MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session June 14, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, June 14, 1995, Chairman John C. Carpenter presiding in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John C. Carpenter, Chairman Mr. Max Bennett, Vice Chairman Mrs. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman Mr. Douglas A. Bache Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mr. David E. Humke Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: William Cats, Clark County; Bill Durbin, Nevada Division of Minerals; Grace Bukowski, RAMA; Willie Molini, NDOW; Allen Biaggi, NDEP; Richard Peters, ADVANSTAFF; Phil Richards, ADVANSTAFF; Dick Rowe, NV Division of Agriculture; Elsie Dupree, NV Wildlife Federation; Butch Peri, Peri & Sons Farms Inc.; Grace Bukowski; Barbara Curti, NV Farm Bureau. Mr. Carpenter opened the meeting and notified members, they would begin as a subcommittee until other members were in attendance. The roll was taken and Mrs. de Braga was excused. ASSEMBLY BILL 716: Authorizes board of wildlife commissioners to accept sealed bids for or to auction certain number of wild turkey tags each year. Mr. Carpenter said they had a communication from Guy Brown (Exhibit C), Las Vegas in support of A.B. 716. Mr. Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, explained A.B. 716 came from Mr. Brown and a group affiliated with the Wild Turkey Federation in Las Vegas. The division was supportive of the bill to authorize the commission to auction up to five turkey tags. Initially five tags were a larger number than the division would have advised. He felt the language would be better if it said "not more than five wild turkey tags." Mr. Molini passed out a brochure on the management of Wild Turkeys in Nevada (Exhibit D). Mr. Humke asked Mr. Molini what a successful bidder would pay for one of the tags. Mr. Molini said he did not know but, private land hunts for nonresidents would cost $50 for a tag plus $100 for a license and a $5 application fee. He said, a turkey tag might auction for $1,000 to $2,000. Mr. Humke asked if Mr. Molini had entered into any preliminary negotiations if the bill passed. The negotiations, Mr. Humke perceived, would include the amount the department would receive and the private organization could keep the balance. Mr. Molini said no, in the bill line 25, the entire amount of the bid would go to the wildlife account. The Chairman reported there was a quorum and the meeting would continue as scheduled. Mr. Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation, agreed with A.B. 716; there should be wild turkey tags auctioned to help support the Division of Wildlife. The hearing was closed on A.B. 716. ASSEMBLY BILL 717: Provides criteria for cleaning up discharged petroleum. Mr. Carpenter discussed the meeting the committee had on underground storage tanks and reported on a bill, in the Senate, to provide for an increase in the gasoline tax. If A.B. 717 were to pass it might prevent an increase in the gas tax. Mr. Allen Biaggi, Chief, Bureau of Corrective Actions, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, spoke in opposition to A.B. 717. Hearings were conducted concerning risk based corrective action. In response to the hearing and meetings and at the direction of the committee and the subcommittee, the division had solicited input of the regulated community and industry with regard to four major issues. These included a risk based corrective action, air quality permitting for land farming of contaminated materials, site closure letters and consultant and operator and owner certification education. Revised regulations had been drafted to address some of the issues and were prepared to proceed with the adoptions before the commission this summer. The remainder of these issues were being addressed through policy provisions within the NDEP. There had been significant input from the owners and operators and from the industry on the issues and the input had gone a long way to address the issues. The elements outlined in Section 1, subsection 3, have been in regulation since 1990 and were considered in the first committee meeting where the issues were discussed. The documentation of cases considered by items A through K and where the division had provided alternate corrective action standards for those particular site cases were discussed. The division was opposed to mandated evaluation of remediation criteria as outlined in Section 2, subsection 3. It was the division's opinion by mandating this exercise the petroleum fund would actually see an increase in overall project cost. It was the division's position it would be crucial to preserve the ability of the department to conduct flexible regulatory oversight and to allow the department as much discretion as possible in order to maintain project cost control and to introduce the impacts to the regulated community. The division had come up with some alternative language to A.B. 717 which would preserve some of the issues the committee would like to address in the bill, yet allow the division to preserve their flexiablity (Exhibit E). Mr. Biaggi went over the comments and changes to A.B. 717 with the committee. Mrs. Segerblom asked Mr. Biaggi if, with the amendments suggested, the bill be accepted by the division. Mr. Biaggi said the division had suggested the amendments which addressed the concerns of the committee and the concerns of the division. Mr. Sandoval asked for a copy of the proposed regulations. Mr. Biaggi said he would provide a copy to Mr. Ziegler. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Biaggi, with the passage of A.B. 717 and the amendments suggested, could the division live within the financial ability of the petroleum fund as it now existed. Mr. Biaggi said no, he felt augmentation to the fund would be needed even with the modifications to A.B. 717. Mr. Carpenter asked if Mr. Biaggi knew what the Senate was recommending in regard to the fund. He said he thought it would be a 2/10th of a cent increase to the petroleum fee, for a total of 8/10th of a cent. The copayment was for the owner and operators to have an incentive to oversee costs and to control costs. There would be a cap of a $40,000 deductible which would be increased from the $10,000 deductible. A doubling of the per tank fee for getting into the fund from $50 to $100. It was the division's estimation, given those changes, the fund would once again be self-sufficient by 1998-1999. Mr. Carpenter said raising the deductible from $10,000 to $40,000 would make it difficult on small operators. Mr. Biaggi agreed, when the legislation was originally passed the deductible was $25,000, it went down to $10,000 in 1991-1993, and back up to $40,000 to make it self- sufficient. The increase was a trade-off, in the committee hearings, between a substantial increase in the gas fee or share the burden between the gas fee and the owners and operators. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Biaggi what would happen if the gas fee was not increased. He said the owner and operator expenses would not be reimbursed for longer and longer periods of time from the funds because the fund required pro-rata payment. Now the fund takes from three to six months to pay off the operator and by 1998 the pay off would be significantly longer; it could be from one year to a year and a half. Mr. Carpenter asked if the incendents were decreasing or increasing. Mr. Biaggi said they had projected them to stay level until the year 1998-1999 where they would see a decreasing trend in the number of case loads. The division would like to see the program sunset sometime after the year 2000. Mr. Bennett said the proposed amendment of Mr. Biaggi's said to "establish requirements by regulation," which Mr. Bennett concurred with to a point. He asked if Mr. Biaggi was going to have a wide input from the industry regarding the regulations. Mr. Biaggi said there were a number of interested parties in their regulatory activities and the underground storage tank arena. The owners and operators, the environmental consultants, the major oil companies and the major retailers, etc. were on a mailing list for input on regulations and public comments. Mr. Carpenter asked if a regulation to allow for the aeration of materials had been changed. Mr. Biaggi said the air quality division of the department had been evaluating the aeration of materials and had a meeting on June 1 with the consultant engineering council whic has had significant concerns regarding the issue. It was a very productive meeting and many issues were worked out. Mr. Carpenter closed the hearing on A.B. 717. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 717. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Molini for his suggestion on A.B. 716, the wild turkey bill. Mr. Ziegler said Mr. Molini wanted to alert the committee there would be a conformity amendment to conform it to a senate bill, regarding a heritage bill. It would be alright to take action with the understanding there would be a conformity amendment which would probably come through from the bill drafters. Mr. Carpenter said the Co-Chairman, Mrs. de Braga, was very interested in the bill and action could be taken. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 716. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) Mrs. de Braga would present the floor statement on A.B. 716. ASSEMBLY BILL 720: Creates garlic and onion growers' advisory board. Chairman Carpenter advised the committee the bill was requested specifically by Speaker Dini. Mr. Dick Rowe, Regional Manager, Division of Agriculture, supported A.B. 720. He noted the bill was an industry request and was similar to the Alfalfa Seed Advisory Committee. The bill would allow growers to generate money within their own industry to help them solve problems of their industry, such as disease, promotion, marketing, etc. The Alfalfa bill had been in existence for approximately ten years and had been very successful, said Mr. Rowe. Mr. Bennett said he had a problem with the membership of the board and asked if this was a state board. Mr. Rowe said yes, it would be a quasi-state board when formed. Mrs. Barbara Curti, President Nevada Farm Bureau, supported this type of legislation. She said, anytime any of the industry wants to assess themselves to do a better job of what they do was important. The bill allowed onion and garlic growers who do not want to participate to get their money back. Mr. Butch Peri, Peri and Sons Farms, noted support of A.B. 720 by all the onion and garlic growers in the state of Nevada. He noted there were various diseases in garlic and onions and it was a way for the group to raise money to provide information and other things to the growers. The bill was modeled after the Alfalfa Seed Commission and they felt it had worked quite well, and they would use the commission for research, promotion, etc. It would be funded by the growers for them and would help the industry. Mr. Bennett asked if the garlic was looking as bad as the alfalfa in Mason Valley. Mr. Peri said there had been some diseases brought in from out-of-state, and by being an organization there would be chemical companies approaching the commission and giving information of the products. The hearing was closed on A.B. 720. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 720. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 25: Urges Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Interior to make certain portion of Tolicha Mining District available for use by public. Mr. Bill Durbin, Resource Geologist for the Nevada Division of Minerals, Department of Business and Industry, testified on S.J.R. 25 in support of the bill, (Exhibit F) and (Exhibit G). Ms. Grace Bukowski, Royal Alliance for Military Accountability (RAMA), a national coalition of people working on issues pertaining to multiple use activities on military lands, supported S.J.R. 25. She stated this was a mitigation measure the state identified in 1991 for the current withdrawal from 4 million acres of land by the military in Nevada. Ms. Bukowski said RAMA supported the state's position; lands unnecessary for military mission should be open for multiple use activities. It would be an appropriate mitigation for the lands currently being requested for withdrawal such as the 189 thousand acres at Fallon Naval Air Station. This area would provide a positive economic benefit for the state. She would like to conclude by saying the Tolicha Mining District would be 7,000 acres out of a total of 3 million acres under the Air Force control and it would not place an unfair burden on the Air Force. Mr. Bennett asked if the 7,000 acres had been swept for old unexpended ordinances. Ms. Bukowski said, to the best of her knowledge the land had not been contaminated in any way. She had gone to the Environmental Protection Agency and asked about contamination. Mr. Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36, supported S.J.R. 25. He said when driving to Carson from Las Vegas at Scotty's Junction one could look due east eight or nine miles which would be Tolicha Peak and it would be about 18 miles due north of Beatty. The buffer zone had kept everyone out of this very mineralized area which has great potential. Mr. Neighbors would like to see the area opened up which could bring money into the county and state. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 25. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Neighbors to give the floor statement. SENATE BILL 247: Authorizes local air pollution control agency in certain counties to establish program to reduce and control air pollution. Mr. Carpenter said it had come to his attention there might be some problems with the bill and would be taking testimony on S.B. 247. Mr. John Pappageorge, representing Silver State Disposal, stated he became aware of the bill last night. He was concerned many of the areas of the bill have gone to far with some of the power given to the local health districts. He would like the committee to hold the bill for a short time so Silver State Disposal could be more specific in their objections to the bill. Mr. Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association, talked of the amendments from the Clark County Health Department. Mr. Ziegler said the amendments were in the work session document on page 4 (Exhibit H), which was a mark up consistent with the amendments which came from the district. Mr. Bacon said the amendments solved most of the problems and most of the concerns from the manufacturing community because they split the PM10 issue from the co, noxin and voc issue. The only other additional comment he received within the last 24- 48 hours was if one looked at the bill on page 1, line 11; the two to one ratio should be dropped to a one to one and a half ratio. The two ratio was fairly high on the credit issue. This bill has raised some issues and there have been some serious questions on the whole bill. Mr. William Cates, Clark County Health District, Principal Planner, who along with other people has responsibility for Air Quality Planning. Clark County Department of Competency Planning recommended approval of S.B. 247 with one amendment. The recommended amendment had been outlined in the handout (Exhibit I). Las Vegas valley for a number of years experienced a tremendous amount of growth and had been anticipating the growth to continue for the next few years. There has been a need for flexibility to accommodate the growth and at the same time reduce air pollution and protect the public health. Mr. Bennett said Mr. Cates had testified this was simply enabling legislation. This would be limited to enable one county over 400,000 to do so. He asked what was the difference between enabling and mandatory. Mr. Cates said as the health district letter indicated, they had an offset for ten years. The enabling legislation has a key word "may"; Clark County "may," or a county over 400,000 "may." Ms. Irene Porter, Executive Director, Nevada Home Owners Association, said the issue had started a couple of years ago. The Clark County Health Department wished to pass an offset mitigation fee applying to the construction industry. The construction industry challenged and filed a lawsuit against the mitigation fee for not having statutory authority to impose such a fee. There was a settlement of the lawsuit rather than go to court. Part of the settlement was not to oppose the legislation relating to the lawsuit set forth involving the construction activity. Ms. Porter said irrespective if the bill passes or not, the construction industry had accomplished an extensive amount of work on dust containment on construction projects. They were doing as much or more than most states and have checked with many states in the last two days to see if they were doing offset mitigation fees for dust in addition to the dust suppression on the construction projects. They had not been able to find many other states who went as far as Nevada has in the air pollution field in southern Nevada. Unfortunately there have been so many amendments, so many other users in the bill now and so many varied questions being asked. Even though the bill says "may," she could attest to the fact Clark County Health District already has attempted to institute an offset mitigation fee without statutory authority. She did not think there was any doubt they would go forth with the appropriate