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 5:00 p.m., on Wednesday, May 10, 1995, Chairman John C. Carpenter presiding in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John C. Carpenter, Chairman Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman Mr. Max Bennett, Vice Chairman Mrs. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman Mr. Douglas A. Bache Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mr. David E. Humke Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Ira Hansen; Juanita Cox, People To Protect America; Tina Nappe. Vice Chairman, Max Bennett presided as chairman for the 5:30 p.m. meeting. ASSEMBLY BILL 307 - Limits use of money received by division of wildlife of state department of conservation and natural resources from stamps, tags, permits and licenses sold or issued by division. Mr. Warren Hardy, Willie Molini and Larry Johnson came forward to speak on the amendments for A.B. 307. Mr. Hardy said they had met with the principles on Monday of this week to address their concerns. They went over the bill and the proposed amendments line item by line item and have agreed to the following changes. Mr. Molini, Administrator Division of Wildlife, apologized for the interruption, but did want to make the record clear before Mr. Hardy proceeds. The Board of Wildlife Commissioners met on Friday subsequent to the Wednesday hearing and after considerable discussion and testimony the Board took an action that there were parts of the bill which were maybe okay, but were very concerned about the appointment process and took action to oppose the bill in total. There were a number of Wildlife Commission members at the meeting today. Mr. Molini did participate in the discussions, but he did say the Wildlife Commission opposed the bill. Mr. Hardy apologized for not bringing the information forward and the agreement on the amendments were between Hunter's Alert and The Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife. The changes begin in Section 3, with the makeup of the board. It was agreed to leave in one member who was actively involved in the conservation of wildlife. The board would be made up of one member actively engaged in farming, one member actively engaged in ranching, one member who represented the interest of the general public, and five members, who at least three of the four years immediately preceding their appointment hold a resident license to hunt or a combination license in Nevada. Section 3, subsection (d), the County Wildlife Advisory Board, would more actively involve local sport groups. Section 4, subsection 1, the concensus was it would not be necessary to increase the number of meetings to twelve. Mr. Sandoval asked what was the intent of a new makeup for the board, would the board be reconstituted upon the time the bill was passed. Mr. Hardy said it was their intention, and would certainly allow time for the transition. Mrs. de Braga asked if every county had a Wildlife Advisory Board. Mr. Hardy said yes. Mr. Fettic felt it was important the committee knew for sure every county had a Wildlife Advisory Board. Mr. Molini, confirmed every county has a Wildlife Advisory Board which were appointed by the County Commission. Mr. Fettic asked if there were similar requirements that the five members selected by the commissioners also meet the requirements Mr. Hardy had outlined. The Governor would still be the appointing person and would choose from a list. Mr. Carpenter asked if the portion of the bill was changed to reflect fishing or hunting or both. Mr. Hardy said the intent was to change it to read a hunting license or a combination license. Mr. Fettic asked if the term of office be the same as now. Mr. Hardy said it was not addressed in the legislation and the intent was it would stay the same. Mr. Molini interjected and said the term of office would be three years, no limit on reappointment and the terms were staggered, so in any given year the maximum reappointment would be four members. Mr. Hardy said the new language would limit the presidency to two consecutive terms as chairman. Mr. Humke asked to revisit the numbers of board members. Mr. Hardy said there would be nine board members and the members would be made up as listed above. Mr. Carpenter said it was his understanding the way the amendment was written if a person had only a fishing license he would not be eligible for a position on the board. Mr. Hardy said that was true for those five positions. Mr. Hardy went on with the changes to Section 3, subsection 3, in which the commission would annually select a chairman and a vice chairman from among its members. A member shall not serve more than two consecutive terms as chairman. Section 4, subsection 1, it was not necessary to increase the number of meetings, and it would be left at nine. Mr. Sandoval felt a clarification on what he thought was ambiguous language. The intent needed to be clarified if nine meetings were to be held a year or not. The way it reads now "may hold at least nine" does not make sense. He wanted to hear Mr. Hardy's intent. The intent was to have the commission meet as often as necessary to take care of the requirements but did not want to have an adverse fiscal