MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session May 10, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, May 10, 1995, Chairman John C. Carpenter presiding in the Old Assembly Chambers, Capitol Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John C. Carpenter, Chairman Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman Mr. Max Bennett, Vice Chairman Mrs. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman Mr. Douglas A. Bache Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mr. David E. Humke Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Dean A. Rhoads STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Leta Collord, Elko County Grazing Task Force; Michael Riordan, Ranching; Joe Riordan, Rancher; Von Sorensen, Rancher; Loyd Sorensen, Rancher; Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation; Deloyd Sattenthwaite, Rancher; Barbara Curti, Nevada Farm Bureau; Jim Connelley, Rancher; Ira Hansen; John McClain, Range Management Consultant; Dr. Wayne Burkhard, Emeritus, University of Nevada, Reno; Dr. Jim Young, University of Nevada, Reno; William E. Schaeffer, Eureka County District Attorney; Brent Espil, John Espil Sheep Co.; Benny Romera; Fred Fulstone; John Espil, Ranching; Mary Santomouro, Reporter, The Corner Post; Eddie Filberni; John Falen, Nevada Cattlemen; Tom Bentz, Nevada Animal Alliance; Don Bowman; Grace Duval, Rancher; Pete Goicoechea, Eureka County; Erin O'Connor- Henry, United States Forest Service. Chairman Carpenter asked the many people attending the meeting to be patient and the committee would try and hear all those who wished to speak. He called the meeting to order and asked for roll call to be taken. All members were in attendance. The primary sponsor of S.J.R. 7 was Senator Dean Rhoads who would make the opening remarks. The other resolutions A.J.R. 35 and A.J.R. 36 were in regard to the lawsuit filed against the Forest Service by the Nevada Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Federation and the Elko County Conservation Association. One of the resolutions made it clear the paper process did not apply to the renewal of grazing permits. There was legislation in Congress now to do what the resolution stated, and this should be very timely. The other resolution asked the litigation to be resolved and dropped by the parties who initiated the lawsuit. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 35 - Urges Congress to reduce paperwork requirements associated with National Environmental Policy Act. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 36 - Urges resolution of litigation over authorization of grazing permits in Humboldt National Forest. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 7 - Expresses support of Nevada Legislature for ranching and farming in Nevada and urges Congress of United States to stop reform of existing regulations governing livestock grazing and management of public rangelands. Mr. Jim Connelley, a long time rancher from Mt. City, Nevada has been on the same ranch for 25 years. He testified from prepared testimony (Exhibit C), and stated he would be in support of the resolutions before the committee today. He thanked the committee for holding the hearings. Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada State Senatorial District, testified on S.J.R. 7. The Senator had an amendment which would change the resolution slightly and bring it up to date (Exhibit D). He also stated he was strongly in favor of A.J.R. 35 and A.J.R. 36. The rangeland reform was started two years ago, when Secretary Babbitt released a draft proposal which shocked the industry. This particular regulation change would have been a major change on managing livestock on public lands. If the regulations as written would have gone into effect, the Nevada livestock industry and the western livestock industry would have been severely and economically effected. The first attempt by the Secretary of Interior was to have several hearings in the West. Over 1,000 people attended the meeting in Reno and 95 percent of the comments were against rangeland reforms. Many other meetings were held in the west with up to 1,400 people attending and the same percentage of comments against rangeland reforms. The Secretary realized his draft regulations were in trouble and attempted to go the legislative route. The Senior Senator from Nevada took the lead and after three attempts and failures to pass the rangeland reform regulations through legislation they finally had to withdraw their request. The Secretary went back to the regulation route and changed some things in the rangeland reform and took the grazing fees out of the regulations. Many of the points which were in the final draft issued in January 1995 were still in the report and was the final report and goes into effect August 26, 1995. Senator Rhoads had dinner in Las Vegas with Don Young, Chairman of the House Natural Resource Committee, he explained a Congressman from Oregon and one from Utah were working on a legislative package which would respond to the problems in the rangeland reform regulations which go into effect August 26, 1995. The Senator from New Mexico would be proposing a legislative solution which would address the same matter. Senator Rhoads went over his proposed amendments, and