MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session April 3, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:15 p.m., on Monday, April 3, 1995, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Vice Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter Senator William J. Raggio Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dina Titus Senator Raymond C. Shaffer GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr. Senator Mark James STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst DeLynn Gillentine, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association Chan Griswold, Deputy City Attorney, City of Reno Mark Balen, President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada Barbara Willis, Director, Department of Personnel Marilyn Yezek, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation Julie A. Wilcox, Assistant to the General Manager, Las Vegas Valley Water District Terry Katzer, Director, Department of Research, Las Vegas Valley Water District Ross E. de Lipkau, Attorney, Marshall Hill Cassa and de Lipkau John B. Hester, Director, Department of Comprehensive Planning, Washoe County Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 275. SENATE BILL 275: Requires state personnel system to provide that state employee is entitled to copy of findings or recommendations made by appointing authority or his representative regarding proposed disciplinary action. (BDR 23-159) Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr., explained the purpose of and need for S.B. 275. He stated currently the law does not require the hearing officer to provide a copy of his findings and decision to the worker who is involved in the case. He told the committee this bill would provide a copy of findings or recommendations to the worker. Senator O'Connell asked when the individual is coming before the hearing, does he or she have any indication at the end of the hearing what the decision will be? Senator Neal stated no, the worker has no indication what will happen with the report. He explained to the committee the supervisor chooses a hearing officer. The hearing officer speaks with the employee. At the end of the meeting, the hearing officer reports his or her findings and recommendations to the supervisor. Senator O'Connell asked whether one person conducts the hearing or more than one. Senator Neal responded only one person conducts the hearing. The hearing officer makes a finding whether or not the charges are substantiated and provides a report of the findings and recommendations to the supervisor or manager. The supervisor or manager then acts to dismiss the charge, conduct disciplinary procedures, or dismiss the individual. Senator O'Connell asked if personality conflicts ever play a part in the charges? Senator Neal told the committee many personalities are involved. He stated that having a copy of the hearing report to fully understand the charges and recommendations against him is important for the employee. Senator O'Connell asked what the process is after the hearing officer's findings and recommendations. Senator Neal stated the employee is then terminated and has the right to appeal the decision. Senator Porter asked if they address this in an employee's handbook. Senator Neal stated he has nothing which addresses this issue. He explained it is an absolute process by the manager or supervisor to appoint the hearing officer to hear the complaint, conduct the hearing, and to report the findings and recommendations. He emphasized this information is not available to the employee. Senator Porter asked if they notify the employee of any of the findings? Senator Neal responded they notify the employee in cases of a termination process. He stated if the hearing officer reaches the conclusion that the person should be terminated and the management agrees, then the employee is terminated. Then the person finds out the recommendation of the hearing officer. He said an employee has to appeal and fight to get back into the state system if the employee is terminated because the director or manager disagrees with or dislikes the employee and wants to terminate the employment of the individual. Senator Porter emphasized having these findings is important for the employee. He suggested it would help the employee improve work performance, if in fact, the mistake was the employee's and not a personality conflict between the supervisor and employee. He asked for examples of circumstances where this is happening or does it happen for any grievance from management? Senator Neal stated it was standard practice for the management to appoint the hearing officer who does fact-finding and makes recommendations. Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, testified in favor of S.B. 275. He explained the process to the committee to enable them to understand how it works. If an appointing authority, anybody in the supervisory chain who is authorized to do so, may issue to an employee proposed disciplinary action. It is a form the Department of Personnel has and it is alleged that you have done these things. It is proposed that we take this action against you. This could be anywhere from a short suspension to a demotion to a long suspension (up to 30 days), or termination. Then they will notify the employee that 10 days hence, we will hold a hearing to determine whether we are going to proceed with this. This hearing is what we call a "pre-disciplinary" hearing. We did not have these until a few years ago when [the state was] required to do so by the federal courts. The hearings prior to that were always hearings after the fact, after the action had been taken against the employee. Now they have this intermediate step of a pre-disciplinary hearing. An agency head may choose to hear it himself. Some do, or appoint somebody else to be a hearing officer. Then the employee is not allowed to bring any witnesses or anything of that