MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE & MINING Sixty-eighth Session June 7, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 1:35 p.m., on Wednesday, June 7, 1995, Chairman 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 Pat Menath, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Naylor, Clark County Health District Dick Rowe, Nevada Division of Agriculture John Sande, Western States Petroleum Association Angie Cianelli, Evergreen Oil, Incorporated Terry D. Harris, Chevron Corporation Chairman Carpenter announced a request had been made by Senator Jacobsen and John McLean, Resource Concepts, for a resolution. He requested Mr. Ziegler to explain. Mr. David Ziegler, Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, reviewed the resolution which urges the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and U.S. Congress to keep the funding for the Agricultural Research Service in place. The funding was scheduled to be zeroed out. The office bridges the gap between the interests and communities working on the range. Chairman Carpenter asked the view of the Committee. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED FOR THE COMMITTEE TO REQUEST A RESOLUTION. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN OHRENSCHALL AND SEGERBLOM WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. Chairman Carpenter began the work session beginning with Assembly Bill 496 and Assembly Bill 548. ASSEMBLY BILL 496 - Makes various changes regarding fees of state land registrar for use of state land. ASSEMBLY BILL 548 - Makes various changes regarding fees paid to state land registrar for use of state land. Mr. David Ziegler, LCB, explained the work session document (Exhibit C) contains the subcommittee recommendation for both bills. He discussed the recommendation to amend A.B. 496 and the language to be substituted for A.B. 548 resulting in A.B. 496 ceasing to exist. He also discussed the fee structure incorporated into A.B. 548. He then reviewed the seven parts of Mr. Sandoval's motion listed on Page 4. Chairman Carpenter asked for questions and identified handouts: 1) breakdown of money in original A.B. 496 (Exhibit D); 2) modified breakdown (Exhibit C), Page 6; and 3) subcommittee amendment (Exhibit E.) He stated the Committee would need to make a choice. Mr. Bennett recommended to `IP' A.B. 496 and do pass A.B. 548 without amendment. He noted the commercial operators on Lake Tahoe are supplying over $360,000 annually to the state coffers in taxes and $2 million in payroll. Ms. Pamela Wilcox, Division of State Lands, stated the alternative prepared was thought to be a reasonable bottom line. She reiterated the issue is about people putting private facilities on public land and citizens being due something in lieu of a rental. She noted their budget was built on fee receipt projections of $120,000 the first year and $150,000 the second year; therefore, any reduction will leave a hole which will need to be "plugged in the executive budget." Mrs. Segerblom asked if the Schedule `H' is the compromise. Ms. Wilcox responded the fees are so low and reasonable no one should complain. She added "they" would live with any decision made by the Legislature. Chairman Carpenter confirmed with Ms. Ohrenschall (Chairman of the subcommittee) the recommendation of the subcommittee was to adopt Exhibit A of the work session document (Exhibit C.) Ms. Ohrenschall replied this was correct; it was unanimous. She pointed out the property owners at the lake, who originally opposed any fee, agreed the recommended fees were fair. Chairman Carpenter announced a motion on the two bills would be entertained. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 548 WITH AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY MR. SANDOVAL. Mr. Ziegler interjected Page 7 of work session document was not part of Mr. Sandoval's amendment and therefore not part of the motion. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL AMENDED HER MOTION TO INCLUDE THE PROVISION ON PAGE 7 REGARDING THE GAS TAX. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Segerblom commented she would be voting against the amendment as it seems so little compared to what is paid at Lake Mead. Mr. Bennett stated he does not like the amendment as it should be tougher, but will support the motion as it is a step in the right direction. Mr. Fettic asked if Speaker Hettrick had been contacted regarding the amendment to his bill, as his was to do away with it completely. He noted A.B. 496 does have provision for fees. Mr. Sandoval responded he had spoken with Speaker Hettrick and the issue was not discussed. He may not want fees in his bill. Speaker Hettrick was pleased with the outcome since the persons who had attended the subcommittee meeting were pleased with the outcome. Chairman Carpenter thought Speaker Hettrick would be amenable to amending his bill. He stated to go ahead with the motion and if there were a problem later to bring it back to committee. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM VOTED NO. Chairman Carpenter entertained a motion on A.B. 496. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE ASSEMBLY BILL 496. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bache noted if Speaker Hettrick did not wish his bill to be amended this bill would be needed and perhaps it should not be indefinitely postponed. Mr. Bennett concurred with Mr. Bache. Chairman Carpenter agreed and therefore the motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 496 was not considered. Chairman Carpenter discussed contacts regarding Senate Bill 247 to allow Clark County representatives and others in attendance to testify and reopened the hearing on S.B. 247. He noted there were some amendments offered but did not know if they satisfied all parties. SENATE BILL 247 - Authorizes local air pollution control agency in certain counties to establish program to reduce and control air pollution. Mr. Michael Naylor, Director, Air Pollution Control Division, Clark County Health District, discussed the previous hearing where questions regarding the penalty policy were raised. There was concern whether a home owner on a `candidate road for paving' would be compelled to participate or if penalties could apply to the home owner. He explained Mr. [David] Ziegler responded and subsequent conversations with `permitted stationary sources' has resulted in concerns. He submitted a letter of June 6, 1995 from the Clark County Health District with amendments (Exhibit F) (bill number reflects typographical error; pen correction) and noted more amendments had resulted in the previous half hour. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if home owners would be assessed. Mr. Naylor responded only if they volunteered to be assessed. They are not compelled to participate; they are not a permitted business so there is no liability or penalty. Ms. Ohrenschall asked who the penalty would apply to. Mr. Naylor replied a business permitted by the Board of Health in violation with the regulations. Ms. Ohrenschall inquired what would be a permitted business. Mr. Naylor answered "stationary sources": any facility which is fixed having equipment with the potential to emit air pollutants, including construction activities. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if they all would be ancillary to the construction industry. Mr. Naylor responded the construction industry is regulated during the construction period under a separate permitting. Permanent facilities have a `stationary source permit.' Ms. Ohrenschall asked if there were permanent facilities which are not ancillary to the construction industry. Mr. Naylor responded with the example of a chlorine factory in Henderson which has no tie to construction. Mr. Bennett inquired how pollutants from a grader on any given day can be measured. Mr. Naylor answered it is not directly measured; standard emission factors are used. Mr. Bennett asked how they factors are determined. Mr. Naylor replied through compilation by the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Bennett asked if it had been challenged and to what extent has it been challenged. Mr. Naylor responded it has been challenged; however, public input via public hearings is obtained to derive the factors. Mr. Bennett wondered what was the percent of variance. Mr. Naylor stated it could be plus/minus 50%. Mr. Bennett commented, "that's not very good accuracy." Ms. Ohrenschall wanted to clarify if it is a permitted business/activity, if there is an option to participate in the program. Mr. Naylor answered a new permitted business is required to obtain offsets for their emissions. He continued with explanation of the permit process. New sources, in the Las Vegas valley would have to offset their emissions. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if it applies only to new sources. Mr. Naylor explained the offset rules applies to new sources but does not apply to existing sources. He explained the offset/credit process. The bill applies to new and existing industry. Ms. Ohrenschall wondered what it did to existing industry. Mr. Naylor explained the Board of Health would be authorized to adopt a regulation to assess a fee of an existing facility. He added there is an amendment to reduce the fee to $50 per ton. Ms. Ohrenschall wanted to understand what the voluntary part of the bill is and asked if there is nothing voluntary for non-home owners. Mr. Naylor explained the voluntary part applies to home owners if they want to pay an assessment to get their roads paved and it is not voluntary for a permitted business. Mr. Bennett commented on the air quality factor in Las Vegas and stated he understands dust has no bearing on the factor for health purposes so wondered why "are we after dust" instead of other pollutants. He added, letting construction operate without dust abatement and allowing purchase of alternate credits for paving a road in a