impact. Mr. Sandoval felt brackets should be put around "at least." Mr. Molini said although he did not support the bill he did support that particular change as it has caused some problem. In his experience nine meetings did get the job done. Mr. Carpenter asked if they were comfortable with bracketing out "at least." Mr. Sandoval would suggest deleting "at least" or leaving the "commission may hold nine meetings regularly each year", or say "the commission may hold up to nine meetings regularly each year." Mr. Hardy proceeded with the changes. The next change would be in Section 5, subsection 2, which was proposed language and read "the commission shall prohibit the division from releasing any statement to the general public regarding a position of public policy which has not been specifically approved by the commission." After reviewing Nevada Revised Statutes, it was determined the language was redundant. The making of public policy was within the commissions ability and not within the ability of the administrator. The proposal would be to strike that new language in section 5, subsection 2. Section 6, subsection 1, was legislation the commission already has under NRS and its authority so would strike the language in italics. The next change would be Section 7, subsection 3, which would read, within such limitations as might be provided by law, organize the division and from time to time with consent of the commission alter the organization. The Administrator may.......... was an attempt to clarify the administrator's ability to make personnel changes and not micromanage. Section 7, subsection 5, would not be necessary, it gets into micro management, which was not the intent. Section 7, subsection 6, prepare for the commissions review and approval of the biennial budget, Mr. Hardy said they would like to leave it in as it currently exists. Mrs. de Braga noted the start of the sentence was, "The administrator shall.... so in midstream on subsection 3 you would be switching to "he may." Mr. Hardy said it was a good point. Mr. Fettic said on subsection 6 of Section 7, the commissions review and approval....., asked if the Governor would not be the approving authority. Mr. Hardy said they had discussion on the issue and would not cause interference for legislative action to amend the budget, nor the Governor, or Mr. Moros' ability to change the budget. It would simply be the budget the administrator would submit to the director. Mr. Fettic asked if the statement, "to prepare for the commissions review and comment." Mr. Hardy said they felt the commission should take more seriously their obligation in terms of the budget. Mr. Fettic asked if the current commission approved the budget. Mr. Molini said currently we present the budget to the commission for review, they do not have statutory authority to approve, if they have a problem the division would take a hard look at it. Mr. Fettic said he had a problem with commissions approving budgets, he felt it was not an appropriate function of a commission. Mr. Humke said the budget would go through the following processes, NDOW Administrator, Wildlife Commission, Director Natural Resources, Budget Department, Governor, then the Legislature. Mr. Fettic disagreed with Mr. Humke and said the Wildlife Commission would have to approve the budget. What if they do not want to approve it. He noted on RTC they had the authority to recommend approval or to recommend denial, not to approve, not to deny, but to recommend to the higher authority what the best course of action would be. Mr. Hardy said if it were the commission's review and approval there would be the ability for the commission members, if in fact the director or the Governor makes significant changes, a wildlife commissioner could go to the legislature to let them know what the will of the commission was. Perhaps the legislature would get a more accurate assessment of what the Wildlife Commission's wishes were. Mr. Carpenter said it was important the area of the bill would remain as is. A great deal of the funds come from the hunters and fishermen and the commission should approve the budget. Mr. Bennett agreed with Mr. Fettic and felt more comfortable with the term recommendation rather than approve the budget. Mr. Neighbors said if he were to give a little on the wording he would change it to read "approve the tentative budget." Mr. Hardy said that would state their goal. Mr. Humke agreed with Mr. Neighbors compromise, but did note this would not slow down the budget process. Mr. Bache agreed with Mr. Fettic and Mr. Bennett that "review and recommendation" would be a better way to state it. If not approved by the commission the director would have to go ahead and do a budget based on whatever. Mr. Carpenter felt the commission should have a great deal of say in putting together the budget and where the money should be spent. Mr. Carpenter said the rank and file of the sportsmen would feel better if the "tentative budget was approved by the commission." A great deal of discussion took place regarding the wording Mr. Neighbors recommended. However, the word proposed was recommended and found to be more palatable. Mr. Molini said if it was stated, "approve the proposed budget," it