asked when the resolution was sent to the key players in Washington, D.C., perhaps a letter calling it to their attention that this must be done immediately and action taken as quickly as possible, could be signed by Senator Rhoads, John Carpenter and Marcia de Braga. Ms. Barbara Curti, a rancher and President of the Nevada Farm Bureau, spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit E). The Nevada Farm Bureau was in support of all three resolutions. Mr. Fettic asked if Ms. Curti was in favor of A.J.R. 35 and A.J.R. 36. She responded as in favor of all three resolutions. He said in both of the resolutions they used the words multi- use concept which required all the various recreational, agricultural, educational and scientific users of the public lands to coexist, and he felt this was an important part of the bill. Ms. Curti agreed with him. Mr. Carpenter had the committee introduce themselves and tell where they were from so the people attending could see what a citizens legislature we have in Nevada. Mr. John McLain, a Principal and Certified Range Management Consultant with Resource Concepts Inc. of Carson City, Nevada was in support of the three resolutions. He testified from prepared testimony, (Exhibit F). His remarks would be directed to his view of the public lands arena in Nevada today. Mr. Bennett asked what had prices on the hoof done since 1968. Mr. McLain said it would be more appropriate to have one of the production ranchers answer the question. Mr. Fettic asked Mr. McLain what his general impression of the range was. Conditions of the ranges were far better than has been traditionally reported and what we continually read about. Dr. Young and Dr. Burkhardt who were here today would give some very strong evidence to support his views. The range was much improved and on the right track and has been for a long time. There has been a disruption through the legal forces and the environmental movement that has stopped the investment defusion of private capital into improvements all the way from water developments, fencing for better management and creating better distribution of livestock usage. The lands were in pretty "darn good condition." Dr. Wayne Burkhardt thanked the committee for the opportunity of meeting with them in support of the resolutions and support of natural resource use in this country for production of goods and services for our society. There was indeed a "war on the west" war over access to natural resources. In his experience of a student of range lands for in excess of some thirty years, he said what the war was really about was the control of land use to limit access to resources far more than it is the legitimate concern for the condition of our public land resource. He said he wanted to offer some information which might be helpful in deliberations which would provide a prospective on the health and well being of public lands in Nevada. Dr. Burkhardt gave a slide presentation of photographs of scenes of Nevada rangeland in the early 1900's. With the help of grad students over the years he relocated about 200 sets of photographs of Nevada public lands. They went back and rephotographed those same pieces of rangeland. It gives an opportunity to look at the condition of the rangelands since the early 1900's. He informed the audience the pictures on the left were taken from 1905 to the early 1930's, the pictures on the right were Dr. Burkhardt's retakes in the mid to late 1980's. He said to keep in mind the early 1900 period was a period before the Taylor Grazing Act and before the Forest Service was effective. It was indeed a free for all in terms of grazing use on the open range, public domain. Conditions on the Nevada range in the early 1900's probably were very poor compared to pristine conditions. The science of archeology, geology, etc., increased our understanding of range science. Rangelands of the great basin of Nevada were natural grazing lands, grazing by large animals was prehistory and was part of the revolution of Nevada rangelands. It was unnatural for those rangelands not to have large grazing animals on them. The Dr. went through many slides throughout Nevada explaining where they were taken and the difference of rangeland between the 1900's and 1980's. The range was in better condition now than in the early years. Questions were asked throughout the presentation. He noted the political struggle which was going on for access to resources in the West was pulling our range managers and ranchers to public meetings to defend their rights to engage in the business which was a benefit to society. Dr. Burkhardt found it a distressing condition. He noted pictures had been done throughout the West and the same conditions exist. Wildlife has made a tremendous comeback in this state and in the West in general. Elk numbers, deer, antelope, big horn sheep were all up and partly the result of the management efforts by the game departments, the land agencies and the ranchers. We certainly would not see those increases in the habitat, if the condition of those public and private lands was not suitable to support the animals. Dr. Burkhardt appreciated the opportunity to bring this to the attention of the committee and the public here today. Mr. Carpenter thanked him for showing the