residential neighborhood does not reduce dust in the air. He commented "this is the most fragmented bill I have ever seen in my life." He asked Mr. Naylor to respond and asked if dust is part of the air quality/health safety standards. Mr. Naylor responded dust can be unhealthy and is included in pollutants as "inhaleable particulate matter." There is a national standard which applies to all fifty states. Mr. Bennett asked why dust was not being treated at the source and why is it allowed to be generated if credits are purchased. Mr. Naylor explained some control must be maintained at a construction site; it is agreed to when a permit is given. Mr. Bennett commented the dust must be kept down and they still must pay. Mr. Naylor responded yes. Mrs. Segerblom asked if a person chooses not to have their street paved is it then not paved at that house. Mr. Naylor replied no and explained if sufficient neighbors on a street are willing to pay for the paving it will be paved. There are usually hold-out home owners who do not pay. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if the hold-out homeowners would get a free ride. Mr. Naylor answered yes they will. The other home owners will need to pay for the difference. Ms. Ohrenschall inquired how clearly the situation would be spelled out to the other home owners. Mr. Naylor described how public works coordinates the project with the assistance of the neighborhood's home owners. He went on to describe other options, such as, a special improvement district. Discussion ensued regarding the problem of non-paying home owners and how the financial matters are handled. Mr. Naylor described the amendments contained in the June 6, 1995 letter (Exhibit F) and commented the first paragraph refers to existing regulations the Board of Health had implemented for several years; however, the second paragraph has not been implemented but proposed as regulation. He added if the bill passes they will have public hearings to adopt regulations regarding existing sources. Ms. de Braga asked if both paragraphs of the proposed amendment replace `a' and if `b' remains the same. Mr. Naylor affirmed her question. He presented additional amendments which evolved from conversations with representatives of the industrial facilities. He describe them as: Page 1, Line 4, at reference to the Board of Health or Board of County Commissioners insert "by regulation" after the word "may"; Page 1, Lines 13-14, replace the word "guidelines" with the word "regulations." Mr. Bennett asked which Board. Mr. Naylor answered the one operating the program; in Clark County it is the Board of Health. He continued with the amendments: Page 2, Line 4, insert "by regulation" after "commissioners shall"; Page 2, Line 7, delete remainder of sentence after "in no case may the fee exceed $650 per ton of" and replace with "credit for PM10, Carbon Monoxide, Volatile Organic Compounds, Oxides of Nitrogen" (This would tie in to the first new sentence under 1a); Page 2, Lines 9- 10, replace "$80 per ton" with "$50 per ton" and delete the remainder of the sentence and replace with " of credit for PM10." This would tie in to the second paragraph of the proposed amendment to 1a. Chairman Carpenter referenced the second portion of the amendment and asked if the Board had the credits to sell. Mr. Naylor replied since there have been no credits awarded to a private party the credits can be obtained by paying the per ton fee. The money is collected by the Health District and dispersed to the Public Works Department for road paving. He reviewed testimony given at the previous hearing regarding a lawsuit. He stated the intention, if the bill is passed, is to have a $50 per ton fee applied to construction activities. For every acre constructed there would be a mitigation fee of about $30. This would require a regulation to be adopted. Mr. Bache was concerned why the amendments were brought up at this time and asked why they were not before the Senate committee. Mr. Naylor responded there may have been a communication problem. The industries were not aware of the bill when it was considered by the Senate. Mr. Bache asked if the amendments had been discussed with Mrs. Porter or the Home Builders Association. Mr. Naylor replied he had not discussed them with her but they would "make life easier for the home builders." Mr. Bennett referenced back to the credits and asked if "we" would run out of credits to issue in the future. Mr. Naylor stated the demand for credits could be easily met by the amount of existing unpaved roads. If the Las Vegas valley has no more unhealthy days the Board of Health could revisit the rule and eliminate the requirement for offsets. Mr. Bennett asked if that meant there could be a finite amount of credits. Mr. Naylor answered there are credits for at least five years. Mr. Bennett did not want to return to the matter in five years and Mr. Naylor did not think it would be necessary. If there is a lack of credits another mechanism would be needed to accommodate industrial growth. Mr. Naylor explained clear statutory authority is needed to enable the credit system, which is not currently available. Ms. Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, indicated the bill originated from a lawsuit settlement between them and air pollution. She stated she was not aware of any of the amendments and has contacted their attorneys and was advised to tell the Committee, until they have had an opportunity to review the amendments in context of the bill and the agreement they could not continue to support it. Chairman Carpenter commented due to the amendments the bill is "starting from scratch" and nothing will be done with the bill until their [So. Nevada Builders Association] input is received. He called upon the industry representatives to provide testimony. Mr. Tony Garvin, representative, James Hardy Gypsum, located at Blue Diamond in the Las Vegas valley testified many industry people did not hear about the bill until after the Senate had taken action and appreciated the reopening of the hearing. He reviewed their understanding of the offset program in the past as applying to new source companies and not applying to existing sources. The bill would require existing companies to pay for credits in addition to fees currently paid for emissions and pay a fee for each ton of pollutant. He added he understood the main purpose of the bill was dust suppression by paving roads. He thought there was no reason to impose obligation to a fee per ton for emissions unrelated to the dust suppression. He continued they had met with Mr. Naylor regarding their concerns and Mr. Naylor was receptive to addressing them. This resulted in the amendments proposed to require existing sources to purchase offset credits only for PM10 emissions and to reduce the fee. The amendments will also clarify the county should implement [the bill] by regulation, after a public hearing, to allow all members of the public to make their views known versus by guidelines which do not require a hearing. Mr. Garvin testified they are willing to support the bill with the changes. He added they still would like to see the bill apply only to new sources and not existing sources. Chairman Carpenter asked if he was satisfied with the amendment allowing for public hearings. Mr. Garvin replied yes. Mr. Bennett asked, with the proposed amendments, if the bill granted the authority to levee fees to an unelected board. Mr. Garvin responded he could not answer the question. Mr. Bennett interjected, "Yes, it does." Mr. Garvin continued he was sure the Legislature had considered if it was a tax which was a concern they had. Chairman Carpenter commented it was an odd situation; the Legislature is "putting a tax on you or certainly a fee" and thought it would have been better to have a public hearing in "that" area before the Board of County Commissioners, or someone else. He noted he had not studied the detail regarding Mr. Bennett's question. Mr. Bennett reflected Mr. Naylor's testimony indicated in Clark County it would be the Board of Health and not the County Commissioners. It would be an unelected body imposing fees. Mr. David Rowles, Director of Administration, Clark County Health District, wished to clear up a misconception. The Legislative body created and empowered the Clark County Health District by statute. He continued it has legislative authorization to charge fees. He described the make-up of the Board of Health identifying the majority are elected officials of the communities. Chairman Carpenter noted the disadvantage to the Committee regarding the bill because of receiving it so late and having additional amendments proposed. He stated the Committee wanted to do what the people want done. Mr. Rowles offered his [office's] assistance to provide whatever information they can. He described other fees assessed by and regulatory authority of the Clark County Health District. Mr. Chuck Bishalf, attorney, Chemical Lime Company, testified they, like James Hardy, only recently became aware of the bill and have not had all the time they would have liked to evaluate it for impact. He echoed the testimony by Mr. Garvin regarding the amendments proposed by Mr. Naylor. He added the company is proposing to add a fourth kiln outside the boundaries and, without the amendments, would have reconsidered whether it could build the kiln. Mrs. Segerblom asked about the location of the new site. Mr. Bishalf explained it is at an existing plant where the company wishes to add a fourth kiln. Mr. David Sorg, James Hardy Gypsum, stated he agreed with Mr. Garvin's comments. Chairman Carpenter asked if many other industries "down there" are not aware of this bill. Mr. Sorg answered absolutely. He testified he had called other companies after his notification about the bill on Memorial Day and found they also were not aware of the bill. He added if there had been more time many more industry representatives