MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session June 19, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 2:10 p.m., on Monday, June 19, 1995, Chairman 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 COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. David E. Humke STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst Pat Menath, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Pamela Wilcox, Division of State Lands Thom Reilly, Department of Human Resources John McLain, citizen Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association Stephanie Licht, Nevada Wool Growers Association Joe Johnson, Coalition for Nevada Wildlife Scot Campbell, Sierra Pacific Power Company Lou Dodgion, Division of Environmental Protection Willie Molini, Division of Wildlife Pete Krueger, citizen Joe Johns, Toiyabe Sierra Club Chairman de Braga announced the meeting would be convened as a subcommittee pending arrival of members. She opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution 23. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 23 - Urges Congress to adopt proposals that are equitable to all states for regulating air quality within area surrounding Grand Canyon. Mr. Lou Dodgion, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, explained the resolution is similar to one adopted by the Natural Resources Advisory Board for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. He presented a 13 minute informational video explaining the Grand Canyon Visibility and Transport Commission (Exhibit C.) Chairman de Braga noted a quorum was now present so convened the meeting of the Committee and opened a full hearing on S.J.R. 23. Mr. Dodgion called attention to the "Generalized Regional Map of Clean Air/Dirty Air" (Exhibit D) and pointed out in the video the arrow noting clean air encompassed the entire state of Nevada. He explained the Clean Air Act mandated the Commission to look into a clean-air-corridor concept. If the concept is chosen as a strategy to address visibility in the "golden circle of parks", the area declared to be within the clean-air-corridor concept must be managed as if it were a nonattainment area. This means it is the cleanest air in the United States but must be managed as if is were the dirtiest air. New businesses would need to put into place extra ordinary emission controls; there would need to be emission offsets with existing industry; and there would be a potential of retrofits of emission control technology on existing industry. This would create a severe economic impact on Nevada and other states which might be within the clean-air-corridor concept. The report from the Commission is now scheduled to be given to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April 1996. The EPA director is obliged to consider the report when putting regulations into place but not mandated to adhere to the recommendations. The resolution is an attempt to call the potential economic problems to the attention of persons who may be able to influence the outcome, strive for an equitable solution, and require EPA to enforce the 1990 Act before going further into other concepts and unduly penalizing specific segments of the country. Mrs. Segerblom asked if Nevada's Governor sits on the Board or has an appointee. Mr. Dodgion answered Pete Morros, Director, Department of Conservation, represents the Governor on the Commission. Mr. Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association, stated they strongly support the resolution. Their understanding of the documents from the Commission could cutoff economic development in the state and impose California clean air standards on Nevada. He noted many businesses are moving from California to Nevada because of this over regulation. Mr. Larry Hawke, Nevada Mining Association, stated they support the resolution. Chairman de Braga was ready to take a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 23. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on Assembly Concurrent Resolution 46. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 46 - Urges Division of Wildlife of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to prepare statewide elk management plan. Mr. Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, testified they support the resolution. There is a need for elk management planning and they are pleased with its format as a resolution. He distributed the memorandum, "Conceptual Amendments to A.C.R. 46 -- Elk Management Plan", (Exhibit E) and stated they would favor combining the concept of elk damage tags into the resolution and to give them the next 1« to 2 years to work out a system of damage compensation tags to include elk. Mrs. Segerblom noted she was not enthusiastic about giving out tags and wanted to know it would not be done until it was researched. Mr. Molini responded, in the terms of land owner compensation tags, no. While the elk planning effort is done they would hold public hearings. He could not guarantee they would have the program if the public did not want it. Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, stated their support of the resolution and urged passage in order to plan the future of elk in Nevada. Ms. Stephanie Licht, representing Elko County Board of Commissioners, stated their support of the resolution towards better management of the resources in the state. Mr. Joe Johnson, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, noted their support of the measure. Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.C.R. 46 and entertained a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOTION TO AMEND AND ADOPT ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 46 WITH AMENDMENTS ON PAGE TWO OF THE MEMORANDUM. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Carpenter asked about deleting the words, "other wildlife" from Page 1, Line 9, adding the study would make sure there was no conflict with other wildlife. He commented this has been a major topic in other public hearings in the area. He would like the words to remain. Mr. Bache interjected, "I have no problem with that." ASSEMBLYMAM BACHE AMENDED HIS MOTION TO LEAVE IN THE WORDS "OTHER WILDLIFE" ON PAGE 1, LINE 9. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution 41. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 41 - Urges Congress and Secretary of Agriculture to support Conservation Biology of Rangelands Research Unit. Mr. John McClain, Principal Resource Specialist, Resource Concepts, Inc., a consulting firm in Carson City, stated he has served on an advisory committee to the Conservation Biology of Rangelands, ARS Unit, in Reno. He described the Unit as adjunct to the University of Nevada at Reno whose researchers deal with "our" natural resources and is recognized as the premiere research facility in the western great plains area. Their focus is on mine land reclamation, reseeding of rangelands following wildfires, and wildlife habitat restoration. He continued to describe the areas of work of the unit. He explained the President's [U.S.] budget for 1996 proposes closure of the unit effective September 30. There is movement requesting the unit be retained as it is the sole unit in the Western Great Basin doing the work. He added California has five units, Idaho and Oregon each have one unit; they are not losing any, versus Nevada losing their only one. There is concern throughout the conservation community: Nature Conservancy, various universities in surrounding states, and others as set forth on the list and copies of letters submitted (Exhibit F.) He announced information had come from Congresswoman Vucanovich indicating this unit has been "marked up" in the House so it "stands an opportunity"; however, the support of the U.S. Senate is needed and this resolution would help. Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, testified in strong support of the resolution. They have been involved in convincing their national representatives this research unit is needed for Nevada. The emphasis of increased regulations of federal land management agencies denotes the need for more of this type of research. He commented better resources takes good, sound science and the "on the ground" research that this unit conducts. He gave as an example the problem with "white top" in Nevada and concluded the unit is critical as a research facility. Mr. Bennett asked what is the adverse effect of `white top.' Mr. Busselman responded the biggest problem is its continued expansion and wiping out everything else; they have found no way to kill it. Mr. Bennett inquired if sheep would eat it. Mr. Busselman replied he did not think so. It invades riparian areas and takes over the habitat. Ms. Stephanie Licht, Nevada Woolgrowers Association, testified they are in support of the resolution. They have found very few stations in the United States that can provide the research this unit can on the Great Basin area. The unit has provided information which has held the "feds at bay" in several cases and provided basic research needed to stave off the attacks of the rangeland being degraded. Chairman de Braga asked for a motion and noted there is a typographical error in the bill to be corrected. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 41. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Carpenter noted his support for the resolution. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution 42. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 42 - Urges United States Forest Service to stop charging certain fees based in part on activities occurring solely on state lands. Ms. Pamela Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, reviewed the issue arose when the fees charged by her office for submerged lands was debated. There are two forest service concessionaires at Lake Tahoe paying rent to the Forest Service for their operations on Forest Service upland and also on the submerged lands, which belong to the state. She noted her appreciation for the drafting of the resolution and urged the Committee's support. Mrs. Segerblom asked if she had said they receive money back from the Forest Service. Ms. Wilcox answered 25% of the fees (all kinds) paid to the Forest Service come back to the state and are dispersed to the counties. Mrs. Segerblom commented it did not seem bad. Ms. Wilcox replied the formula is for fees charged for activities on federal land and they are not supposed to charge fees for operations on state land, which they are doing. The resolution is to ask them to stop. Mrs. Segerblom commented a vote had been taken recently to cut out fees. She asked if the state was also charging fees on this land. Ms. Wilcox replied the amendments to Assembly Bill 548 included a provision for parties, who are paying these fees, not to pay fees to the state if the fees they are paying to the Forest Service exceed the amount the state would charge. If the resolution is successful and the Forest Service stops charging the fees to use state lands the permittee would pay the same fees as everyone else for use of the state lands. Mr. Bennett understood the Forest Service charges a flat percentage of the gross proceeds of a company when it is on both federal and state lands and this is where the inequity is caused. Ms. Wilcox confirmed his understanding. She was not sure of the flat percentage; she understood they do it differently in different cases. She gave some examples. Chairman de Braga called for a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL MOVED TO DO PASS ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 42. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on Senate Bill 261. SENATE BILL 261 - Authorizes lease of state land and grant of easement by state land registrant for reduced charge. Ms. Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, testified state law requires all leases of state land to be for fair market value. This has caused problems with state facilities being under utilized and nonprofit or educational groups wanting to use the facilities being unable to afford them. During the interim they worked with many interested groups to draft the legislation to set up a mechanism to allow "us to do that" and to make judgment calls whether a group can use a facility for less than fair market value. Ms. Wilcox stated the bill puts into place something that has been discussed for a number of years. Mr. Bennett commented on the difference between the original bill and the reprint. The original called for a cap of not less than 25% of the value and the reprint has a 3-person decision. He asked how this evolved and how did the director of human resources get involved. Ms. Wilcox replied the bill has been evolving since last session. Senator Adler requested a bill be drafted in order to start the discussion; no one specifically requested the 25%. She explained other fee structures were considered also. The discussions resulted in the current wording of the bill. As an example, Ms. Wilcox described it would be better to allow a nonprofit organization, providing a beneficial service to the community, to use the space for less than the fair market value than the state paying for vacant space. Mr. Thom Reilly, Acting Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources, echoed testimony regarding the need for the bill. He noted space has been leased at the institute in Reno to two programs--the Salvation Army and the Nevada Area Substance Abuse Council (NASAC). The institute property cost per square foot is $.73, which no one would pay; however, the two nonprofit agencies are leasing the area at a lesser cost and are of great benefit to the state. If they were charged the fair market value they could not operate. They provide services to clientele which would otherwise fall to the state. He added they want the flexibility and if the opportunity is offered to demonstrate it will benefit the state. Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on S.B. 61 and entertain a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 61. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman de Braga announced the request for a committee introduction of BDR 26- 1392 relating to public lands providing civil remedy and a criminal penalty for certain acts and providing other matters properly relating thereto. She stated the bill would provide any federal, state, or local officer, agent, or employee performing an act outside the scope of his specific authority would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Chairman de Braga added a legal opinion had been received the bill is unconstitutional as well as being lengthy and involved. She noted it is late into the session. She asked if anyone wished to make a motion to introduce the bill. There was no response and Chairman de Braga postponed it to another day. Chairman de Braga opened the work session on Assembly Bill 591. ASSEMBLY BILL 591 - Provides in skeleton form for voluntary disclosure of certain hazards. Mr. David Ziegler, Research Analyst, LCB, explained the bill was heard on May 17, 1995, and was presented by Mr. Ray Bacon, from the Nevada Manufacturers Association. It was heard by a subcommittee on May 26, 1995 and then given to Ms. Ohrenschall and him to work with Mr. Bacon and others. The bill was redrafted. He identified two amendments: #738, which resulted from the work with Mr. Bacon (Exhibit G), and #1053, resulting from a requested from Co-Chairman Carpenter for him to work with the Division of Environmental Protection (Exhibit H.) Mr. Bennett asked if amendment #798 was "going away" or is amendment #1053 an addition. Mr. Ziegler responded #1053 was drafted to replace #738. He added no action has been taken by the Committee on either one. Mr. Carpenter commented the bill was introduced to get Nevada "up to speed" with other states regarding environmental audit. He stated it seems there is still a great difference of opinion and he did not know whether anything will be accomplished in the area. He continued the Committee needs to discuss the possibility of both of the amendments though there may not be a consensus of opinion among all parties; labor is on one side, industry is on the other, and Environmental Protection may be in the middle. Mr. Ziegler explained he had the opportunity to review a number of environmental subaudit statutes in other states, model legislation from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guides. The bills [amendments] are similar; involving two broad topics--privilege and immunity. The person who conducts an environmental self-audit (a voluntary audit of water and air pollution, hazardous waste, and underground tanks at a regulated facility) gains a certain level and type of privilege and a certain type of immunity. The privilege is the audit is confidential unless a judge finds otherwise and the immunity varies from state to state but always involves administrative immunity and sometimes civil and criminal immunity. He explained the difference between the two versions (#738 and #1053) is in the area of privilege. Amendment 738 requires permission from a judge to overcome the privilege, but Amendment 1053 does not address the area of privilege but notes a rebuttable presumption of immunity if a person voluntarily discloses an environmental problem. Chairman de Braga noted Amendment 738 removes the district boards of health and county boards of health. Mr. Ziegler explained the two versions were drafted at different times and matters came to his attention in discussions with Mr. Lou Dodgion, Environmental Protection. They could also apply to Amendment 738 if the Committee wanted that version. In Washoe and Clark counties the District Board of Health are regulatory agencies under NRS for air pollution control statutes and therefore have direct authority. Mr. Fettic, referring to Amendment 1053, Page 3, Section 9, Subsection 4, asked what was the discussion about the regulated person deriving significant economic advantage from the violation. Mr. Ziegler understood if a person violates an environmental requirement and saves money, as compared to a competitor who