ordinances. She felt they were in a state of confusion with all the people who were involved in the bill. It was her feeling everyone involved should step back and take a look at where the bill was going. Ms. Porter said they were not opposing the legislation, but also not supporting the legislation. Mr. Fettic said he had read the bill several times and felt it was very cumbersome and did not understand what it would do and how it would help. Mr. Roy Soffe, Clark County Health District, Air Pollution Control, was standing in for Mr. Naylor who was on vacation. He stated Clark County's support of the bill, the necessity for the bill and hope to resolve the issue. He was surprised at the opposition to the bill. He had talked to many people in Clark County who were in support of the bill. Mr. Soffe said they could not escape the fact Las Vegas was a serious nonattainment area for PM10 and, in fact, in the top five of the United States for serious PM10 nonattainment and the only district outside California which was in nonattainment for PM10. The construction activity accounts for 30 percent of the man-made emissions in the valley. Las Vegas was the fastest growing community in the United States and if the health district had any chance of controlling the PM10, they need the bill to be passed. There were local industries who supported the bill, even though they would be taxed. The genesis of the bill was to allow growth within the valley. Mr. Bennett said it was clear from last Wednesday's meeting there was a great deal of opposition to the bill. He asked if nonattainment was the issue, where was the data or graph behind the statement. No data has been presented to the committee to substantiate the nonattainment issue. Mr. Curtis Taipale, Rules Developer, Clark County Health District, Air Pollution Control Division, stated EPA had reclassified the Las Vegas valley as a serious nonattainment area in January of 1992. This was a federal designation, the fifth worst area in the country, and as a result of the designation it was mandated by federal law to offset new PM10 emission at a ration of two to one. The bill would clarify the authority to levy the offset. If we are unable to do the offsetting the EPA would come back and say they need the legislative authority or they would step in and do the program for Clark County Health District. Industry has a choice, they could either allow the Health District to manage the program at the local level or the EPA could step in and manage it for them. Mr. Bennett again asked where the data was to enforce what they were saying. He said many of the legislators on the committee did not like to have the federal mandate waved in their face. Mrs. Segerblom said if southern Nevada was thinking about tourism beside their health, she could not believe everyone would not want to do what was necessary to clean up the valley. Mr. Bennett pointed out to his colleague there was a difference between divine intervention wind and a maintainer. Mr. Taipale said they could provide monitoring data in the Las Vegas valley which demonstrated the number of accedences which occured on an annual basis of the 24 hour PM10 standard. Evidence could also be provided from one station which was out of compliance for the annual standard for the national air quality standard for PM10. This data was available and monitored throughout the valley. There had been a problem and the question was how do we deal with the problem asked Mr. Taipale. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 247. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Segerblom said she would have to vote against the motion, she was very much in favor of the bill. Mr. Bache supported the concept of the bill, but he had a problem with what the Clark County Health District had done throughout the process. First they went to the Senate, had the hearing, amended the bill; they negotiated a deal on the Senate side. They come to the Assembly side, submit another amendment and now, at this meeting, some more amendments. It had become a big game with them and he did not like the way the Clark County Health Department was doing their business. Once they have made a deal with someone it should stay the same way. The problems were not technical, they were new items being brought up. Mr. Bache's district would benefit from part of the program. He would like to see some of the dirt roads in his district paved, but he would not be involved in this kind of game with legislation. Mr. Bennett whole heartedly supported the motion. First the committee was presented with an onerous bill. During testimony Wednesday he asked Mr. Naylor, if industry was required to do dust abatement and purchase the credits as described in the bill. His answer was yes! This would be double jeopardy. The air quality health board would be making the rules and regulations and were not elected to be members of the air board, and not accountable to the public for their actions. The fee or taxes, to be assessed at will, did not fall in the realm of good government. The amendments came back more onerous than the original bill submitted. Mr. Bennett said he could not support the bill in any way, shape or form. Chairman Carpenter called for a vote on the motion. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) Mr. Carpenter said it was his observation on S.B. 247, the committee needed complete testimony of what was going on. The bill came from the Senate and the committee did not know how people felt. These issues need to be worked out on the local level when two opposing viewpoints were heard. Another hearing would be posted to finish up bills. The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ___________________________ Pat Menath, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining June 14, 1995 Page