nature, but they can go in and give their side of the story if they wish to. Then, based upon what that person [the hearing officer] hears in this hearing, they make the recommendation to the head of the agency on what action to take against the employee. If the employee is being recommended to be terminated, maybe this hearing officer will say "I do not think it warrants termination, perhaps let's reduce this to a suspension." In rare occasions they will drop the whole thing. But normally some action is taken. Senator Neal is correct in that the outcome and recommendations of that little hearing are not necessarily given to the employee. They could be, but it is not a requirement. Sometimes the employee knows what has been recommended to the appointing authority and other times they do not. We concur with Senator Neal that this would be a very good thing to have. We do support the bill. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 275 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 282. SENATE BILL 282: Provides for judicial review of disciplinary order of Reno civil service commission. (BDR S-727) Chan Griswold, Deputy City Attorney, City of Reno testified in favor of S.B. 282. He stated this will help employees to understand the review process of a disciplinary order (Exhibit C). He explained an employee always has arbitration available to him under the collective bargaining agreement. He said usually an employee pursues arbitration. Senator Shaffer asked if this is written into any other charters. Mr. Griswold replied he has examined other charters and it is not set forth in any other provisions related to judicial review. He stated the city of Sparks has a provision in its charter which states the date for judicial review must occur within 30 days. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Griswold exactly what privileges or process do they now go through? Mr. Griswold stated now a vast majority of city employees involved in a disciplinary matter elect to go through the collective bargaining agreements and arbitration procedure. He said, "Most of the collective bargaining agreements for the city of Reno have a provision that allows the employee to elect to go through a civil service hearing process. That is the employee's choice." He emphasized that this bill does not affect the employee's choice to go through arbitration, it only affects the civil service process. He said if the employee chooses to go through the civil service hearing process, this provides the rules regarding the petition and the review to the employee and to the city. Mark Balen, President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada, stated opposition to the bill. He stated it adds other steps to obtaining a conclusion in a civil service ruling. He stated it prolongs the procedure by taking it on to court and then possibly to the Supreme Court if neither side likes the decision. He stated it is an unnecessary additional step. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 282 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 290. SENATE BILL 290: Revises provisions governing certification of applicants for appointment to classified service of state. (BDR 23-918) Barbara Willis, Director, Department of Personnel, spoke in favor of S.B. 290. She stated it would amend chapter 284.265 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. She said this is a key statute in the state's personnel merit system. She said it is the basis for what is commonly called "the rule of five." She explained it requires agencies to consider the top five applicants when filling a state job. She told the committee they determine the top five by scores earned in a competitive examination. She commented the purpose of the law is to ensure those hiring decisions are based on merit. She stated merit is not being served because tied scores are broken under the current law that only five applicants can be interviewed. She explained there may be as many as eight people with the top five scores on a list, but only five people may be considered for appointment. Therefore, people with equal merit are forced out of contention by the breaking of tied scores. Ms. Willis stated this is unfair to applicants and it deprives hiring agencies the opportunity to consider all of the most qualified candidates. She said when all of the most qualified candidates cannot be considered, the public is also deprived. She explained the proposed amendment to the statute would allow those, who have demonstrated equal merit in the testing process, equal consideration for appointment. She noted determining merit by conducting a competitive examination is not an exact science. Ms. Willis said there are thousands of published studies on personnel assessment and selection by every major university in the world. She stated the Department of Personnel knows with a very high level of certainty what an employment test can and cannot do effectively. She commented a validated test which measures the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities will predict the potential success of an applicant to perform the duties of a given job with a high level of accuracy. However, she stressed, these tests do not measure equally important human characteristics such as work ethics, efficiency, punctuality, conscientiousness, responsibility, personable, pleasantness, and other attributes. These attributes are best evaluated through face to face contacts, response to interview questions, references and background checks, and comparative evaluations of different candidates' work histories. Ms. Willis stated, "Even if employment examinations could accurately test for all the necessary attributes that we look for in a potential employee, there would still be no reason to require the breaking of tied scores, thereby denying consideration to others who are equally qualified. The fact that we cannot test for