, the topsoil is to be brought back in. Revegetation is not done in most cases because of possible projects ten or years down the road. At this point, the vegetation is growing well and must be torn out again. When NDOT is through with a site and it is to be returned to BLM, a complete revegetation is done. Mr. Lou Groffman, Geologist, Nevada Department of Transportation, testified in opposition to the bill as written. He stated NDOT currently files extensive paperwork for mining plans, exploration permits, preliminary opinions, new site uses and new use filings as well as local special use permits. There will be added costs related to extra filings for annual reports relating to status of pits all over the state and the production of mining projects and exploration projects. Also added costs will be increased for identifying each acre of land effected and land reclaimed. The added costs will include more staff, office space and equipment. Mr. Groffman explained he was involved in the exploration of existing and new pits and the BLM currently requires some reseeding in certain areas of the state for exploration activities. Chairman Carpenter asked if pits on private land required reclamation. Mr. Groffman stated as far as he knew it was up to the private owner, the contractor and the state to agree upon. Sometimes private owners request extensive reseeding. Some owners require no reseeding. Mr. Carpenter asked if any regulations existed requiring revegetation of privately owned sites. Mr. Bunch stated there are only nine private sites in the state currently. NDOT has the Standard Specifications for Road and Build Construction. Within the book there are standard guidelines which resident engineers who work for NDOT use in dealings with contractors. In the book it is required NDOT comply with the three to one sloping and other things. Mr. Bunch stated he believed this applied to a private option as well. Mr. Brockman confirmed NDOT is not opposed at all to reclamation. Mr. Bunch explained NDOT had been in existence since 1917 and had dug gravel pits on BLM land, used the gravel and returned the areas to BLM for many years. With the rising environmental consciousness in recent years, the visual impact of these pits has become more apparent. Mr. Bunch noted many of the pits are ones NDOT cannot do anything about. Today's policy requires NDOT to leave pit areas in a presentable condition. Mr. Fettic asked if most of the sand and gravel operations in the state were used for public roads. Mr. Brockman asked if Mr. Fettic were referring to NDOT pits or all pits. Mr. Fettic stated he wanted to know if most pits were used for public road and highway construction. Mr. Brockman said NDOT was one of the top users. Between city, county and state roads, much material is removed from sand and gravel pits. Mr. Fettic asked how A.B. 429 applied to sand and gravel pits which have been in existence for a very long time. He referred to a sand pit on Highway 50 as an example. Mr. Brockman answered saying NDOT has slowly been bringing the slopes down to a more uniform contour in the pit Mr. Fettic referred to. To his knowledge the only place NDOT can remove material from the pit is in the bottom. Mr. Fettic asked how big a problem this was and wondered if there were many pits located near each other. Mr. Brockman said the pits were scattered in varied locations statewide, usually not near one another. The hearing was closed on A.B. 429. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 429. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM VOTING NO. Chairman Carpenter, discussing A.B. 429, noted in previous testimony it was revealed specific counties have jurisdiction over the sand and gravel pit problem and should be approached to rectify it. Chairman de Braga stated testimony received in opposition concerned small operations which were not addressed in A.B. 429. Mr. Neighbors reminded the chair he was to receive a list from someone of sand and gravel pits statewide which are eyesores. He had not received the list. The work session discussion was opened on Assembly Bill 471. ASSEMBLY BILL 471 - Prohibits sale and certain use of phosphate in laundering. Mr. Ziegler stated A.B. 471 was from Clark County Sanitation District and would prohibit the sale and certain uses of phosphates in laundering. It would set a .5% standard by weight for use of phosphates in laundry detergent. Testimony was received in favor on April 19, 1995. Mr. Ziegler was asked to investigate if A.B. 471 would have an impact on state residents, particularly large, institutional and commercial users. He stated he had been in communication with Clark County on the issue. Mr. Ziegler spoke to wholesalers, retailers, end users, another state with a similar program, and the Truckee Meadows Sewage Treatment Plant. A mixed response was received from those contacted. Retailers expressed their willingness to abide with whatever the state's decision is, but need time to adjust. Mr. Ziegler recommended a phase in period. End users indicated no problem with the idea in previous testimony and indicated they already use phosphate free detergents. Indiana has had a phosphate ban for twenty years, being the first nationwide to implement such a ban. Reports indicate success with the program although a commercial/industrial exemption exists. Mr. Ziegler discussed a concern expressed in testimony regarding low phosphorous content in the influent causing engineering problems at the Truckee Meadows Sewage Treatment Plant. A partly biological process is used at the plant which requires some phosphorous in the input. Truckee Meadows Sewage Treatment Plant requested time to run calculations and discuss the issue with their engineering consultants before endorsing the plan. Chairman de Braga asked about cost and cleaning differences. Mr. Ziegler said Indiana estimates saving $20 million yearly statewide. Costs associated with hotter water, more detergent, more bleach, etc., have not materialized. Mr. Ziegler reminded the committee his findings were based on rapid telephone surveys and were not scientific. Mr. John Sande, representing the Soap and Detergent Association of New York, stated a complete, statewide ban of phosphates was introduced in a bill in 1983. The bill was killed. An attempt to ban phosphates in Reno occurred several years ago, with most opposition coming from the sewage treatment plant. Mr. Sande said household detergents are becoming non-phosphate. Commercial detergents still contain a lot of phosphates. He requested the opportunity for experts from the Soap and Detergent Association to testify before the committee so that up to date information could be received. Mr. Ziegler pointed out that if the bill is going to refer to phosphates it needs to either say "phosphate as P" (phosphorous) or it needs to say "elemental phosphorous". Chemically speaking it is ambiguous in its current wording. He requested the opportunity to work with the bill drafters if the committee wished the bill to move forward. Ms. Kathleen McClain, Clark County, stated she had reviewed the testimony of Robin Bain, and reminded the committee it cost $13 per pound to remove phosphates from sludge and detergent phosphate accounts for approximately half of the phosphate load. The other half comes from natural sources. Five hundred fifty thousand pounds of phosphate from laundry detergent alone goes through the Clark County Sanitation District Sewage Plant annually. This accounts for a major cost in Clark County. Assemblyman Bache suggested adding a population clause to the bill applying to counties of 400,000 or more. He felt the bill was definitely needed in Clark County. Chairman Carpenter asked Mr. Sande when the representatives from the Soap and Detergent Association would be available for testimony. Mr. Sande stated he thought they would be available the following week. Chairman Carpenter stated he felt it was important to hear the testimony and information from the representatives of the Soap and Detergent Association. Chairman de Braga stated A.B. 471 would be continued to a later date and no action was taken. Senate Bill 63 was also continued to a future work session. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pat Menath, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Marcia de Braga, Chairman Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Chairman Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining May 1, 1995 Page