great change the state can effect on our public rangelands. He asked Dr. Burkhardt if rangeland which was not in prime condition would respond with proper management, without taking the livestock off. The Dr. said it was his experience that natural resources in this country have amazing recuperative capabilities. They evolve under use and under impact. It would be an unusual situation in his mind, if it would not improve and respond in a positive manner. There were some changes on Nevada lands that were nearly irreversible and those take the forms of inadvertent introduction of exotic species of plants which perhaps as well or better adapted to some sites in Nevada than the native plants which evolve here. When this happens there was no going back, they can not be gotten rid of. There are some of those changes, but it still would not be devastation, those were God's creations too. By and large the rangelands have the ability to recover and have recovered. Mr. Fettic asked where the stories came from that ranchers were raping the land, and overgrazing. Dr. Burkhardt said stories of rape and plunder have a way of catching people's attention and the press's attention which helps perpetuate stories. He called attention to the fact the ranching industry, ranchers, agencies and the range science community have been doing their job and making progress. There was still work to be done and there were places which needed a better job of grazing management. He could put together a collection, for testimony before the committee, of photographs which would make you think raping and plunder were rampant on the public land. The photographs were not picked that were shown, they came out of the historic archives and railroad surveys. They then went back to see what the change had been since the original photograph. There was work to be done on the range but everyone involved has been caught up in the political debate and hassle over public land resource use, the impact takes away from doing their job. Mr. Fettic said in living in the state the past 60 years and traveling throughout the state to fish, the land has improved for not only grazing but sportsmen alike. Dr. Jim Young has been a resident of Nevada for over 32 years and showed slides of Nevada and how the environment was utilized. Dr. Young was quoted in the Gazette-Journal a year ago as saying the rangelands were in the best condition they were in for a century. He created a storm with the casual remark. Dr. Young talked about the different types of rangelands in Nevada. Most people, by wagon, were hurrying through Nevada to either Oregon or California and stayed in Nevada due to their wagon breaking down or had the foresight to realize this environment was capable of supporting the livestock industry. We gradually evolved a system of utilizing the rangelands. Environments were not static things frozen in time but always responding to climatic changes over a geologic time scale, responding to short term climatic changes which the recent drought has demonstrated, and the changes were also affected by man's activities. He talked about the noxious weed Halogeton which was very toxic to sheep. Sheep can be a very effective tool in range management because they were browsers rather than users of grass. Nevada had a tremendous sheep industry up until the end of World War II. Marion Clausen was the director of the Bureau of Land Management right after World War II, and was a remarkable person. Everyone was against him during his term as director, but he said the answer to the Halogeton problem and the poisoning of the livestock in Nevada was not attacking the Halogeton. The symptom was not enough forage. He instigated a program of seeding the rangelands to return perennial grasses to the environment. The management agencies and private ranchers seeded a million acres of the 19 million acres of big sagebrush essential land in Nevada. That rangeland now provided about 25 percent of the range forage base in Nevada. It saved the ranching industry, made them cooperative to get into management policies and it increased the forage base. Dr. Young noted the champion of all the introduced species in terms of effect on the state was cheat grass. The plant was introduced accidentally in Nevada about 1900, probably in the Pacific Northwest with contaminated grain. It came into the state early in the century and has adapted to the sagebrush, the pinion juniper and the upper edges of the salt desert. Cheat grass interacts with fire, it changes the chance of ignition, the rate of spread and the seasons of fire. The native grasses were dried out to burn in late August, cheat grass dries out in early July. The fires were virtually impossible to suppress. This has not been an issue for almost a decade now because of the drought, but this year and if we have another good winter, cheat grass and fires will be on everyones mind. It was suggested it was destructive to our wildlife resources to go out and plant this grass and that it was only done for the ranchers. So it was stopped almost entirely. From the 1960's until today we went from about 1/10 of 1 percent of Nevada's big sagebrush rangelands dominated by cheat grass, now it was 25 percent. In the southern part of Nevada the sister grass, Red Roam has done the same