everything that is important is even more reason to allow those who have competed equally to be given equal consideration." She distributed a handout (Exhibit D) which shows Nevada is the only western state which requires tied scores be broken. The second page of Exhibit D provides actual examples of hiring lists where people have been determined ineligible because of a tied score. She explained the scores on the far right of the page shows all of those candidates with those scores would be eligible. She noted in one case the list of candidates goes from five people to eight people and in one case the list goes from five to six. She told the committee the Department of Personnel is not talking about major increases in numbers of people on hiring lists. Marilyn Yezek, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, testified in favor of S.B. 290. She stated the current method of determining the top five candidates is unfair to candidates due to tie-breaking. She said this causes a candidate to be ineligible for a hiring interview and consideration for an appointment. She emphasized this is using a non-merit based principle in establishing an eligibility list which is supposed to be based on merit. Mr. Gagnier testified against S.B. 290. He stated he was testifying against the bill because of its lack of clarity. He said in discussions with Ms. Willis, he understands what she is trying to do, and sympathizes with what she is trying to do, but he is not sure this is what the bill does. He stated he is more concerned someone may read this differently than how Ms. Willis explained it to the committee. He told the committee the Department of Personnel has attempted twice to change the law to go to "what we call whole scores." He said anything expanding the list of five names, currently in the law, allows more subjective determination in the selection process, which can include politics. He stated the under the proposal of having whole scores, there is no "rule of five" anymore, it is an unlimited rule. He asserted it could be 25 or 30 names on the list. He said as the bill reads, they can interpret the names of the persons having the five highest scores as meaning the five highest whole scores, while Ms. Willis's example shows scores to the second decimal. He said if it says five highest scores and someone interprets it to mean whole scores, there could be a big long list where they practice the subjective nature of selection. He suggested the record show the scores are only to be used as Ms. Willis has testified. He said the way it was written, it is open to mischief. Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Willis if she had discussed the language with legal counsel? Ms. Willis replied the Department of Personnel would work with legal counsel on the language. Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Willis her impressions of Mr. Gagnier's concerns. Ms. Willis stated she does not see this as a potential problem. She said she would not want the bill to state that the scores have to be calculated to one-hundredth of a point. She stated it could be done if it served the interests of the committee in intent. She stated compared with other western states, there is no state doing remotely close to what Nevada is currently doing. She repeated this is not a major change. She said they have no intention of changing the way they score tests now, scoring to one-hundredth of a point. She said certain types of tests, such as oral exams, have whole scores upon completion. She stated the Department of Personnel would be glad to meet with Mr. Gagnier and legal counsel to work out the concerns of the bill. Senator O'Connell queried, "Bob [Gagnier], you had mentioned when you testified to us that you would, if we were to act on the bill with the current language, that you would request that the committee . . . that we have some kind of intent as to what the Legislature understood the meaning of the bill to be so there could be no misrepresentation of the language. Would something like that be satisfactory to you, if we were accompany the law with that?" Mr. Gagnier explained letters of intent have no binding effect. He stated his main concern is a deputy attorney general in the future may interpret the law differently. He stated if there was a letter of intent in the record, SNEA could bring it forward to show this was never the intent of the law and someone is trying to subvert the law. He expressed that it would be a help. He said it does not have force in effect, but it would be a help because it would be the attorney general's office where the problems would be. Senator O'Connell stated the committee would hold the bill for 1 week to give the Department of Personnel and Mr. Gagnier time to work on the language to better clarify the law. She stated if they could not develop the language, the committee has no problem with stressing the understanding of their intent of the law. Senator Raggio asked for clarification. He stated he understands the proposal is to include all of the people who have the top five scores. He said the language is clear to say that the names of the persons having the top five scores, may include more than five people, but it would include all the top five scores without tie-breaking. He asked how they could misinterpret this language? Mr. Gagnier responded, "We no longer have a 'rule of five'. We have an unlimited rule that could have 25 names. In fact, I remember several years ago when the Director of Personnel (a different one), appeared before a committee and cited examples and one of them was 23 names." Senator Raggio clarified, "If you have 25 people and they all got 100 on the exam, then you could have 25 people." Mr. Gagnier responded, "No, under that terminology, and if you look at the way this is written and the way the past bills were written, you could have five people getting 100 . . . " Senator Raggio interrupted, "I see what you are saying. In other words, if you have five people at 100, and five people at 99, and five people at 98, they will read this to mean that they will take the five highest scores and everybody who got one of those highest scores would be on the list. That's not what you are suggesting?" Ms. Willis responded, "No, that is not what we are suggesting." Mr. Gagnier stated, "Senator, our concern is that someone down the road could interpret this language to mean that." Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 290 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 294. SENATE BILL 294: Creates Las Vegas Valley Ground Water Replenishment District. Senator Mark James gave the committee the rationale behind S.B. 294. He explained the bill came from an interim study on water which he chaired. He explained the composition and purpose of the interim study. He explained the over appropriation of groundwater resources in Nevada, particularly in southern Nevada. He stated the State of Nevada continues to mine groundwater at twice its recharging ground acre rate. He told the committee about the groundwater legislation from last session. He said the water users all help fund groundwater recharging. He explained the mining of the groundwater aquifer in southern Nevada has caused land subsidence, caused by permeable land depression. He explained this as an irreversible environmental problem. Senator James stated he had borrowed a possible solution from Arizona. He testified he read about a groundwater replenishment district in Arizona in a periodical. He stated it would result in active management of the groundwater basin. He explained one of the primary functions and objectives is to acquire new water resources or retire old water rights necessary to replenish the groundwater basin. He said it would essentially bring depressed water tables back to a safe yield. He explained the groundwater levels in southern Nevada are dropping at a rate of 3 to 5 feet per year. Senator James explained current pumping conditions and pumping problems to the committee. He stated there are problems with speed and appropriation from the existing pumps. He explained the membership of the district would include all those individuals who are currently pumping water in the groundwater basin. He said the bill, as drafted, would apply to any groundwater basin in the state. He said it could be adopted by other localities. He explained current domestic users are exempt for a few years. He stated new domestic wells must become part of the groundwater basin membership. He said the board of the southern Nevada water authority, which has responsibility for administering and allocating all of the water supplies in southern Nevada, would administer the groundwater replenishment district. Senator James explained fees and the fee schedule to the committee. He stated fees in this statute would have a certain percentage precluded from administrative costs. He said the precluded percentage would only go to acquiring new groundwater rights to replenish the district. Senator O'Connell asked Senator James about subsection 4 of section 5. She stated some concerns with the section. She asked if the $30 was enough to answer the problem regarding costs. Senator James explained the groundwater replenishment district has to be able to raise money from those users in the district to address the over appropriation. He stated he had relied upon experts who would tell the committee how much needs to be charged. He testified the existing problem is that only people who are using city wells are paying the fees for recharging the over appropriated basin. He stated persons getting water rights and taking water from the basin are not charged. He explained these people are benefitting from the water being recharged into the basin, for which the municipal purveyors pay. He asserted it is an inequitable situation. He stated the bill will require those persons using the groundwater and benefitting from it to help fund its management. Senator Shaffer asked Senator James when he referenced Las Vegas, was he referring to Clark County? Senator James stated, "Yes." Senator Shaffer questioned, "So in essence what you are saying is in 3 years everyone who has a well in southern Nevada will begin to pay a fee for drawing their water out of a domestic well?" Senator James responded, "There is a grandfather provision for existing domestic well owners until October 1, 1998. We discussed on the interim committee whether there ought to be a grandfather [provision] forever . . . We decided to put it into the bill this way to allow after 1998 there is to be a fee assessed. If we elect to do nothing, those people will be paying in some way because they will have to pay to deepen their wells or to acquire new water supplies if they can no longer pump from the over-tapped basin." Senator Shaffer asked, "Do you agree that someone who currently has a domestic well would almost always have a septic system as well; which is in essence, part of a recharge because the water that is used eventually winds up back in the septic system and dissipates back into the groundwater supply eventually except for evaporation. Evaporation takes place no matter how you are using it." Senator James responded, "Senator Shaffer, I do not know if there is a one-for-one recharge through a septic system or whether that gets to the deep water aquifer from which the resources are actually taken. I would have to have the experts testify about that." Senator Shaffer stated, "We all know that water is not just taken out of the area. It is not put into an open stream where it eventually reaches Lake Mead or some other water source." Senator O'Connell asked Senator James if the establishment of the district in section 1 and section 9 which deals with the fees are the meat of the bill? Senator James explained there must be administrative fees to begin the process and then