would moderate the wording. Executive branch agencies must submit to the budget office by state law by September 1 preceding the commencement of the session, a biennial budget. Prior to 1993 the administrator put together the budget and submitted it to the budget office. Since 1993 the budget went to the director of the department who looked at and approved the budget. It could put definite time constraints on the department if the commission also needed to approve a tentative proposed budget. Mr. Carpenter felt those constraints were a matter of mechanics and could be worked out. The people in the field, paying the money, expect the commission members to protect their interests. Mr. Hardy agreed they would like to see it remain in the bill. Mr. Humke would propose to leave the language as was printed in the amendment and the co-chairs could send a letter of intent to the Ways and Means Committee with their feelings. The fiscal analyst could help to come up with language. Mr. Bache had written some language which was, "prepare the biennial budget of the division consistent with the provisions of title chapter 488 of NRS. The commission shall review the budget and may make recommendations to the Director to change the budget." It would not interfere with the administrators ability to do the budget process, but it gives the commission the ability, if they do not like something in the budget, they could make recommendation to the director. The director could take those recommendations and incorporate them into the budget, if appropriate. Mr. Hardy said if the wording meets the end to what we are trying to accomplish, we would not have an objection. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO LEAVE THE WORDING REGARDING THE WILDLIFE BUDGET AS PROPOSED IN THE AMENDMENT. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Humke said he would like to have the co-chairs be directed to compose a letter regarding the controversy to the Ways and Means committee and ask them to finally resolve the difference. Fiscal analyst for Ways and Means have the ability to draft bills which were budgetary in nature. THE MOTION FAILED. (ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, BENNETT, FETTIC OHRENSCHALL, SEGERBLOM AND DE BRAGA VOTED NO.) ******** ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO USE THE LANGUAGE AS STATED BELOW, IN REFERENCE TO SECTION 7, SUBSECTION 6 OF A.B. 307. Mr. Bache moved the language he previously stated for a motion. "Prepare the biennial budget of the division consistent with the provisions with this title and chapter 488 of N.R.S. The commission shall review the budget and may make recommendations to the director to change the budget." ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Sandoval said he would be voting for the motion but would still like to see a letter addressing both ideas submitted to the Ways and Means committee with permission of the maker of the motion. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Hardy continued with his explanation of the bill and said in Section 7, subsection 9, this change would forbid the administrator as serving as secretary of the commission, and would be deleted. It would now read the administrator may act as nonvoting secretary of the commission. He said the new commission would take office as of the effective date of the legislation, as opposed to by attrition. Mr. Hardy missed Section 8, dealing with the headquarters and the opening and locations of offices which stated, "In the opinion of the administrator and the commission provide efficient divisional operation." Mr. Sandoval for clarification asked if it was the intent to have nine new commissioners as of October 1, 1995. Mr. Hardy said at whatever effective date the legislature would feel was sufficient time to put the commission in place. Mr. Carpenter felt it should be discussed. Mr. Bache asked if it would not preclude the Governor from appointing some of the same people on the commission now. Mr. Hardy agreed, if they met the new criteria they could reapply and be appointed. Mrs. Ohrenschall said with the provision were the terms going to be staggered or not. Mr. Hardy said yes, it would be done in the same manner as new commissions were created. Mr. Carpenter said he believed the bill drafters would take care of the staggering of the terms. Mr. Molini was asked when the members now take office. The terms were on a fiscal year, they would expire June 30 and the new year would start July 1. There were four scheduled to expire this June 30. Mr. Carpenter said they needed to talk to the bill drafter to see how to implement the change. Mr. Molini doubted if it were sufficient time to get the word out and get the advisory boards in the county to make nominations. There was a statute where existing members would continue to serve until replaced. Mr. Bennett had a concern in appointing the new commission in time to review and make recommendations on the next budget, and it might be more prudent to delay it. Mrs. de Braga asked what was done with Section 9 and 10 which dealt with the effective date. Mr. Hardy said Section 1 of the original bill will be subsequently numbered Section 9. Mr. Molini said the second set of