thing. In the high elevations we have had a tremendous improvement in rangelands. It was only in the lower elevation areas where we have had this dominant cheat grass. The livestock that were eating cheat grass were consuming fuel. We will have for the next several decades, if we remove livestock from the cheat grass range, tremendous wildfire suppression costs and an ecologic disaster for the state. Dr. Young has continued to show slides and lecture on the areas. The riparian habitats were the only part of our landscape where we have active sedimentation and extra water for the growth of plants. Anywhere man goes he changes the environment, we can not escape that. We can actively manage the range, we can not passively manage it by just locking things up and hoping they would heal themselves. Dr. Young talked of the need for red meat and the lack of farm production to be a vegetarian nation. Mr. Carpenter thanked Dr. Burkhardt and Dr. Young for their presentations and knowledge of rangelands. Mr. Benny Romero, President, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, noted how interesting it was to hear the background of the members of the committee. Production agriculture in Nevada has been here many years. Mr. Romero has been spending a great deal of time talking to agency people, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The lawsuits in northern Humboldt were very critical, putting things at risk for those producers up north. The lawsuits which have come about were lawsuits which have been invited. Mr. Romero had just visited with the Chief of the Forest Service in Washington, D.C. He told one story and in Nevada I hear another story, things were not together, we need to find out the truth. We need to stand up and let the truth be heard. The heritage, custom and culture of these people who have spent many years in a lifestyle and have raised their children, not only raising a product out of production agriculture but also raising people, people who have been close to the land, people who have close ties to reality. Mr. Romero said it was extremely critical. The Chief of the Forest Service said all permits would be granted with nothing to hinder them. They can do the adjustments they have to make on NEPA and the regulations which have to be done after the permits have been issued. There were bills in Congress which say the same thing he was wishing for. The Chief said a few days ago, "we need time, we need space, and we need to get it done right." The people with a political agenda have managed to influence the Forest Service and the BLM to a point where management of the public lands was impossible. The USFS Chief said, "we are winning more and more lawsuits today." The winning of the lawsuits because of the people who were supposed to be doing land management today out in the field, were not able to do so as they were preparing for litigation. This was not land management, we interpreted policy and tried to make it law. We need to look around and see what has been happening. Mr. DeLoyd Satterthwaite, a rancher from Tuscarora, Nevada, runs the Ellison Ranching Company. The Ellison Ranching Company was formed in 1910, and has had three managers, his father-in-law Mr. Stanley Ellison, his grandfather and Mr. Satterthwaite. He said he would focus in on what happens when you have inter- mingled lands mixed with your allotments you run on and administered by the agencies. He pointed out areas on a map which were private and allotments they run their cattle on. When the land was homesteaded many years ago, they chose the best lands they could and they normally chose the land up and down the creek. When this land was administered by the bureau, any land which was not fenced, was governed by the BLM and you lose management of the land. He noted there were over 100 thousand acres of deeded land but only about 25 thousand acres which was under fence. The main ranches were fenced and maybe a couple of fields, but the rest of it being unfenced was administered by the BLM, because it lies within the BLM allotment. It was impossible to manage these lands when there was such an erratic land pattern of ownership, impossible to fence those lands and almost impossible to trade with the government to block those lands. The Endangered Species Act also impacts us. On one of the ranches there was a species of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout, they have not seen the fish since 1972, however they were going to manage for the fish. In order to do so, even though Mr. Satterthwaite owns all the water, they own all the grass and the land was not fenced, they can tell me what to do on my private land. He did not think they had the right to tell the people what to do with their private land. The Spanish Ranch at Tuscarora was their main ranch and the same thing applied. He was in support of the resolutions and believed it was something which needed to happen. He felt they were always good managers of the land, and after 85 years of working with these people they have something to contribute, the ranching community were people who can be trusted and dealt with. Being a permittee did not give them any more credence to the land than you have. When dealing with the agencies each had a concern they dealt with and each was