fees to recharge the basin. He reminded the committee this is not storage of water supplies, but water recharging, which is a slow and expensive process. Senator Shaffer asked Senator James where the water comes from now which is part of the recharge system? Senator James responded it comes from the Colorado River. Senator Shaffer asked if the Colorado River is the main supplier for Lake Mead? He asked if they are taking water out of the Colorado River and putting it into the ground. Senator James responded Senator Shaffer's question is correct. He explained the recharge program is mostly functional in the winter months when there is sufficient extra water in the Lake Mead diversion to put a certain percentage in the ground to bank for future use. He stated in the summer months they must rely on full Lake Mead diversions. He said in a drought situation they would be looking for groundwater wells to take the water out and supply it to the citizens. Senator Shaffer asked if the intent is to go outside the basin to acquire and replenish the water? Senator James responded the intent is that this entity can find water resources from any legal means, by purchase of water rights, or by interbasin transfer of water. He stated the most likely source is changes in the law of the Colorado River which will allow Nevada to acquire additional supplies from the river beyond the 300,000 acre feet of annual consumptive use. He stated parts of the newly acquired water will be available to replenish the groundwater basin. Senator Shaffer asked if the bill infringes upon the state engineers private domain when a district like this is formed? Senator James responded: No, the state engineer enthusiastically supported this in the committee. It is just a notion that it interferes with his jurisdiction, but it is local purveyor active management of an over-appropriated basin. It is something he welcomes because the existing laws that the state engineer administers have not been adequate to overcome this kind of over- appropriation. We have a unique situation in southern Nevada because in 1955 the Legislature empowered the state engineer to issue revocable rights. Those rights, every right issued in the Las Vegas valley since 1955, has been a revocable right. The theory behind that was at some point they would develop the full 300,000 acre feet of diversion from Lake Mead and would replace those groundwater diversions. Nevertheless, that has not happened. The Lake Mead development has gone to fuel the expansive growth in southern Nevada and those revocable rights, to a large extent, remain in place. So the state engineer has been unable to revoke them because they are outside the district service areas, [and] so they are still tapping the basin. That caused the basin to be essentially, intentionally over-appropriated to the extent of those revocable rights. The board issued those revocable rights without reference to the per-year yield of the basin because they anticipated revoking them in the future. Nevertheless, the revocation process has been much slower than the granting process and that contributed to the problem. Senator O'Donnell asked Senator James to define a "quasi- municipal water system." Senator James explained, "In my district there is the Hill Crest Water District, which is an association of private individuals, who take their water from wells with water rights and supply the water among several residential users. There are many of those in the Las Vegas artesian basin." Senator O'Donnell asked if this bill affects golf courses which have their own wells? Senator James stated it would affect them too as they are an irrigator and commercial user. Senator O'Donnell asked where this is found in the bill? Senator James responded it is in lines 31 and 32 on page 2 of the bill. Senator O'Donnell responded there are several users of this kind in his district. Senator James stated there are users like this in his district also. Senator O'Donnell said asked how the committee plans to measure an acre foot of water to charge $30 for it? Senator James stated virtually all of the wells, in the Las Vegas valley, which have been drilled in the last 35 to 40 years have totalizing meters on them. The wells are required to have totalizing meters as a condition of the permit. He explained most of them can measure the groundwater diversions. He stated there are some "ancient" water rights in the valley without this requirement in their permit. He remarked these are for irrigation and the state engineer determines annual appropriate use by an onsite review if the field is green and assesses three acre feet per acre. He noted he does not know how to assess these ancient water rights other than relying on the means they have been using. Senator O'Donnell asked if there was testimony during the interim study as to the main users of the water? He cited a golf course takes a million gallons of water a day. Senator James stressed the biggest use of water in the valley is for irrigation. He explained this is not just crop irrigation but lawn irrigation. He stated this irrigation cannot be exempted. He explained residential lawn irrigation takes more than 60 percent of the water used in southern Nevada. He said people complain about the fountains and the big hotels and how much water they use, but residential lawn irrigation is the largest user. He reminded the committee the residential people who are purchasing their water through the Las Vegas water district are paying for all the water they use. People who use water from groundwater wells are unlimited in their use and are not charged. He explained this bill is active management of the participants who are using groundwater. He mentioned a family of four uses about one ground acre of water per year. He said residential users might have a $30 fee contributed per year to the active management of the basin. This fee is based on the estimated one