meets the requirement and expends money, a grant of immunity from fines might create an "unlevel playing field." The functions of administrative or civil penalties is to "level the playing field." Both versions provide the flexibility which the federal government would demand. Mr. Fettic again referring to Amendment 1053 and criteria 1, 2, 3, 4 listed in Section 9 asked what if none of the criteria were involved. He noted perhaps someone other than Mr. Ziegler should answer the question. Mr. Ziegler replied he did not feel comfortable answering it and suggested Mr. Lou Dodgion or Mr. Verne Rosse (from the Division of Environmental Protection) could respond. Mr. Lou Dodgion, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, acknowledged Amendment 1053 was developed among Mr. Ziegler, Mr. Rosse, and himself. They attempted to memorialize the Division's current practice of working with people to solve a problem while granting some immunity. Currently the Division looks to determine if the act was negligent or willful in determining any penalties; if a penalty is indicated it is usually adjusted downward when the person has come forward voluntarily and cooperates to resolve the problem. He echoed the difference between the two amendments as being in the privilege. He added he is opposed to privilege and secrecy; the federal and state statutes require open operation. He continued the privilege could allow a "bad actor" develop a shield against discovery and potentially compromise the employees who work for him. Mr. Dodgion stated many calls come from "whistle blowers." Immunity from penalties with a rebuttable presumption would result by coming forward and working with the Division to resolve the problem. He expressed his previous concern regarding the concept about "economic benefit." The administrator of EPA has stated EPA intends to take a close look at state programs having environmental audit privileges and immunity statutes to determine whether they leave the state with an effective enforcement mechanism necessary to get the program delegated and to achieve compliance. States will have increased oversight and businesses have over-filings by EPA. Mr. Dodgion added EPA policy states they will look at the economic faction of the penalty; therefore, "we" must retain the ability to review the economic benefit derived from noncompliance. He commented on Amendment 1053, Page 2, Section 8, that it was not the intent to grant immunity for criminal penalties and suggested it be deleted. Mr. Carpenter, referencing Amendment 1053, Page 3, Section 8, Subsection 1b, asked how it would be worked out. Mr. Dodgion responded [it would be worked out] when a person discloses a problem and the Division issues an administrative finding of violation and order of compliance. He noted the order of compliance includes a negotiated compliance schedule. The schedule is based on severity of the violation and ability of the company to come into compliance. Mr. Bennett requested clarification on Amendment 1053, Section 8, asking would PM10 dust violation fall under civil or criminal. Mr. Dodgion replied, most likely, it would be administrative or civil. Mr. Fettic asked if it was correct the bill would allow a business, which thinks it has a problem, to come forward and ask for an audit and if a problem is found, would be relieved of some administrative and civil sanctions. Mr. Dodgion answered yes. Mr. Fettic commented logic would dictate if a problem was found it would need to be corrected. Mr. Dodgion interjected it must be corrected in a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Peter Krueger, representing, Nevada Petroleum Marketers Association, voiced concern for the rural members (primarily for underground tank regulations) as federal regulations become effective and enforceable December 22, 1998. It will put them under extreme economic pressure to change-out underground storage tanks and implement other changes to meet requirements. The changes are very costly. His understanding of the amendment is before the company comes forward they must agree with the Division on a number of items in order to obtain limited liability; they must enter into a written agreement regarding the scope, nature, and schedule of the audit and also, in advance, to the enforcement. He continued there are two sides to an audit and the business may disagree with the Division's findings. He concluded if the Legislature wishes businesses to come forward voluntarily he thinks either amendment will put a "chill" on the aspect and, therefore is opposed to both. Mr. Fettic, noting he does not know if he is "fer" or "agin" the amendments, wondered how it is now. Mr. Krueger referred to Mr. Dodgion's testimony on what is generally done. He stated it is that way in some cases but in others there is a question of how it will be done. If a business comes forward with a problem, the Division handles it the way it was described. He stated the problem is the terms of the audit. He described some examples of problems encountered. He reiterated his concern was having to agree to terms which may be disagreed with. Mr. Fettic asked if it is the circumstance existing now. Mr. Krueger replied generally, but it is not in statute; it is a practice. Mr. Fettic commented he was looking at this as giving the "good guy" who is not doing things on purpose an opportunity for relief, at least, with administrative and civil penalties. Mr. Krueger agreed there are business people trying to do what is right given the myriad of federal, state, and local regulations. Chairman de Braga turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Ohrenschall. Mr. Carpenter inquired if there was a way to fix the language to help the situation. Mr. Krueger stated he understands the concerns about the idea of privilege; his group could live without it. He would propose the language in Amendment 738. The problem will be in the rural parts of the state. Vice Chairman Ohrenschall asked Mr. Dodgion to return to the witness table. Mr. Carpenter asked if he had heard the suggestion from Mr. Krueger. Mr. Dodgion answered he would need to look through Amendment 738. His main objection is with the privilege. Amendment 1053 is like 738 with the privilege taken out. Mr. Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association, stated the Amendment 738 is a balance between privilege and protecting the public. He continued privilege is important because there is now a period of "hysteria" about the environment and the actual impact on the environment or public health due to a problem may be minor, but press headlines could damage a company's reputation from which they can not recover for years. Another example is if an audit is opened without the privilege and because the audit is being conducted by a water or power company it is blown out of proportion. He stated they would be better off with no bill than with Amendment 1053 because there are many large companies in Nevada which have on-going audits and are not going to negotiate with Mr. Dodgion for an audit program. Amendment 1053 hinders them and they would be better off stopping their in-house audit programs if it is passed as the bill. He strongly urged passage of Amendment 738. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Bacon to meet with Mr. Dodgion to work out something acceptable to both sides. He would like to see something evolve as it is a major step and would really help if there is agreement. He commented it is going to take forward thinking on both sides since this is new ground. Mr. Bacon remarked they felt they had done that during the subcommittee meetings, resulting in Amendment 738. There was some level of dissatisfaction, but it seemed to be a reasonable accommodation that would keep the economic development efforts alive. He pointed out if something is not done there may be a disincentive for companies to move to Nevada as states surrounding the state are enacting this type of legislation. Mr. Fettic asked if it was the audit where the protection was needed and if it was correct when the results of an audit are negative something must happen. Mr. Bacon responded if the audit results show no problem there is no reason for disclosure. He added until an audit is completed it is not known what the results will be. The results could be minor, easily correctable, and pose no threat to the public health and safety. Mr. Fettic asked if the the results are not minor then Mr. Bacon would not argue they should be disclosed. Mr. Bacon replied that was covered in Amendment 738. Mr. Scot R. Campbell, Attorney, Sierra Pacific Power Company, noted the bill is not his company's, they were not for it or against it, but wished to make a few comments. He stated the original version had problems and he is against it; he is also against Mr. Dodgion's amendment [1053] since it left out privilege; but, he supports Amendment 738 as it strikes a balance between regulation and business. He continued to discuss the issue of privilege. He noted it is a voluntary self-audit on a company's own property. He felt the regulatory agency should be encouraging voluntary self-audits and the company should have the privilege of disclosing or not disclosing whatever is discovered. Amendment 738 makes allowances for this. If a major problem is found for which there is an obligation to disclose and the company fails to then the penalties should be raised. Otherwise, the company should have the ability to decide when, where, and how to disclose the problem and how to remediate the situation. The problem with Amendment 1053 is there is no provision of confidentiality of the self-audit, the associated papers, or the written agreement. He noted the written agreement can be as damaging as the audit when the news media wishes to focus on an area the company is investigating. Subsequently, nothing may be found but the damage is already done. He testified it may discourage his company's daily environmental audits because there would be no privilege. Vice Chairman Ohrenschall asked if the voluntary audits conducted by Mr. Campbell's company contribute to the increased safety of the people who work within areas that have inherent hazards. Mr. Campbell answered he has no doubt they do. Vice Chairman Ohrenschall inquired if it was beneficial for the workers to encourage voluntary environmental audits in order to fix a problem. Mr. Campbell agreed. He added another problem is the time when an agreement is made. With regard to his company's environmental assessments on their current properties and potential properties, he conjectured at what point would it be determined an agreement is needed without violating the terms of an agreement, such as, having too much knowledge which could be withholding information. Another problem is putting a company in the position of agreeing to a complete unknown. Mr. Carpenter asked Vice Chairmen Ohrenschall if the Committee could adjourn into a subcommittee to work on Amendment 738. Vice Chairman Ohrenschall responded it was a good idea and they would do so after testimony is completed. Mr. Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club, testified to his surprise of previous testimony stating passage of the bill would discourage what is currently done. He stated there is nothing in Amendment 1053 to discourage or encourage them; there is no privilege granted but the other aspects are there. Mr. Johnson submitted, read from and discussed prepared testimony (Exhibit I). He added mutual consideration and trust must be encouraged. He concluded by noting the Chapter is opposed to privilege, "period", there being no compromise or justification on the issue. Vice Chairman Ohrenschall commented the Committee must address Mr. Johnson's points along with others raised and noted the ongoing need to provide protection for workers. There being no further business to come before the committee Vice Chairman Ohrenschall closed the hearing at 3:45 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pat Menath, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining June 19, 1995 Page