dedicated to their own area. Mr. Bennett said Mr. Satterthwaite just referred to the various government agencies, each with their own niche. He asked if they had ever observed a conflict among the government agencies themselves when their niches crossed one another. He had not observed conflict between the two agencies, such as the BLM and USFS. The Bureau of Sports, Fishery and Wildlife, who was in charge of the Endangered Species Act, have the final say what can be done on the management plan. Mrs. de Braga asked if he had outside range, considered public land, and did he have a permit to use the land. If so, has it been cut and how did the government compensate you for those cuts. Most of our land was government owned land for our outside grazing, said Mr. Satterthwaite. When a utilization study was made they often took a reduction in AUM's. No compensation was given for those reductions. Mrs. de Braga said you simply lose your means of livelihood without compensation. What reasons did they give for taking those allotments away. Mr. Satterthwaite said in his particular case they had a fire, Mahogany Springs fire. Once they have a fire they want to manage the area, seed it and let the perennials come back. He said they had lost approximately 1800 AUM's. The value on BLM ground was worth anywhere from $35 to $50 per unit. The important thing would be when they do a utilization study, they go to the multiple use concept. The BLM did not adjudicate AUM's for wild horses in prior times. There were now so many wild horses they have to manage for the horses and the AUM's for livestock were cut accordingly. He noted the same thing was happening with wildlife, such as the Elk transplants. The forage has to come from somewhere and someplace and someone. He noted the only ones they can manipulate were the ranching community and this was where the adjustments came from. Mr. Humke apologized if the question was off the subject but felt it was important. He noted there was a recent comment by a U.S. Forest Service official in Mr. Satterthwaite's area who said he feared for his personal safety and of several government officials. Commissioner Chapman replied he was to call him forward to further explain the comment. He asked if Mr. Satterthwaite knew of any basis for a federal official to fear for the personal safety of any of their members in his part of the state. Mr. Satterthwaite did not personally know of anything happening and thought it was a ridiculous statement to make. Mr. Carpenter explained to the audience the need for members to attend other hearings and they were not leaving out of disrespect to the people attending. Mr. Ira Hansen, represented himself and was from Sparks, Nevada. He did not have a ranching background, but was a member of the Nevada Wildlife Federation who sponsored the lawsuit on the Humboldt Forest. They did not poll their membership, and none of the members Mr. Hansen knows of support the concept. The lawsuit was done by the Board of Directors without a poll from the members. He stated he was a columnist for the Sparks Tribune and a guest columnist for the Elko Daily Free Press. He wrote to all of the affiliate clubs of the Nevada Wildlife Federation, and none of the clubs who responded favored the lawsuit or had anything to do with the lawsuit. Mr. Hansen wanted his remarks to be read into the record. He continued to testify from written testimony (Exhibit G), his column to be published in the Sparks Tribune today and next week in the Elko Daily Free Press. Mr. Hansen said, too often rural Nevada does not fight back on the issues. There were often letters to the editor in the Las Vegas Sun and Review Journal, Gazette-Journal which attacked the livestock industry and too often they have been unanswered. He had answered them even though he was not a member of the livestock community. The ranchers need to influence those people without an opinion in a positive way. They also needed to contact every affiliate club with the Nevada Wildlife Federation to formally request those people to take one side or another. Mr. Hansen fully supported ranching, the resolutions, and to see that rural Nevada had a fair shake. Mr. Carpenter agreed with Mr. Hansen and felt it was a good suggestion to contact the clubs. Mr. Von Sorensen, a rancher in Elko County, a member of the Public Use Advisory Commission and a member of the Grazing Task Force in Elko County, testified. The Grazing Task Force has been giving comments and recommendations to the County Commission. He was also a past president of the Nevada Woolgrowers. Mr. Sorensen said they used to have sheep but do not anymore due to different actions of the Federal agencies such as limitations on predator control. Four years ago the Sorensens sold the remainder of their sheep. In the 1960's they were running 14,000 ewes in Elko County on private and public land both Forest Service and BLM land. When the Ruby Mountain area was officially made a wilderness, they applied sufficient restrictions on predator control and it was impossible to protect the sheep from the coyotes and mountain lions and they finally had to sell off the sheep operation and waive their sheep permits back to the Forest Service. At the present time they only have two small cattle permits on the Forest Service land