MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session May 22, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, May 22, 1995, Chairman Marcia de Braga presiding in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John C. Carpenter, Chairman Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman Mr. Max Bennett, Vice Chairman Mrs. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman Mr. Douglas A. Bache Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mr. David E. Humke Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Ernie Adler Assemblyman Dennis comphrensive STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Spoo, Mineral County; Naomi Duerr, Division of Water Planning. Chairman de Braga called the meeting to order and roll call was taken. She said they would be hearing S.B. 103. The committee had heard the bill previously and would be looking at amendments today. 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. Mrs. de Braga said the amendment would add sections 1 and 2 and add an additional section to Chapter 532 of Nevada Revised Statutes. The bill would attempt to give the state engineer more control over the rules and regulations of individual water districts and assist those districts that were under Federal control. The amendment was proposed by former Senator Dodge. Former Senator Carl Dodge testified on S.B. 103. He said he had been in the farming business since World War II in Fallon and served in the Nevada Senate for 23 years. Senator Dodge referred to the legal decision and gave an example of a case in California when they were building the central valley project. The United States proposed to build the new Maloney's dam which was a 2 million, 400 thousand acre storage reservoir on the lower end of the Stanislaus River. They applied to the state of California for a permit to build the dam, the state of California granted the permit but they put 26 conditions on the permit. The United States took the position they did not have to honor those state requirements. The case went to the supreme court and Justice Renquist, Chief Justice wrote an opinion. The sum and substance of the opinion was once the water leaves a Federal reservoir the distribution and use of that water was under state law. The Newlands Project in the Fallon area and in the Fernley area was a Federal reclamation project and regulated by the Federal government. In recent years they have placed some conditions on the use of water in the Newlands Project which have been hurtful to the farmers. What the bill tried to do was to make a determination through the state engineer. This would be helpful and consistent with the responsibilities the state engineer did to administer water in Nevada. He spoke of the amendment to S.B. 103 (Exhibit C). This was really a states rights piece of legislation, said Senator Dodge. The state engineer has no objection to this piece of legislation. He spoke concerning the judicial appeals of such rules and regulations in the state court system. The Federal court system required one to show the regulations of the Federal government were arbitrary and capricious, which was a tough standard. In the state court it was a level playing field, that presumption was not raised. Senator Dodge felt it was a states rights issue. He asked the committee to consider the amendment. Mrs. de Braga asked if there was anything to prevent the higher court or Federal court to claim jurisdiction, even if the law was enacted. Senator Dodge said if it was in the state court system and went to the district court and finally to the supreme court, it would be a due process protection. Mr. Neighbors asked the Senator if he had testified on the Senate side. He said he had not and did not have the amendment to submit until two weeks ago. He had wanted to attach it to an existing piece of legislation rather than be on the end of the line for a bill draft. He felt this bill would be acceptable by the Assembly and was a mechanism to attach the amendment. Mr. Neighbors said the lawyers on the Walker River issue in Mineral County were concerned with the bill. The issue was if it was new water, yes or no, would it give someone an advantage upstream to take water in good years which might get to Walker Lake. Mr. Neighbors was assured it would not. Senator Dodge said the amendment was limited to the rules of the use of water on owned irrigated land. The state engineer could help them as he administers the whole Carson River system in this way. This would be restricted to an irrigation district and would include the Walker River. Mr. Neighbors asked him to explain the 40 acre parcels. He said the situation in Fallon would be if there was a 40 acre parcel with a delivery ditch which would be underlaid with water rights. The state engineer and the Federal water master were there and both said they had always construed if in fact you had 40 acres water righted land with a ditch on it the ditch was part of the irrigated acreage. The Federal government said no, the ditch was not recognized and we have been living with the decision, with many acres of water rights at issue and the issue was not in accordance with state law. When the water right owner diverts the water he uses the water for his best economic advantage which would be called a stalking right. Mr. Jim Spoo, representing Mineral County, submitted (Exhibit D), to be read into the record in opposition to S.B. 103. Mr. Spoo asked for clarification as to the second part of paragraph 1 of the proposed amendment, "....the State Engineer shall prescribe, confirm, or clarify pertinent