amendments, which would have split the agency, had very stringent positions on the use of money in the fish and game division. He said Section 1 required the department to account separately, which they already do. Mr. Molini said they receive general fund money for nongame projects and he could show how the money was expended. The bill said "may be used only for the management of wildlife." He believed it meant all wildlife, and did not believe it would do anything. Mrs. de Braga said we were left with a nonrestrictive sentence concerning financing, which Mr. Molini did not have a problem with. She noted the bill would change the makeup of the commission and the provision for the acting secretary. This would be all that was left from the original bill. Mr. Hardy agreed with the analysis. She asked Mr. Molini why he was opposed to the bill. He said there had been substantial moderation in the bill, however, the change in the commission was the focus of the bill, and he felt strongly the commission as currently constituted works fine. Mr. Molini felt the people who wanted the change in the commission made up a minority of people. He noted in eight sessions there had been seven different efforts in seven different sessions to change the composition of the commission. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Hardy why fishermen were cut out of the commission. The bill stated a hunting license or a combination license. Mr. Hardy said the intent was not to cut the fishermen out, the intent was to have sportsmen, including hunters, involved in the commission. If we can do so without excluding hunters he would not have a problem with language which said they must have a combination hunting/fishing license. Many of the issues which confront the commission were big game problems. Much of the funding comes from fishing and we would not want to exclude them. The intent was to involve hunters concerning big game issues. It was not to exclude fishermen, the purpose was to get more local input and more input from those who understand hunting. Mr. Molini agreed with Mr. Bennett, fishermen do provide the greater share of the revenue. Although they dealt with a lot of hunting issues, they dealt with a lot of fishing issues as well. The department administers the Nevada Boat Act, and there was not a boater on the outlined commission. Mr. Hardy said this was the first time in quite a long time that the sportsmen groups have come together in a cooperative effort to come up with a piece of legislation. Groups who have signed off on the legislation also represent fishermen. Mr. Fettic said he thought it was still fish or hunt or both. But now he said a person would have to have a combination fishing and hunting license in order to be a member of the commission. Mr. Fettic said he did not hunt anymore and would not have the opportunity to serve on the commission, "to worry about my fish." Mr. Hardy said if the committee could come up with some language to resolve the concern of holding a fishing license, hunting license or a combination license by the members of the Wildlife Commission. Mr. Carpenter said it was the reason for bringing it up. Mr. Johnson said his preference would be hunting license, fishing license or combination license. The committee seemed to agree with the balance. Mr. Humke said the controversial issues involve big game. Relatively speaking there has been controversy over big game. There has not been controversy over fishing. Mr. Fettic asked when the commissioners would take office. What will happen if an appointment was not made until October and four vacancies occurred in July. Mr. Molini said the statutory structure said, unless they were replaced by the Governor they continue to serve until replaced. They would stay in effect until there was a replacement. Mr. Fettic said he understood most of the controversy was among the hunters, but because that was where the controversy was it should not interfere with the right of a fisherperson to be on the commission or the opportunity to be on the commission. Mr. Fettic said he was offended if fisherpeople can not have the opportunity to be on the commission because we were not important enough or do not fight among ourselves enough. Mr. Hardy said they had been pleased and encouraged by the cooperation between the sportsmen groups and the conversations between Mr. Molini and the Division of Wildlife. The sole purpose of the legislation was to receive more input from the local arenas on the issues. Mr. Hardy said they would agree to leave the current language in the bill. Mr. Neighbors would like to know how many fishing and hunting licenses were sold. Mr. Molini said about 45,000 hunting and 125,000 fishing licenses were sold. Mr. Larry Johnson read from a prepared statement (Exhibit C). Mr. Carpenter asked for those in favor of the bill to be acknowledged in the minutes. Mrs. Elsie Dupree, Mr. Ira Hansen, Mr. Gerald Lent and Mr. Warren Hardy were in favor of the bill. Ms. Tina Nappe was on the Wildlife Commission for fifteen years and a member of many of the sportsmen organizations. She represented conservation on the commission. If the committee was looking to revise the commission, which she had no objection