would be present. Mr. Fettic noted the bill was introduced in March and had already been processed through the Senate and asked why they were not aware of it. Mr. Sorg replied he first became aware of the bill at a seminar where Mr. Naylor spoke about four weeks prior. Mr. Naylor's comments regarding the bill were restricted to PM10; however, the wording on the bill could be applied to "the whole works, a whole different ball game." He explained it made his company's responsibility from about $8,000 to $25,000-30,000 a year. Mr. Garvin, from California, was called to look into the bill. He acknowledged the source watching the bill for Mr. Garvin was not very expedient. Mrs. Segerblom asked if other people in the industry would accept the amendments. Mr. Sorg answered some would still question the bill because of unfamiliarity or not accepting the limits placed in it. His company could "live with it"; he can not speak for the rest of the industry. Chairman Carpenter asked if there was any trade association in the area to use to "get the word out." Mr. Sorg explained he is a project engineer so does not, normally, get involved with the politics of rules and regulations. He believes they may be members of the Nevada Manufacturing Association, which may or may not make contact with industry. He added about the only communication with the Air Pollution Board is when the company wants a new permit or is renewing annual permits. Chairman Carpenter commented it is the responsibility of the Committee to get the word out and to make sure processing the bill is done in a responsible manner. He suggested submitting the proposed amendments to the bill drafter then distributing them to the parties involved through the Clark County Health District. He confirmed distribution plans with Mr. Naylor. When the bill is again discussed, possibly next week, persons involved should be in attendance. Chairman Carpenter closed the hearing on S.B. 247 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 402. SENATE BILL 402 - Revises provisions relating to labeling and specifications of lubricating oil and motor oil. Mr. John Sande, representing Western States Petroleum Association, noted Ms. Angela Cianelli, Evergreen Oil, Inc., and Terry Harris, Chevron, would be available to answer questions on technical aspects of the bill. He reviewed the bill and its intent. Re-refined oil meeting certain classifications or grades may be sold without noting recycled, reclaimed, or used motor oil on the label. The most important provisions are Page 3, Section 3, Subsection 4, Lines 25-36. They do not want to discriminate between oils processed from virgin oil and those oils re-refined to remove contaminants to meet performance qualifications. Chairman Carpenter asked how re-refined oil is handled. Mr. Sande responded nothing would be on the container unless it was wanted, perhaps to capture the market of people concerned about the environment. As long as the oil is identical to other oil nothing is required to be placed on the label. Chairman Carpenter inquired if it should be in the bill. Mr. Sande responded it is not in the bill. If it is used oil and not re-refined, it must be designated on the label. Chairman Carpenter noted the bill includes re-refined oil under recycled oil. Mr. Sande agreed and referred and quoted Page 1, Line 17 noting it would be the same as having virgin oil. He continued to refer and quote Page 3, Line 32. He reiterated if it is re-refined oil the language would not be required. Mr. Fettic asked if he meant re-refined oil has all the lubricating properties of virgin oil and viscosity is not broken down. Mr. Sande responded correct. He wished the other testifiers to respond to be technically accurate. Mr. Terry Harris, Specialist, Market Development, Chevron, testified in support of the bill and submitted written testimony (Exhibit G.) Mr. Bennett commented the bill would be a step in the right direction and asked if the re-refined oil would be required to meet American Petroleum Institute (API) or Society of Automotive Engineers specifications and would be labeled as such. Mr. Harris referred to Page 1, Section 3, Line 9. He confirmed performance rating refers to the API symbol appearing on the label, which sets the highest level of categories for all oils. Mr. Bennett inquired why Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) not included as a petroleum product. Mr. Harris had no answer. Ms. Angela Cianelli, Manager, Environmental Affairs, Evergreen Oil, Inc., re-refiner of used motor oil in California, also could not answer. Mr. Fettic asked what the difference was between recycled oil and re-refined oil. Ms. Cianelli responded re-refining means going through the process of becoming a lubricating oil again; removing the additives and contaminants and returning it to original quality. Recycled oil can include re-refined; however, it also includes taking a contaminated oil and blending it with a grade fuel (2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and selling is as a fuel source for burning. Mr. Fettic commented it is not good as a lubricant. Ms. Cianelli responded it can not be put back into an engine. Mrs. Segerblom asked what would she use re-refined oil for; would it be put into a can and sold to her. Ms. Cianelli replied yes it would. Mr. Sandoval wondered if the product was currently on the market in Nevada and in what form. Ms. Cianelli responded yes. Evergreen sells in bulk to a company which mixes in the additives and sells it to the product companies. Chairman Carpenter asked Mr. Sande why there was a fiscal note on the bill. Mr. Sande pointed out the original bill had penalties with the Department of Agriculture administering the program to assure the specifications were met. Testimony noted there was no equipment to test for the API performance rating and the bill was amended. API monitors the refineries and there is some self policing. Mr. Bennett commented he has confidence in the API. It is an internationally recognized authority for everything going on in the petroleum industry. Mr. Dick Rowe, Regional Manager, Department of Agriculture, representing the Bureau of Weights and Measures, noted their support of the bill. Chairman Carpenter entertained a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 402. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. Chairman Carpenter opened the hearing on Senate Bill 103. SENATE BILL 103 - Authorizes board of directors of irrigation district to allow transfer of storage water to land excluded from storage benefits of district irrespective of size or ownership of parcels of land. Mr. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, stated they had not tracked the bill closely; it came from the interim committee to study water management and allocation. It deals mainly with how irrigation districts allocate their storage water. Under current law they can not allocate storage water to parcels smaller then 40 acres. The Walker River Irrigation District found the need to allocate storage water to smaller parcels and to strip water off subdivisions. He explained he had been approached by ex-Senator Carl Dodge regarding amendments to a bill dealing with "if petitioned the State Engineer would assist a irrigation district in drafting rules and regulations dealing with administration, distribution of water within the district." He had responded it would be fine. This morning he was given a letter from ex-Mayor Jim Spoo to Assemblyman Roy Neighbors making it mandatory for the State Engineer to participated in prescribing rules and regulations. He did not know which version of the bill is before the Committee. He would not want to be mandated to participate with all the irrigation districts in the state as this would have a big impact on his office and many would not want him involved with their business. Mrs. de Braga thought the Committee only had Mr. Dodge's amendment; it was added to facilitate the bill, it is generic, should not be a problem, and could help some districts. Mr. Bache was concerned the original version would usurp some of the State Engineer's authority and wanted clarification. Mr. Turnipseed explained the district decides how water is delivered within a district. Each district is different; some under federal projects, some under state projects, and some do not have storage. He discussed different problems and aspects of water within the state. He would be happy to help any district if petitioned to do so. Mr. Neighbors was concerned about it being a mandate and that it might detour any free water going into Walker Lake. He asked Mr. Turnipseed to explain about the "40 acre." Mr. Turnipseed stated he was not very familiar with it but thought under Chapter 39 storage water can not be allocated to parcels smaller than 40 acres. He gave the example of allocating water to new residents moving onto 5-10 acre parcels. He explained he is not familiar how the bill will change NRS 539. Mr. Neighbors asked if this would divert water. Mr. Turnipseed repled he did not think so; the rights are under existing water rights and Walker Lake has its own water right. He explained the Walker Lake right in response to questions from Mr. Neighbors. Mrs. de Braga asked if the bill would create any new water rights for the Walker River District. Mr. Turnipseed answered no. Chairman Carpenter clarified Mr. Neighbors had no problem with the bill and it would not cause a problem with the State Engineer's budget. He entertained a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 103. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN FETTIC, HUMKE, AND SANDOVAL WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. There being no further business before the committee Chairman Carpenter closed the meeting at 3:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ___________________________ Pat Menath, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining June 7, 1995 Page