rules, etc........" He asked for someone to explain the meaning. Mrs. de Braga said the intent was to gain control specifically for a project which was under Federal control back in the hands of the state. She asked Senator Dodge to explain the language. He mentioned the Maloney's dam again and the 26 requirements. The language proposed to overcome regulations the Federal government had placed on the Newlands Project which was not in accordance with state law and which has been hurtful to the farmers and designed to reduce their water supply. Mr. Spoo said he had tried to see how the amendment fit into the original bill. The concern was it potentially allowed a water district to "stuff water" all over the district to prevent it from getting to Walker Lake. The reason for Mr. Spoo asking for clarification of the amendment was he hoped he had read correctly, that before an actual redistribution of water could occur, the state engineer must propose rules and regulations how it should happen. He asked Senator Dodge if he had read correctly. Senator Dodge said if Mr. Spoo was concerned about Walker Lake on behalf of Mineral County, he had no objection to limiting the amendment to irrigation districts which were federally regulated, and Walker River was not. Mr. Spoo said their objection to the legislation as it stands, and appreciates the distinction between new water and existing water, was marginal for purposes of satisfying their concerns and they would still object. Mineral County as S.B. 103 was written would stand in objection. If the committee were to consider passing the bill, the amendment would be quite beneficial to Mineral County as well as to the Newlands Project. Mrs. de Braga asked Mr. Spoo if the objections were raised in the Senate when the bill was heard. He indicated they had not raised any objections at that time. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Spoo what his position was on the amendment by Senator Dodge. Mr. Spoo said they oppose the legislation in general but if the legislation were to be passed the amendment would be helpful and would improve the legislation. Mrs. de Braga said it was unclear to her on the list of proposed amendments they would be more a point of discussion. She asked how they would like the amendments phrased. Mr. Spoo said the letter from Mr. Buchanan was not amendments to the bill but were suggested amendments to the statute (Exhibit D). She asked if Mr. Spoo had an opposition to the bill without amendments. He said they were in opposition to the bill but were acknowledging that Senator Dodge's amendment was a definite improvement to the bill. Mr. Bache asked if Mr. Spoo was asking the committee to delete everything in the bill and put Senator Dodge's amendment in its place. Mr. Spoo was not sure and felt it would not accomplish the intentions of the Walker River Irrigation District. Mr. Bache said Mr. Spoo opposed the amendments to Chapter 539 of NRS. The proposed amendment was to Chapter 532 of NRS and by deleting the bill as a whole and putting the amendment in its place would it take care of the concerns. Mr. Spoo said they would be favorable to that decision. Senator Dodge said they do address two different chapters. Mr. Neighbors asked if there was language which would make Mineral County more comfortable. Mr. Spoo said Mineral County's concern was in a normal year there would not be enough water to go around, whether it was stored water or other kind of water, this bill only served to allow an even greater diversion or deferral of water for purposes which were not highly significant. The bill would allow the transfer of water "all over hell and back," within an irrigation district. This was what could happen under the legislation and for that fundamental reason was why Mineral County was opposed to the bill. Senator Dodge's amendment allowed before it could happen, it had to happen according to some process, not at the whim of the irrigation district and the interest of Mineral County or anyone else. He did not see in the overall sense of the irrigation district and the storage water rights users members of the irrigation district would be hurt in any significant degree by not passing the legislation. This bill would be a housekeeping kind of bill. Mr. Jim Weishaupt, Manager, Walker River Irrigation District, said the Walker River Irrigation District was the owner of the right to divert the water from the Walker River, much different than Truckee-Carson Irrigation District and Lovelock. The state engineer in essence has prescribed, confirmed and clarified how the Walker River Irrigation District transfer stored water within our irrigation district already. The district by petition by the individual water owner has always had the privilege, according to 539.705 Nevada Revised Statutes, to transfer stored water from one piece of land to another. In essence the bill did not change any of the historical privilege the district has had. The individual has always been able to come to the irrigation district. The point of diversion was the reservoir, the owner of the waters would be the irrigation district, which was treated as one large farm, much different than Truckee-Carson Irrigation District. The beneficial owner would be the farmer. What was being asked for in the bill, rather than the 40 acre limitation, would be to transfer the water into smaller amounts. Mr. Weishaupt would have to disagree with paragraph three of (Exhibit D). He felt it was totally untrue and totally in reverse of what they were trying to do. Once the water was removed from underneath the houses and subdivisions it puts more flexibility in the proper management of the waters of the Walker River. This would include distributing the water to the other interests to leasing, banking, etc., throughout the system, which was their intent. Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on S.B. 103. SENATE BILL 141 - Revises provisions governing eligibility of certain purveyors of water to receive grants for making capital improvements to publicly owned water systems. Senator Ernie Adler, Capitol Senatorial District, spoke in support of S.B. 141. Assemblyman Allard was with Senator Adler as they essentially had the same bill, but Senator Adler's bill came out of the Senate before Assemblyman Allard's. S.B.141 moved the date by which a water system had to be publicly owned, from July 1, 1991 to January 1, 1995, which allowed certain small water systems since that date to become public. This would allow those water systems to apply for grants in aid to make improvements. There were a number of systems throughout the state. The Moundhouse water system in Senator Adler's district was in bad shape. They need to install a well and do work on their water tank and other improvements to provide water to customers. Assemblyman Allard had the exact piece of legislation and had held it out of respect for the senior legislator. This would help out in Assemblyman Allard's district also as a small town, "Blue Diamond," desperately needed the legislation and he urged passage of the bill. Mr. Carpenter said several sessions ago he had begun with this particular legislation and last session it was amended to 1991. Senator Adler said the 1991 date was put in as they thought the grants would be given out sooner. A number of systems had gone public due to better financing and the ease of operating them as a public system. Mr. Bennett asked Assemblyman Allard if the system at Indian Springs had changed from private to public as yet. Assemblyman Allard said the system was privately held. The town board of Indian Springs did not want to do anything at this time. Mr. Sandoval asked if next session an extension would be asked for again, therefore, why the temporal limitation. Senator Adler did not have a problem with a change in date. He noted there were 720 water systems with the majority being private systems. Mr. Bache questioned if the bill were passed would the remaining amount of money in the fund for grants be used up. Senator Adler noted Moundhouse would use about $1 million and Blue Diamond would be a $2 million project and there were a number of other small systems requiring repairs and assistance. Mr. Bache said by extending the date to January, 1996 would additional systems be granted funds or would the funds be used up. Senator Adler did not know and referred the question to Assemblyman Allard. Assemblyman Allard noted as more private systems were made public and the funds utilized it might be important to extend the date. Ms. Naomi Duerr, State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning, actually evaluated the projects and administered the grant funds. There was a board for financing water projects which made the final decision on which communities would receive a grant. The staff would make recommendations to the board. One of the questions concerned the date of the projects and whether the date would be limiting. In the last year and a half the Division of Water Planning had issued twelve grants for about $13 million, approximately half of the money available. It was expected to take about five years for those projects to construct and use up the money. The remaining $12 million should stretch a year to two years to cover systems coming into the program. She noted there may be a good chance to consider expanding the pot of money for those eligible to receive grants. As the bill was written it meant the systems would have to be in existence now, whether they were public, private or whatever. The division could grant up to 85 percent of a project's cost and the remaining would be a non-state match. They also had worked closely with the Farm-Home Administration in terms of loans or grants for Community Development Block Grants. Ms. Duerr stated the Division of Water Planning has been very supportive of the bill and urged the committee's approval. Mr. Carpenter asked what communities had taken advantage of the loans. Ms. Duerr said the thirteen which had been approved were communities of Austin, Kingston, Round Hill, Crystal Bay, Stagecoach, Horizon Hills and Lemon Valley. A project at Manhattan had been completed under the program and several who needed approval, such as water rights application transfers for Cave Rock and Zephyr Cove. The grant had been approved with the proviso they need there water rights taken care of. Some letters of intent had been approved from Imlay, West Wendover, Kyle Canyon and Upaway which would be the first phase of the project. Mr. Carpenter asked about Lamoille. Lamoille had asked for about $525 thousand and the project could have been funded under the requirements but it was still a water association and not a water purveyor in accordance with NRS and would not be able to receive a grant until they change their ownership. Mr. Jeff Fontaine, Supervisor, Public Health Engineering for the State Health Division, and the agency responsible for regulating the 700 plus water system in the state of Nevada testified. The division supported the amendment and appropriate other kinds of systems, those privately owned should be eligible to receive certain grants if they become publicly owned. When the law was passed in 1991 