to, there were some things left out in the discussion. The number of hunting and fishing licenses represented 100 thousand residents in the state who participate. They were the backbone and funding of the Division of Wildlife. They are increasingly a small percentage of the population of more than 1 million. The numbers of hunters and fishermen, particularly hunters could not substantially increase in the state because the opportunity was not available. Ms. Nappe's comments were directed toward how to secure the future of wildlife in the state and thereby secure the maximum opportunity for hunting and fishing. It has been alleged there was insufficient sportsmen representation. She noted all the time she was on the commission there were only one or two who did not have a fishing or hunting license. There was a lot of comment that the commission failed to accommodate the interests of the County Advisory Board. There were 17 County Advisory Boards and each one had an opportunity to make comments on up to 50 issues a year. The number of times there was a difference between the County Advisory Boards, the division and the commission was very small. One of the issues behind the bill was unhappiness over some of the appointments the Governor has made, who all have been sportsmen, but who have not been members of certain organizations or members of the County Advisory Boards. Some of the value of being involved in other aspects of the community would be lost by the process, in fact, this process would make it more political rather than less. She also brought out the fact boaters were not represented on the commission although they bring in $3 million a year. Mining brought in over $500 thousand a year and there was no representative for them. The general public which would be reduced from 2 to 1 under this provision, brought in $13 million in park and wildlife bonds four years ago, with over 63 percent voters approval. It was general public money and was not going to substantially support and expand hunting and fishing opportunities in the state. All of public land management was publicly funded, federal funds were coming in to support this, wildlife lives, for the most part, on federal lands and where it lives on private lands, ranchers felt they have been subsidizing wildlife in the state. Wildlife in itself and thereby hunting was really subsidized to a great extent by the availability of free and cheap land. Negotiations with private land owners and with public lands was a major issue facing the future of wildlife in Nevada. One of her concerns was the limitation from 3 to 2 members per county. Clark County now has the largest population, about 64 percent of the state, and also the biggest income contributor to the Division of Wildlife through boating and fishing fees. She would suggest a look at the County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife, to start amending some of the legislation which governs them. In effect what happens under this provision was organizations and individuals and counties must seek the approval of the County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife before they submit nominations to the Governor. There would obviously be a certain amount of politics involved in the process. She was not sure if the county advisory boards were set up to handle the nominations. The suggestions Ms. Nappe gave were outlined under (Exhibit D). The concern was the state had to help fund wildlife, they could not survive forever dependent on sportsmen dollars, there would not be enough of the sportsmen to hunt and fish to support our wildlife. Mrs. de Braga asked how currently the advisory boards were chosen and if they were held to the open meeting law. Ms. Nappe said the advisory board had been informal, and there had not been a lot of attendance at many of the county advisory board meetings. This would be a new responsibility and probably would increase interest. A suggestion was made, when terms were coming due, the division should send a notice to all of the sportsmen and conservation organizations and county advisory boards saying these were the positions coming due. The criteria should be attached, and if submiting a nomination, you may do so to the Governor. It would give notice to the pending end of term, which they do not have. She felt this could become quite political. Mr. Carpenter said we would consider Ms. Nappe's suggestions. Mr. Merv Matorian, Commissioner for State Board of Wildlife, resident of Carson City, represented sportsmen on the commission. He talked of the changes which had taken place in the bill since its inception. The one word Mr. Matorian had heard consistently was "intent." He felt no one had asked what the true intent of the bill was. The true intent was from a relatively small disgruntled group of hunters who have attacked the division and department over a number of years. They had attacked the commissioners and the Governor and the Director of the department blatantly in publications sent around the state. This group has one intent and it was to slant the commission in a way which was advantageous for them. Mr. Matorian said he was a hunter and a fishermen and spends as much time in the field as anyone. He was amazed at the broad responsibilities of the division and also of the commission. The system works and there has been a good makeup of current commissioners who were all hunters and fishermen. Everyone was involved in their community, it was well balanced, well run and not broke. Mr. Matorian suggested the dissatisfaction comes from the big game herds. He felt if they gave everyone who applied a hunting license and never issued another field citation all these issues would go away. "Everybody would be happy, no tickets and everyone a deer tag." The commission unanimously supported killing this bill, said Mr. Matorian. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A. B. 307. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Neighbors was concerned about the amendments. Mr. Carpenter said they would be brought back to the committee for final approval if the motion passed. Mr. Fettic thought we would get Ms. Nappe's proposed amendments, did he mis-understand. Mr. Carpenter said her amendments were in regard to the County Advisory Boards. This committee should indeed consider her input. Mr. Humke asked if Mr. Carpenter would consider changes to the County Advisory Boards as a separate bill draft. Mr. Sandoval asked if this was a motion to amend and do pass. Mr. Carpenter said yes, with the amendments brought back to the committee for approval. Mr. Sandoval went through the amendments before a vote was taken. Mrs. de Braga said she was prepared to vote for the bill as long as it was just the makeup of the commission, but now she felt it had been muddied and was to vague on the people making the appointments, so she would be voting against the bill. Mr. Fettic asked if the bill was totally slanted towards hunters. Mr. Hardy said the bill, as written and amended, would give sufficient input to the local areas. The emphasis could change from time to time depending on the concerns. Mr. Fettic was concerned with the hurry to get rid of the commission. There were four openings coming up through July 1, who was going to make the appointments, the Governor. Mr. Hardy said the commissioners would remain until the effective date of this bill. There would not be new appointments on July 1. Mr. Fettic asked, what was the matter with, as the commissioners terms come up, appointments be made at that time. Mr. Hardy said the motivation would be to get the individuals in place which would reflect the choices of local government and local boards as soon as possible. Mr. Fettic said his concern was if the commission changed it be done properly in an orderly manner and not with a meat axe. Mr. Hardy said he was under the impression the commission was there to serve the sportsmen. He felt his integrity had been compromised by a member of the commission and might illustrate the concern with the commission. The bill represented a unified voice from the sportsmen and have heard testimony challenging our motives. Mr. Johnson, Nevada Bighorns and Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, testified on the issues. There were a number of issues which were looked at very seriously from the original proposal. After cutting away at the bill they saw a small nucleus of ideas which appealed to sportsmen at large. Mr. Johnson said he personally polled every conceivable group at Monday's meeting and they agreed unanimously to the amendments. He did not think there was a problem with the commissioners serving out their individual terms instead of one specific date. They were more concerned with a smooth transition. There was a large perception of mistrust of both NDOW and the commission. Mr. Johnson's group personally funded a questionnaire last summer when the NDOW Idea Team was coming up with proposals which resulted in bills such as A.B. 212 and S.B. 230. It was disappointing but illuminating to see the results of those questionnaires on items which did question respect and trust for the division and the same for the commission. The lack of confidence of sportsmen throughout the state was unanimous and very strong across the state. Mr. Fettic's concern was how it comes about. He would like wording that an orderly transition of the commission can come about. Mr. Fettic asked, was it possible to vote on the bill and await for the amendments. Mr. Humke felt something could be proposed which would be acceptable. Mr. Sandoval said he supported the concept of the bill but he could not support the wholesale removal of the present commission as it is constituted, unless language was found to phase in the new commission in a reasonable manner. Mr. Carpenter agreed and was willing to have anyone who wished go to the bill drafters with him. AN ADDED PROVISION TO THE MOTION WAS TO WORK WITH THE BILL DRAFTER TO GET AN ORDERLY TRANSITION OF THE MAKEUP OF THE COMMISSION. THE MOTION PASSED. (ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE AND SEGERBLOM WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS AND DE BRAGA VOTED NO.) The amendments would be brought back to the committee for their final approval. Mr. Carpenter said A.B. 212 would be put on the work session for Monday. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 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