in conjunction with private land. They sold a couple of cattle permits on the Forest Service land three or four years ago due to increased problems in dealing with the Forest Service and the wilderness designation. They have vast amounts of grazing land from the BLM for the desert country and around the Spruce Mountain area. Mr. Sorensen said for over 45 years they have developed and maintained some 35 wells at their expense of around $280 thousand and 19 springs of water at a cost of $20 thousand. The wells and springs were used in their livestock operation and also the wildlife in the area use the water developments as well. They have helped build and maintain some 80 miles of fence on their BLM allotment and participated in the partial cost of some 10,000 acres of crested wheat grass in the 1950's to improve range where there was nothing but sagebrush. They also maintain some 100 miles of roads themselves to run their livestock operation and haul water to Spruce Mountain. When you hear about ranchers not having any expenses running their cattle on public land, this would give some perspective to what happens. They were paying as much as private land lease rate to run on public land with the out of pocket costs. Many of the ranchers have created most of the so called riparian areas or meadow areas. He discussed what the ranchers do to maintain the riparian areas. Livestock was a real tool for the management of the rangelands. He supported the three subject resolutions. Mr. Pete Goicoechea, Chairman Board of Commissioners of Eureka County, testified from prepared testimony (Exhibit H). Mr. Neighbors asked Mr. Goicoechea about a possessory interest. Mr. Goicoechea said there was possessory interest already allowed in the statutes now for mining claims or some lands in the state of Nevada. The County Commissioners felt by attaching some sort of possessory interest to grazing, it would try and ascertain a property right with the grazing permits. He realized they were issued in 1936 with the Taylor Grazing Act, but they have to be recognized as a property right. When one talks about 25, 30, 40 or 50 percent reduction in grazing AUM's or preference AUM's to a ranch, you are talking real dollars, whether it would be a rancher, a ranching family or a lending institution. Mrs. de Braga asked how legislatively we could establish the possessory interest as regards grazing and what effect would state law have against Federal regulations. Mr. Goicoechea understood state statute did not supersede Federal regulation. He did question, to the extent the Code of Regulations actually take away the AUM's, if they were taxed by the state of Nevada. She said, if we established by state law this kind of possessory interest, could it prevent the Federal government taking AUM's or at least make them take a look before taking. He said he thought it would be the case. He noted if one was paying taxes on a preference AUM and did come in and suspend one, at that point it would become a takings, it would be easier to defend in a court. Mrs. de Braga asked what was the government's excuse for cutting back AUM's when the country has better forage from the wet weather than for many years. Mr. Goicoechea said he did not think it made a difference if it was a wet year or a dry year, the agenda was the same. Mr. Neighbors talked about the roll of grazing preferences on the tax roll and the possessory interest. Mr. Carpenter said they would take the request regarding the possessory interest to the counsel bureau and see if it can be attached to one of the bills we already have in committee. Mrs. Grace Duval, Ruby Valley, Elko County rancher testified from prepared testimony in support of the resolutions and bill proposed today, (Exhibit I). Mr. Bennett was looking through the resolutions and saw nothing which really addressed the protection of the vested water rights that rural people have to maintain their agriculture and ranching interest. It might be an amendment the committee would like to consider to S.J.R. 7. Mr. Carpenter said Mr. Bennett had a good suggestion. We have the law but not the person to protect our rights. Ms. Leta Collord, coordinator, Elko County Grazing Task Force, testified from written testimony, (Exhibit J). Mrs. Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation was unable to stay for the meeting and asked that a letter (Exhibit K) be entered into the record. Mr. William E. Schaeffer, District Attorney, Eureka County, was in support of the resolutions. He did have a concern about the resolutions and other bills Eureka County has asked the Senate and Assembly to do. The constitutionality of Eureka's challenge to Federal ownership was too much in the minds of the legislature. Mr. Schaeffer noted Mr. Carpenter had said the Attorney General would not fight the Federal government. He would like the legislature to give the counties the tools so they could make the fight with the Federal government. The only way to find out whether or not the counties were correct or the Attorney General and the Attorney General of the United States would be to get it into court. It would not go to court if we continue to be afraid of it being unconstitutional. Mr. Schaeffer said on the possessory interest, the Supreme Court of Nevada in 1865 recognized