to allow this program to happen, the program has been a great success. The division supported the amendments and the program. Mr. Carpenter asked what it meant in the bill where it stated they were in existence on January 1, 1995 and were currently public owned. Senator Adler said "existence" meant, they had to be in existence either public or private and at the time they apply they have to be publicly owned. If a private system converts over they would be eligible. There were good controls now to assure the new privately owned water systems would remain viable over the course of time. Mr. Bennett suggested, with the Chair's approval, research look up the legality of the language and make sure it fulfills the intent as the committee has discussed. Chairman de Braga asked exactly what did Mr. Bennett want looked up. He said to make sure the language as written would allow a currently privately owned water system which later becomes public to be eligible for the funds. Mrs. de Braga closed the hearing on S.B. 141. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 141 WITH THE PROVISION THE LEGAL OPINION WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE TESTIMONY. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bache said since he was the only one who heard the bill in 1991 the program was well set up in 1991 and believed the bill did what Ms. Duerr had alluded to. The program was a good one and the bill should pass. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN FETTIC AND HUMKE WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) ASSEMBLY BILL 159 - Makes various changes to provisions governing removal or possession of certain trees and flora. Mr. Dave Zeigler, Senior Research Analyst, asked if the committee would like to go over A.B. 159. The measure addressed the protection of Christmas trees, cacti and yucca. The committee thought there were some good things about the bill and also some bad things. The Chairs had asked Mr. Ziegler to work with the Division of Forestry to see if the bad things could be taken care of and the good things could be saved. The division had gone back to square one and started researching a whole new legislative concept and Mr. Murphy had told him they would like to regroup and come back in the next legislative session. The existing statute gives them a fair amount of authority they can use until that time. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 159. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bache said since the Division of Forestry felt they could protect the Christmas trees, cacti and yucca with the current statutes, he would not have a problem with indefinitely postponing the bill. THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) ASSEMBLY BILL 471 - Prohibits sale and certain use of phosphate in laundering. Mr. Bache said after the hearing on the bill he worked with Robin Bain of the Sanitation District and Mr. Sande on amending the bill (Exhibit E). Providing definition to dish washing detergent, laundry detergent, defining phosphorus and amending the bill as such, for any person who so distributes the sale of laundry detergents that contains .05 percent or more of phosphorus by weight for any person who so distributes sale of dish washing detergent that contains 8.7 percent or more phosphorus by weight. The last section did not apply to the sale or distribution of detergents for commercial or industrial use in counties with population of less than 400 thousand. Mr. Sande indicated he would not oppose it here, he would revisit the issue with the soap dealers on the Senate side. After reviewing the Oregon and Washington statutes, this bill was somewhat similar to theirs. He reviewed the language with bill draft. Clark county was the one with the greatest concern. Mr. Sandoval said the bill states it was unlawful but did not state what the penalty was. Mrs. de Braga asked if we had discussion on the provision previously. Mr. Ziegler said it was his recollection that DEEP testified, because of the location within the water pollution statutes the penalties were specified therein. Mr. Bache said if there was not a particular penalty mentioned in statute it was automatically a misdemeanor if it was not specified. Mr. Sandoval thought that was what it was, but it was his concern if the bill made it unlawful for a grocery store to sell detergent with .05 or above, would a clerk be sited. How would it be applied. Mr. Bache said his intent was not so much an individual person as a business. It may need to be clarified if that was the case. The Oregon and Washington statute uses similar terminology as opposed to saying a business selling or a person selling. The research Mr. Bache did on the other statutes did not set any penalties or fines, the idea was more we have the ban as opposed to going after someone criminally. Mr. Sandoval said there was some documentation from the detergent industry which stated there was not a direct correlation between the removal of the phosphorus and how much it cost to remove it. He believed if it were reduced to .05 and 8.7 percent there would be a corresponding savings on the part of the sanitation district. Mr. Bache said he remembered the letter from the industry indicating it did not provide for cleaner water, but for every pound of phosphate they take out of the water it cost them $13 +. The purpose would be to reduce the amount of phosphate they have to take out of the water to meet the water standards and therefore to save money. Mr. Bennett said they were looking at cleaner water going into the system where they have to process a cleaner product than they were doing now. This would eliminate the phosphorus initially and take the cost savings. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 471. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Sandoval said he was still uncomfortable with the concerns he raised and would be voting in opposition to the motion. Mr. Carpenter felt there could be some research on the question before it came to the floor so we would know what the penalties might be. Mrs. de Braga agreed. Mr. Fettic said he assumed the intent of the bill was not to arrest clerks or individuals. The intent of the bill was for those proprietors or managers who were responsible for stacking the shelves and not putting this out where the public could purchase them. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) ASSEMBLY BILL 212 - Makes various changes to provisions governing hunting and fishing licenses. Mr. Dave Ziegler gave an overview of what had transpired with the bill to this point. A.B. 212 was originally heard by the committee on the 13th of March. There was a subcommittee which met on the 20th of March and recommended some changes in the language. On the 27th of March the committee asked for some justification from the Division of Wildlife, which they provided. On the green sheets (Exhibit F), there was a summary of the measure itself. The first page addresses how the fees would be changed and the second page would address how policies would be changed. He noted there were some italicized sections which were recommendations by the subcommittee. The subcommittee did not particularly like the resident one day hunting permit and each consecutive day and they voted to delete those. They made an analogous change on page 4 which would be the second page of the handout, which essentially deletes the one day resident hunting permit and consecutive day permit. To qualify for the proposed Golden Age license one would have to be a resident of the state for 25 years and reach the age of 65. The subcommittee recommended five years residency on the Golden Age license. Mr. Ziegler said page 4 of the bill, lines 16 and 17 and lines 22 through 26 provided an additional exemption from the state duck stamp requirement for a person hunting under a one day permit or a consecutive day permit. The subcommittee voted to remove the language from the bill. The only other thing Mr. Ziegler had to say was a number of questions had come out from different members of the committee regarding other combinations of fee increases or reductions which would accomplish the same purpose of this bill. A letter has been provided by Mr. Molini (Exhibit G) on that point which has been distributed. Mr. Carpenter said a duck stamp would have to be obtained for a one day hunt. He asked if the duck stamp could be purchased where you buy your license. Mr. Ziegler said that was correct. Mr. Bache asked if the bill would have to go to Ways and Means for them to close the budget for wildlife. Mr. Ziegler said he saw many heads nodding yes, so he was under that impression. Mrs. de Braga said she was on the subcommittee and had talked to many hunters since that time who prefer an idea such as leaving the instate fees as they were and increasing the out of state fees. Leaving the five year residency requirement for the Golden Age license, and drop the consecutive day provisions on the one day licenses, so if you were going to hunt for one day you would buy a one day license, or fish for one day you would buy a one day license. She noted a three day or ten day would be satisfactory also. Mrs. de Braga said she could see a ten day on the hunting and not a three day, and a three day on the fishing and not a ten day. It seemed that would make more sense if anything was to be deleted further and still keep the prices consistent. She noted they did have a subcommittee hearing and an agreement and she was just throwing it out for what it was worth. Mr. Sandoval asked if Mr. Ziegler would walk them through attachment C. He said the blue attachment to (Exhibit F) was an attempt to summarize the revenues of the Division of Wildlife for the current fiscal year 1994-95 and the upcoming two fiscal years of the biennium. It also showed what would happen to the budget if A.B. 212 were to be passed. Mr. Ziegler went over the parts of the budget with the committee. A.B. 212 increases the division's budget by two percent or $300 thousand in the first year of the upcoming biennium. Mr. Sandoval asked Mr. Ziegler about the $4.66 million for 1994- 95 for licenses, fees and it jumps to $5.21 million in the Governor's recommendation without A.B. 212. Where did the bump come from. Mr. Ziegler said he understood it came from some of the things we have discussed like two fishing poles and there were some items in A.B. 212 which were in the Governor's budget. Mr. Molini agreed with the analysis. They also were anticipating more activity in the biennium because the drought has seemed to ease and more water was available. Mrs. de Braga asked if the increases in license fees were in the budget. Mr. Ziegler said the ones which were not in the budget were the $5 increases in resident fishing and hunting and non resident fishing license and the $6.50 increase in the combined license. Mr. Ziegler referred the committee to the first page of (Exhibit F) and noted there were double asterisks on the right hand column. Those were the items not in the Governor's budget and the items the division needs in A.B. 212 to cover the purpose being the Cola (State increase for employees). Mrs. de Braga asked Mr. Molini