MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session June 5, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, June 5, 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 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Dr. Jack Armstrong, Division of Agriculture; J.B. Robinson, Rodeo; Steve Mahoney, Division of Agriculture; Bill Owen, Emergency Response Commission. Chairman de Braga called the meeting to order and roll was taken. She advised the committee and the audience they would be taking bills out of order. Mr. Ziegler will walk the committee through the work session document (Exhibit C). ASSEMBLY BILL 549: Requires certain documents containing results of assay to include warning concerning use of results. Mr. Ziegler said the bill was requested by Speaker Hettrick regarding assays and warnings from commercial laboratories. The subcommittee heard the bill on May 30, but only two members were able to attend. There was a concern regarding the penalties involved. Mr. Neighbors said there was only one person who testified against the bill. He had talked to Mr. Hettrick and he wanted to change some of the wording on the penalties. Mr. Ziegler said the committee could take action on Wednesday. ASSEMBLY BILL 591: Provides in skeleton form for voluntary disclosure of certain hazards. Mr. Ziegler said the subcommittee met on May 26, and had worked on the bill. The bill had been given to the bill drafters to rework and had not yet received the amendments. He said A.B. 652 and A.B. 660 were the two elk bills and no action would be taken on those bills 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. Mr. Ziegler talked to Mr. Roland Westergard, former State Engineer, and former Director, Department of Conservation, regarding the original S.B. 103, and the amendment proposed by Carl Dodge. On the original portion of the bill, Mr. Westergard thought it would strengthen the state law. The amendment by Carl Dodge would probably be helpful, said Mr. Westergard, he did not know how much. The issue would be if the Federal Bureau of Reclamation decided to follow state law or go their own way. Mr. Neighbors said he was concerned with S.B. 103 and did have a proposed amendment. He had not had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Carl Dodge or the State Engineer regarding the amendment. Mr. Neighbors wanted to make sure the bill would not limit the amount of water going into Walker Lake. He asked the bill be held over to Wednesday. Mr. Bache had problems with the original bill as it took authority away from the State Engineer and gave it to the Walker River Irrigation District. He felt it would not be in the best interest of the state of Nevada. SENATE BILL 247: Authorizes local air pollution control agency in certain counties to establish program to reduce and control air pollution. Mr. Ziegler referred to the bottom of page 4 of the work session handout regarding the Clark County air pollution control bill. Mr. Naylor of the Clark County Health Department would be at the work session on Wednesday to answer any questions. Mr. Bennett had problems with the bill regarding the politics and would prefer hearing it on Wednesday when questions could be answered. SENATE BILL 267: Revises legislative findings concerning energy. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 267. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 11: Urges increased development of solar energy in Nevada. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO DO PASS S.C.R. 11. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Chairman de Braga assigned Mrs. Ohrenschall to present S.B. 267 on the floor and S.C.R. 11 will be handled by Mrs. Segerblom. ASSEMBLY BILL 548: Prohibits the State Land Registrar from charging fees for permits for use of State lands for certain piers and related facilities. Mr. Ziegler said the subcommittee met on May 26 before the Memorial Day weekend with lengthy testimony. Mr. Sandoval made a motion the subcommittee approved unanimously. Mr. Ziegler worked with Mr. Sandoval to be sure the motion was written down properly. There was a handout (Exhibit F), which had seven parts and encompassed Mr. Sandoval's motion. He said there was a draft resolution on the matter of the federal government basing their leases on the use of State Lands and objecting to the practice. If the committee was interested in the resolution it could be done as a separate action. It would have to be requested as a draft, introduced, and brought back to the committee. Mr. Sandoval asked Mr. Ziegler to explain item 2, of the amendment for A.B. 548. Mr. Ziegler replied, the issue concerned a U.S. Forest Service special use commercial operator on the shore of Lake Tahoe being charged for the part of his business which was both on federal land and also the part on state land. The U.S. Forest Service calculates their leases for the resorts on both federal and state land and charge a percentage of gross revenue for all the revenues they receive from both. He said 25 percent of what the special use permittee has paid to the U.S. Forest Service would be returned to the state of Nevada, where the funds go into the county for education. The argument would be the commercial operators had paid through their forest service leases, to the state of Nevada, for the use of the state of Nevada's land. The subcommittee was convinced by the argument and felt any portion of their annual fees based on revenue earned from or conducted on state lands should be credited against the fees charged by the Division of State Lands. Mrs. de Braga said if they support the resolution the committee would be urging U.S.F.S. to cease charging for the use of State Lands and asked how the two pieces fit together. Mr. Ziegler said the resolution would urge the U.S.F.S. to cease the practice. If they did and stopped taking any lease revenue based on use of state lands, then the credit would go to zero and the commercial operator would have to pay the fees directly to the state. There would be no assurance the U.S.F.S. would follow or obey any resolution. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED THE COMMITTEE ASK FOR A BILL DRAFT FOR A RESOLUTION TO THE U.S.F.S., WITH LANGUAGE STATE LANDS HAD ROUGH DRAFTED. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7: Expresses support of Nevada Legislature for ranching and farming in Nevada and expresses its opposition to any extensive and unreasonable reform of existing regulations of Federal Government concerning management of public rangelands. Mrs. de Braga said the committee had been asked to rescind their action on S.J.R. 7 and reconsider. Mr. Ziegler said on May 10th the committee held a meeting in the Old Assembly Chambers in the Capitol Building on the grazing resolutions. On that date Senator Rhoads submitted some amendments to S.J.R. 7 which on May 17th the committee moved to amend and do pass. The bill and amendments were ready to go to the floor when Senator Rhoads contacted the office with more amendments. The reason was in Washington, D.C., the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995 was going through Congress and he wanted to update S.J.R. 7, so the latest factual information was in the resolution. If the committee had the desire to rescind the action it would take seven votes to pass and then a separate motion to amend and do pass to incorporate these newest amendments. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO RESCIND THE PRIOR ACTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.J.R. 7 FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECONSIDERATION FOR FURTHER AMENDMENTS. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) Mr. Ziegler discussed the new proposed amendments (Exhibit D) with the committee. The amendments were proposed by Senator Rhoads. Mr. Ziegler said the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995 would do many things S.J.R. 7 had urged Congress to do. If the committee was to accept the amendments, it would reinforce and urge Congress to go forward with the Act. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS GIVEN TO THE COMMITTEE BY SENATOR RHOADS. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) Chairman de Braga said the committee would return to the original agenda and hear A.B. 266. ASSEMBLY BILL 266: Requires state emergency response commission to impose reporting fee and places limitation on total amount of fees person is required to pay annually to state emergency response commission. Mr. Bill Owens, Executive Director of the Emergency Response Commission, gave a brief statement from (Exhibit E). The commission supports the endeavor to clarify the intent of the commission at the inception, to limit caps on fees paid for hazardous materials, storage, manufacture and from the commissions reporting. Mr. Carpenter asked how it would change the actual fee schedule from what the commission was now charging. Mr. Owens said during the last year it would mean a reduction of approximately 25 percent in the amount of monies available to grants to our local emergency planning committees for their hazardous materials response activities. Mr. Carpenter asked if they would actually be reducing some of the fees they collect. Mr. Owens agreed, and said it represented a cap of the large industries which handle and manufacture, store, or report releases on hazardous materials. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 266. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND SEGERBLOM WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) ASSEMBLY BILL 673: Revises provisions governing inspection of livestock. Mr. Steve Mahoney, Livestock Identification Bureau, Division of Agriculture, said as he understood the bill it would allow rodeo livestock to be inspected annually. The only concerns the bureau would have from the standpoint of preventing livestock theft would be the inclusion of bucking horses and bulls only and not include roping steers and cutting cattle, etc. He indicated they could work up a permit, which was allowed in Regulation 58, or this bill would allow one time inspection per year. It would of course limit those cattle to move within the state of Nevada, across state lines, but they would have to comply with the state of destination when coming back. The State Board of Agriculture and the bureau could work out some kind of one time inspection per year, provided it was limited to just the bucking stock. The person applying for the permit must be a Nevada resident rodeo stock company. They would need to identify their livestock with a registered brand in the state of Nevada. Mrs. de Braga asked if it would be like a person would carry now, to show an annual health card on horses. Mr. Mahoney said an annual horse transportation card would be similar. The bill stated a brand inspection would be done once a year. It could be done on an inspection certificate, on an inventory of the livestock in possession of the rodeo contractor at the time of inspection, and a reasonable fee would have to be established. It could be done on an individual card per animal, which could be worked out by the State Board of Agriculture. Mrs. de Braga asked what the advantage would be when the steers and calves would have to be inspected, etc. What would be the advantage of having a yearly permit on rodeo cattle. Mr. Mahoney said currently if a rodeo was in Yerington, they would have to have all of their animals inspected before they left Yerington to go, for example, to Elko. This permit would allow them to move freely within the state with inspection only once a year. Mrs. de Braga said they would have to have their calves and steers inspected every time they changed districts, so they would still have the same problem. Mr. Mahoney said they would have the same problem with the cattle. He said the Department of Agriculture concern was for some unscrouplous individual getting involved in the rodeo business and using this as a method of moving cattle about which might or might not be theirs. Mr. Neighbors asked who paid the brand inspectors. The livestock owner would pay the brand inspector, said Mr. Mahoney. Mr. Neighbors had some complaints regarding inspectors being paid. Mr. Mahoney said most of the inspectors were part time and the payment would come to their supervisor who audits and deposits the money. The paper work would be audited again, sent to payroll and accounting, audited again, then sent to Carson City where the paperwork would go through several other hands, before the money was paid to the inspectors. It would take legitimately 60 days minimum to be paid. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Mahoney about lines 28 to 31, page 2, of the bill which were bracketed out. He understood it to mean they would already have a permit, like a lifetime horse permit, or annual horse permit and it would not apply. Mr. Carpenter told Mr. Mahoney, where the bill had brackets the verbiage would be taken out of the bill, and asked if he did not want it to stay in the bill. Mr. Mahoney said yes, he wanted it kept in the bill. Mrs. de Braga asked how would they apply the inspection and certificate only to horses and bulls. Mr. Mahoney said he would say "bucking stock." Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Robinson if they included just "bucking stock," would it help or not. Mr. J.B. Robinson, Diamond X Rodeo Company owner, said the use of "bucking stock" would help right now, simply because they lease most of their cattle. He would like to have the roping cattle, yearly inspected, but they have a problem, and would work toward that goal. The roping cattle have to be branded and numbered. If there were some other way to identify the roping cattle to satisfy the Bureau of Identification, he would agree. Mrs. de Braga asked if he was the only Nevada based rodeo stock company. Mr. Robinson said they had ranches in Oregon and Nevada and he has two partners located in Oregon. The company was splitting and Mr. Robinson would have his own company in Nevada. In Oregon they were allowed to have a yearly inspection of the "bucking stock," not the roping cattle. Mrs. de Braga asked how it would effect Mr. Robinson when he has part of his stock in Oregon and part in Nevada, do they still have to have an inspection every time they cross the state line. Mr. Robinson said yes, each state line requires an inspection. She asked if they had a separate paper for each animal. He said they could put it on one sheet of paper. Mrs. de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 673. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 673, WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS OUTLINED BASICALLY BY MR. MAHONEY. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND SEGERBLOM WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) SENATE BILL 409: Revises provisions governing qualifications of administrator of division of agriculture of department of business and industry. Dr. Jack Armstrong, Acting Administrator, Division of Agriculture, said the request was to expand language with regard to qualifications for the administrator of the division. The language was restrictive before, which included a college degree and five years of regulatory work. The language expanded the qualifications and provided an opportunity for greater numbers to apply for the job. Mr. Sandoval asked if the change arose out of a specific problem. Dr. Armstrong said the position qualifications were quite restrictive and the department wanted to expand the opportunity for people who have experience in business management, personnel management, accounting principles, to provide the highest quality of candidates as possible. Mrs. de Braga asked if it were not necessary to have an agricultural or livestock background to fulfill the position. Dr. Armstrong said that language did not exist prior to the expansion of the qualification verbiage. Most certainly a degree or experience in agricultural endeavors would be desirable. He pointed out they have 72 qualified applicants for the position of administrator who were currently being reviewed. Mr. Neighbors asked if they had 72 candidates under the current law. Dr. Armstrong said using the language in the application recruitment, it was noted the qualifications were pending legislative approval. Mr. Neighbors had a problem with a person having an accounting degree but no background in agricultural/livestock work, be an administrator of the Department of Agriculture. Dr. Armstrong said they would be looking into the qualification arena through personal interview and the establishment of criteria to narrow the candidate field down. Mr. Bennett noted, Dr. Armstrong had said, if they change the law they would have 72 qualified applicants. What would the applicant numbers look like without the change in the law. Dr. Armstrong said it would have probably been a very narrow field, based upon the previous wording, requiring five years of regulatory experience. Regulatory experience in itself did not necessitate an agricultural background either. The business of agriculture was far more than regulatory in nature, and using the five years experience in regulatory work, gave less assurance a qualified person would be hired. Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, supported S.B. 409. The agricultural community needed someone in the director's chair of the Division of Agriculture who had a wide and varied background and who could serve as an articulate spokesmen for the industry of agriculture. He noted, one of the reasons for the change, was the opening for a director, which had not occurred for a number of years. The recruiting process had not been used for a long time, updating and expanding the qualifications was needed at this time. The farm bureau's concern was expanding beyond the regulatory background. Mrs. de Braga said, from the comments made by the committee, since it was the Department of Agriculture, it should be a requirement to have an agricultural/livestock background. Mr. Busselman said it was as much a requirement as it ever had been. Mr. Fettic stated, Dr. Armstrong had said a agricultural/livestock background would be required by custom and not by law. Mr. Busselman agreed and said since the Board of Agriculture was the group who would make the selection under statute, there were members of farming and ranching making the decision on hiring. Mr. Fettic believed they should have language, such as, an agriculture background was a plus, to bypass any lawsuits on requirements. Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on S.B. 409. The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _____________________________ Pat Menath, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining June 5, 1995 Page