MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session June 12, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, June 12, 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. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Clemmer, Natural Heritage Program; Verne Rosse, Division of Environmental Protection; Joe Johnson, Toiyabe Sierra Club; Ray Bacon Nevada Manufacturers Association; Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities. Chairman de Braga called the meeting to order and roll call was taken. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION: 40 - Urges Congress, United States Environmental Protection Agency and Division of Environmental Protection of Nevada to resolve problems of small landfills with environmental regulations. Mr. John C. Carpenter testified on A.J.R. 40 and said the bill he had introduced originally after much thought would be changed to a resolution. The resolution asked the Department of Environmental Protection to consider the arid conditions of Nevada and develop regulations for the very small landfills. He felt the resolution was self explanatory. The federal EPA had agreed to wait two years before they enforced the rules on landfills. Mr. Carpenter would like to have the NDEP come up with regulations for the small landfills without putting anything into statute. There was an executive order dated September 30, 1993 and then another memorandum dated March 4, 1994 from the President of the United States. The memorandum stated there should be less paper work and there should be determination if states could do the regulatory job. Hopefully the provisions in the resolution would help NDEP when they dealt with the federal EPA. Mr. Verne Rosse, Division of Environmental Protection, testified in support of A.J.R. 40. The resolution would be timely since Congress and USEPA were considering action which would provide relief to rural counties facing the new landfill regulations. On May 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate passed a bill S. 534, which included provisions which restored the exemption for ground water monitoring for small arid landfills and provided states with greater flexibility to set standards appropriate for small landfills. In addition the USEPA was expected to propose an extension to the October 9, 1995, effective date of new regulations for small arid landfills. This extension would provide more time to comply with the landfill standards. The proposal had not yet been published in the Federal Register, but he expected it to be published very soon. Finally the division would focus efforts on providing needed technical assistance to rural counties as the resolution directed. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Rosse how long the extension might be. Mr. Rosse said the information he had was between 18 months and two years. The date everyone was looking at was April 9, 1997. Mr. Joe Johnson, Sierra Club, would like to go on record in support of the resolution. He felt it was a very appropriate action. Mr. Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association, supported the resolution. They have seen the closure and reduction in small county landfills a major problem and traded for clean air than any of the landfills were causing. The resolution would be a major step in the right direction. Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities, supported A.J.R. 40 and urged passage. Mrs. de Braga closed the hearing on A.J.R. 40. SENATE BILL 523: Establishes by statute Nevada natural heritage program. Mr. Glenn Clemmer, Program Manager, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, said S.B. 523 was a bill authored to enable the program to serve in the Department of Conservation. Historically they had been working in the state since 1986 and received money from Question 5 bond issue since 1992. They have been a program by budget but not statute. The program had requested funding from general funds for fiscal year 1996-97 and passed. S.B. 523 would establish the program in the Department of Conservation. Mrs. de Braga asked for background on the program. The Natural Heritage Program was essentially a data base. They have a data base which covered all sensitive species in the state of Nevada: endangered, threatened and a long list of candidate species; The federal list was about 300 plus species. Their job would be to maintain information on the distribution, population status and other biological information on the sensitive species. The idea would be for developers to query the data base, a ranking system,to try and establish what was most sensitive in the species, and biological information changes every year. They have a five person office to keep up with all the plants and animals which were considered sensitive in Nevada. Mrs. Segerblom asked if they did anything to conserve structures. He said no, only biological types for the data base. The hearing was closed on S.B. 523. Mr. Dave Ziegler reported on the work session items for consideration (Exhibit C). ASSEMBLY BILL 496: Makes various changes regarding fees of State Land Registrar for use of State land. Mr. Ziegler said A.B. 496 addressed the same subject matter as A.B. 548 and both had to do with state lands at Lake Tahoe and on the river down south. A.B. 496 was not indefinitely postponed as the committee wanted to make sure it would not be the vehicle to carry the measure forward. Mr. Carpenter spoke to Mr. Hettrick and he agreed with indefinitely postponing A.B. 496 and carrying A.B. 548 forward. Mrs. de Braga asked what the status was of Ms. Wilcox's proposed resolution. Mr. Ziegler said he had heard from the bill drafters, and it was being worked on. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 496. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY OF THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND CARPENTER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) ASSEMBLY BILL 549: Requires certain documents containing results of assay to include warning concerning use of results. Mr. Ziegler said the bill was the one referred to as assays. The bill was recommended by Mr. Hettrick and he referred to the problem of people using bogus assays and scam operations to entice people to buy property. The basic idea of the bill was to put a warning label on commercial assays urging people to get their own assays and consider all information they have available to them. There was a subcommittee on the bill and a number of amendments proposed by the Division of Minerals on page 3 and 4 of (Exhibit C). The amendments were fairly technical in nature, basically designed to clean up the language. The subcommittee since two out of the four members were absent did not make a recommendation but moved to bring the bill back to the full committee. Mrs. de Braga questioned if the problem was not with the bill, but just not enough members to make a decision, and Mr. Ziegler agreed. Mr. Neighbors commented there were some amendments which might be considered. Mr. Ziegler said the main issue was in terms of the penalty. Some of the testimony from the labs, who were not in accord with the bill, found the penalties rather harsh. The first offense was no less than a $200 fine and the second offense was a felony and up to $10,000. Mr. Hettrick suggested the first offense could be up to $200. Mr. Neighbors felt the second offense should not be a felony. It should be a gross misdemeanor. Mr. Neighbors advised that Mr. Carpenter agreed with it also. Mr. Hettrick had no problem with adjusting the penalties. Mr. Sandoval brought up what the assayers testified to. When they distribute the assay to those who requested it, this would be extremely burdensome on their ability to conduct business. He wondered if there was a way to balance their concerns. Mr. Neighbors said at the subcommittee meeting they had only one person who testified against the bill. They had made it clear the committee was not challenging their work one way or another. The need was for them to stamp or acknowledge in a way to inform people requesting assays of the considerations. Mrs. de Braga said the only major objection was with the penalties, provided the amendments were adopted. The last amendment was a concern and Mr. Ziegler explained the wording had to do with commercial assay companies and not the in house type of operations such as a mine. Mrs. Segerblom said she did not want to see the lab held responsible. If mineral was assayed by a lab, stamped and then passed off as gathered from another site, the lab could not guarantee where the mineral came from. Mr. Neighbors said all the lab would be doing would be an assay based on the sample received, write up the results, and stamp the written results with the warning. Mr. Sandoval said his interpretation was a consumer protection type bill. He did not know if the bill was aimed at the right parties. The assayers were not the ones defrauding people, rather it would be the people using the assays. He felt this might be regulating the wrong people. Mr. Bennett said the bill as written actually protects the assayers based on the sample received. It protects the assayer and the potential investor in a mine. It would be a flag to a potential investor. Mrs. Ohrenschall said she agreed with Mr. Bennett, it would make the consumer on notice to check all sources before he makes any kind of investment. The assay lab would also be protected by having a label as a warning for the consumer. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 549. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND CARPENTER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) (ASSEMBLYMEN SANDOVAL AND SEGERBLOM VOTED NO.) ASSEMBLY BILL 652: Authorizes issuance of elk tags as compensation for damage to property caused by elk. Chairman de Braga mentioned A.B. 652 and Mr. Ziegler informed her Mr. Carpenter might want to suggest some amendments. The amendments were in the work session packet but Mr. Ziegler would not wish to speak to them without Mr. Carpenter in attendance. SENATE BILL 409: Revises provisions governing qualifications of Administrator of Division of Agriculture of Department of Business and Industry. Mr. Ziegler stated the bill would revise the qualifications of the Administrator of the Division of Agriculture. Last week Dr. Armstrong testified the division wanted more flexibility in their recruiting in order to have a larger field of qualified individuals to apply for the job of Aadministrator. In the work session document (Exhibit C), an exhibit on material from the Division of Agriculture and a letter from Dr. Armstrong gave more information regarding the bill, information on the audit, and information on the selection process. Mr. Neighbors said he initially had concern and felt a background in agriculture was needed. He had calls from people who had been involved with the division for many years and said the bill was good and the division needed a good tough Administrator, and all those conditions would be taken into consideration when they did the hiring. Mr. Neighbors said he would support the bill. Mr. Bennett believed after reviewing the process, he felt quite comfortable with the bill. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 409. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND CARPENTER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) Mr. Neighbors was appointed to speak to the bill on the floor. SENATE BILL 523: Establishes by statute Nevada natural heritage program. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 523. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND CARPENTER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) Mrs. Ohrenschall will do the bill summary on the floor for A.B. 523. ******** ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO SUSPEND RULE 92. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED BY TWO-THIRDS. (ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND CARPENTER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED: __________________________ Pat Menath, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining June 12, 1995 Page