if we did not raise the resident fees and the hoped for increase from the one day license for fishing, how drastic would it effect the division's budget. Mr. Molini, Administrator, Department of Wildlife, said for every dollar of resident hunting fees reduced, the non resident fee would have to be increased by ten dollars to be off-setting. The difficulty would be the new system of one day licenses the division has proposed did not have a track record and it has been difficult to anticipate what revenue this would bring in. He noted, if we dropped the five dollars from the resident license fees in hunting at least $50 would have to be added to the non resident license for hunting to make up for the shortfall. The fishing license in the past fourteen years has gone up one dollar. It had not been increased for ten years. Twenty dollars to fish for a year was not that high. Mrs. de Braga asked if anything was being done to increase the deer herds by reducing the lion population. Mr. Molini said the division was in the process of developing a species management plan for mountain lions. This was a very comprehensive plan and the division had been working on it for a year. This last year some 225 mountain lions had been harvested. He said if the weather patterns continue the deer should recover. This last year showed a good survival of deer with a great deal of moisture but not a difficult winter. There was good forage for the young deer and the pregnant does. Mr. Molini did indicate they had not made any specific plans to try and purposely reduce mountain lion populations in given areas for deer recovery. In the 27 years he had worked with the division, predator, predator relationships were extremely complicated and he did not know if anyone had figured those out. He said the division could make arguments, deer herds had increased substantially in the mid 70's on, when on the other hand there was reduced pressure on the mountain lion population. When the ban of poison bait was signed by President Nixon the division made the mountain lion a game animal and more restrictive in harvest. Mrs. de Braga said they had heard from hunters who felt the major part of the problem was the increase in the lion population. Mr. Molini said he also had heard from hunters on the same issue. Mr. Fettic said the fees coming from the hunters and fishermen were going to be totally used for salary increases. Mr. Molini said no, the five dollar increase on the fishing and hunting and the six dollars and fifty cents on the combination license would help off-set the cost of living salary increase which would be about $900 thousand, if the increase was four percent and three percent. Mr. Fettic asked where the money would come from to augment the increase in salaries. It would have to come from the existing budget, Mr. Molini replied. Some of the increases would just allow the division to keep even. He noted there were $1.25 million in estimated total increases including the two pole stamp. There would be some money over and above the salary increases. The bulk would cover salary increases, said Mr. Molini. Mr. Carpenter asked for an explanation of the ten day fishing permit. He said if he wanted to fish for seven days, he would buy a resident one day fishing permit and then for each additional day there would be a two dollar fee. The cost for the seven days would be $18, and Mr. Molini said that would be correct. He said they do not sell many ten day permits, but sell a lot of three day permits. Paying for a one day permit and then any additional days was more responsive to peoples' needs than the current system of three day and ten day permits. Mr. Carpenter said in reality if he were going to fish any time which cost him $15 or more, it would be better to buy a yearly license at $20. Mrs. de Braga asked for any further discussion on A.B. 212. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Humke said he was on the subcommittee and since that time he had heard from many hunters who did not feel the increase in a hunting license was fair. He would favor placing the additional need for revenue on non resident hunters before voting on the bill. Mr. Neighbors referred to page 4, line 4 of A.B. 212 and asked what happened to the 25 years on the pioneer license. Mrs. de Braga said it had been changed to five years. Mr. Neighbors said he supported the bill as amended. Mr. Carpenter needed to find out what the subcommittee recommendations were. Mr. Ziegler referred to (Exhibit F), and noted the twenty five year pioneer license was changed to five years and the resident one day hunting permit and each consecutive day was deleted. The additional exemption from state duck stamp requirement for persons hunting under a one day permit or consecutive day permit was also deleted. The subcommittee did not say anything about trout stamps. Mr. Sandoval said he too had spoken to hunters and they felt any kind of increase should be on the backs of non residents rather than residents. He would not be able to support the motion as stated. Mr. Carpenter referred to Mr. Molini's letter (Exhibit G) and asked him what he would increase. Mr. Molini suggested in his letter to raise the non resident hunting license from the current cost of $100.50 to $110. The non resident short term license to hunt upland game and water fowl be raised to $15 for one day and $5 for each additional day, which was still a bargain. He suggested the resident hunting license fee go from $25 to $23 and the combination license be lowered to $38 from $40. Mrs. de Braga said under Mr. Molini's proposal the fishing for residents would be left at $20 and decrease the other somewhat. She asked Mr. Humke if this would be a possible compromise and he said no. Mrs. Segerblom said she had fished for fifty years and if it had not been raised in all that time, fishermen could afford the raise. Mrs. de Braga said she liked the idea of putting as little of the increase on residents as possible. A survey from the Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife was presented for addition to the minutes (Exhibit H). Mr. Carpenter said he favored the compromise and it was reasonable. Mr. Bennett would accept a friendly amendment to his motion and his second agreed. The amendment would be to make the changes Mr. Molini had proposed in his letter plus the lowered combined license for residents. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA CALLED FOR A MOTION ON THE AMENDMENT. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND SANDOVAL VOTED NO.) ******** ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH MR. MOLINI'S RECOMMENDATIONS PER HIS LETTER OF MAY 22, 1995 AND A CHANGE IN THE COMBINED LICENSE FEE. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND SANDOVAL VOTED NO.) ******** SENATE BILL 63 - Broadens authority of state department of conservation and natural resources to regulate disposal of hazardous wastes on or near waters of State of Nevada. Mr. Bennett said S.B. 63 could adversely affect the Nevada Test Site if passed, and proposed a conflict of interest. He disqualified himself from voting on the issue, S.B. 63. Mr. Dave Ziegler advised the committee S.B. 63 was on the last sheet of the work session document (Exhibit I). He said there were two letters given to the committee in support, one from the NDEA and one from the Advisory Board on Natural Resources (Exhibit J). Mrs. de Braga said she understood the bill simply added the regulation of disposal of hazardous waste to the already existing ability to regulate radioactive materials. Mr. Ziegler said he had spoken to Mr. Rosse about the measure and what it basically did was ease the limitation or restrictions of the type of waste the state could regulate at the test site. Today they were only allowed to authorize to regulate waste disposal at the test site if it was disposed of "underground in liquid or explosive form." What NDEA was concerned about was there might be other means of disposal which they would not be authorized to control. Mr. Ziegler believed NDEA saw it as an issue of state control over what goes on at the test site to a degree. For example if waste were disposed underground in solid form but not explosive form, they would not be authorized to regulate them under current statute, but this change would allow them to do so. It basically broadens out the authorizing language which was in the current statutes. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 63. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT ABSTAINED FROM VOTING.) Mr. Bache would do the bill summary on S.B. 471, Mrs. de Braga, A.B. 212, and Mr. Sandoval S.B. 141. Mrs. de Braga said there were two bill draft requests from Mr. Carpenter. He noted one request would be for the biologist for the Wild Horse Commission. The second bill draft request would be for bio-diversity. This would basically take man out of the main stream of some of the environmental issues. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST ON THE WILD HORSE BIOLOGIST ISSUE. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bache asked if Natural Resources had cut off BDR's except for emergency matters. Mrs. de Braga said no. THE MOTION PASSED. (ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE VOTED NO.) ******** ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST ON THE BIO-DIVERSITY RESOLUTION. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE VOTED NO.) Mr. Carpenter said they do have the amendments on A.B. 307 (Exhibit K). He remarked he thought they were as agreed to in the meeting. The terms of the members and replacing the commission were different. lt would be better for all members to be appointed as soon as practical on or before October 1. He referred to the amendment which gave the dates of changes for the commission. The bill had already been amended and passed. The amendments were for the committee to comment on. Mr. Carpenter commented on page 3, section 4, which said "The commission may hold not more than nine meetings......" From testimony nine meetings were sufficient. Mr. Ziegler said the request to the bill drafter was up to nine meetings. Mr. Bache said the next paragraph spoke of special meetings of the commission which would cover the need for existing meetings past nine. Mr. Carpenter would take A.B. 307 and the amendments to the floor. Mr. Sandoval asked if the bill drafters had a problem using the language "up to." Mr. Humke said the bill had been sitting around and he would like to see it get moving. The bill would go to Ways and Means next, even though he did not know if it had a fiscal impact now, but it had been rereferred. It was noted the wording for meetings was not exactly as the committee requested, however there was a provision to take care of any additional meetings they might have to have. Mr. Ziegler asked if a meeting was still planned on adjournment of the floor session on Wednesday. No host sandwiches could be ordered so the committee could come directly to Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining. The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pat Menath, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining May 22, 1995 Page