possessory rights. The resolutions appearing today were excellent. Mr. Carpenter said he appreciated his comments and would take the possessory interests to legislation and attach it to some bill. At that time we will ask you to come and make a presentation. He did not know what the counsel bureau's position was on possessory rights, but Mr. Carpenter knew Eureka County had stepped into the fight with Nye County in regard to their lawsuit. He explained Mr. Neighbors, Senator Rhoads, and myself had asked the Attorney General point blank for support on the three issues. We wanted support for Nye County, and were turned down. We asked if she would support the water rights fight we were having in Elko County and she said absolutely not. The Attorney General at the time had filed a lawsuit to take the County Commissioners and the City Council out of Lincoln County. We advised her to back off Lincoln County as they felt the legislature was going to censor her. She said she would not back off and we did not get any support on the issues. We would be willing to take your possessory right proposal and try to get it passed, said Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Schaeffer said it was secondary as the Nye County lawsuit exists, but he noted they had proposed a bill draft in regard to having the state quitclaim some public lands to the counties. The counties would then use them for public purposes. The bill draft had run into some opposition based on the unconstitutionality issue as to who owns the public lands. We would like you to get the bill through because we want to challenge the Federal government on the title. It would not cost the state a penny and they would not have to defend it. It would be up to the individual counties to make the request and the individual counties would make the fight. Mr. Carpenter told Mr. Schaeffer he thought they could get the possessory right bill through the legislature. If the counsel bureau said it was unconstitutional, no matter what we think, the legislature would not vote for it. We can not get everything through the legislature, and as rural Nevadans we take what we can get. He thought there might be a chance on the possessory right challenge, and will pursue it. Mr. Don Bowman asked for a resolution, which resolved that the state of Nevada was urged to enact legislation requiring all agencies to acknowledge grazing and water rights, and prohibit agencies from usurping those rights when they were protected. Mr. John Falen, Humboldt County, said we had already heard about the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. There had been $150 thousand expanded on a lawsuit by many people and at a great expense and unnecessary. He spoke of the actions the Nevada Cattlemen have taken in regard to the Humboldt National Forest lawsuit with the Wildlife Federation. He said he had received a preliminary scoping document for the 1995 grazing permit issuance on the Humboldt, Toiyabe National Forest, Mt. City, Ruby Mt's., Jarbridge, Santa Rosa Range Districts in May, 1995. The document has said since 1985 grazing permits have been issued both with and without site specific NEPA analysis. Mr. Falen read parts of a letter written by Karen Budd and Pete Bengochea. Therefore fighting the battle for grazing on Federal lands the Forest Service was entering into settlements with environmental groups to the detriment of the grazing permittees agreeing that NEPA compliance was necessary. If these cases were settled the Federal Courts would never get the opportunity to determine if NEPA requirements were necessary. Congress specifically stated most of the developed AUM fees would not be assessed NEPA requirements, rather, Congress clearly contended NEPA only apply in those cases where there was substantial change in grazing use, not where there was simple reauthorization of grazing use. With regard to this situation there was no legal precedent for the USFS to refuse the issuance of grazing permits or yearly authorization regardless if NEPA documentation was completed. Mr. Bowman spoke of a memorandum with 33 permittees also signed on as interveners in the lawsuit (Exhibit L). He noted the intervention would be filed sometime next week. Mr. Fred Fulstone, Smith, Nevada, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit M). Mr. Tom Bentz, Nevada Animal Wise Use and Welfare Alliance, said they were a very large alliance and represented over 15 thousand people by the elected membership of the different organizations signatured to his group. He wished to go on record in support of Senate Joint Resolution 7, it was not only good for ranching it was good for Nevada. The Federal government was in the process of closing down access to public land, we need to do everything we can to support the people and the multiple use of public land. Mr. Brent Espil from Gerlach, Nevada, a third generation Nevada rancher, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit N). Material from Ruby Valley Ranchers (Exhibit O). The meeting was closed at 5:30 p.m. by Chairman Carpenter. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pat Menath, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Chairman Assemblyman Marcia de Braga, Chairman Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining May 10, 1995 Page