ground acre of water and multiplied by the $30 per ground acre of water fee. Senator Porter stated many duties specifically mentioned in the bill are performed by the Las Vegas Water Authority. He commented since the Las Vegas Water Authority would be administering this organization, and since the Las Vegas Valley Water District does the management of the Las Vegas Water Authority, he assumed they would be doing the management of the Groundwater Replenishment District. He asked why they need another organization? He asked why the Las Vegas Water Authority cannot perform these tasks with the powers and duties they currently have? Senator James stated they cannot perform this additional work with the powers and duties they currently have. He explained they could perform the functions, but participants in the districts who are not in a municipal entity would not be included. He reminded the committee the Southern Nevada Water Authority is a cooperative agreement entity under statutes. He told the committee it does not have in its membership all of those people who use water like the golf courses and the private water right holder. He stated by having a separate entity, all of the other private water right holders come into this entity and participate in it. He said one step would be to give the Southern Nevada Water Authority the duties and powers to more actively manage and replenish the water basin. He remarked without the duties and powers, only the current users in the district are paying for the water. He asserted they should spread the cost to all the entities using the water resources now. Senator Porter asked if Senator James knows the proposed budget for this project. Senator James replied Julie A. Wilcox, Assistant to the General Manager, Las Vegas Valley Water District, could probably answer his question. Senator Raggio, referring to subsection 9 of section 5 of page 2, asked if this is the source of funding to purchase water rights to replenish the ground basin. He said, understanding the thrust of this is to purchase groundwater rights, why is it necessary to have power of eminent domain. Senator James stated he had asked the interim study committee the same question and he had requested it be removed from the bill. He commented, "I do not think they are wedded to it and may be willing to take it out. It is nothing that I support." Ms. Wilcox testified in favor of S.B. 294. She stated the basic goal of the bill is to reduce the demand on the groundwater aquifer in the Las Vegas Artesian Basin. She clarified the tenants of that goal are to properly manage the basin and to reduce the subsidence and therefore to slow the decline of the water table. She introduced Terry Katzer, Director, Department of Research, Las Vegas Valley Water District, and Ross E. de Lipkau, Attorney, Marshall Hill Cassa and de Lipkau representing the Southern Nevada Water Authority, to the committee. Ms. Wilcox explained the Southern Nevada Water Authority consists of seven members. She stated it includes the Las Vegas Valley Water District, the city of Las Vegas, the city of North Las Vegas, the city of Henderson, the city of Boulder City, the Clark County Sanitation District, and the Big Ben Water District. She expressed the Southern Nevada Water Authority supports the bill and the board feels it is an important part of the regional water management approach that they have been taking. She told the committee they have 7,000 domestic wells in southern Nevada and 6,000 of those wells are domestic and 1,000 are quasi-municipal wells. Mr. Katzer provided specific data to the committee in Exhibit E. Senator O'Connell asked if the Public Service Commission of Nevada handled well abandonment? Mr. Katzer responded it comes under the auspices of the state engineer. Senator O'Connell stated she thinks they turned this obligation over to the Public Service Commission of Nevada in 1989. Mr. Katzer stated, "No." Senator O'Connell stated she thought this had occurred because of problems in Indian Springs. Mr. Katzer responded, "Not to my knowledge." He continued his testimony by explaining the charts and figures in Exhibit E. Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. Katzer about the subsidence level. He asked if Windsor Park was in the subsidence area downtown. Mr. Katzer responded where Rancho comes into Highway 395, Windsor Park is located west of Martin Luther King and north of Kerry. Senator O'Donnell asked if the subsidence was a problem for Windsor Park. Mr. Katzer responded there are some major quaternary faults (major earthquake zones); Windsor Park is located on one of those quaternary faults. He explained when subsidence occurs, it occurs preferentially around the fault zones. He told the committee those are zones of weakness which have been there for millennia. He said over-irrigated water gets into the weak zones associated with earthquake faults and cause the fine grain materials to wash down. When this happens, the ground starts to open. Senator Porter stated the bill refers to wells and groundwater, but also to importation of water. He asked if this is in the purview of the water authority and not the Groundwater Replenishment District? Ms. Wilcox responded the Southern Nevada Water Authority would be the Board of Directors of the Las Vegas Valley Groundwater Replenishment District. Senator Porter asked if this is a duplication of efforts. He stated the Southern Nevada Water Authority also has that authority. Ms. Wilcox responded "Yes, we do have that authority." Senator Porter continued, "And also in constructing facilities? Would that not be the district's authority?" Ms. Wilcox replied: They would be sitting as a separate board. When we drew this up, we drew it up as a separate district doing those things. We felt it would be much cleaner to do it that way. If you are referring to the fact that the Las Vegas Valley Water District manages the water authority and therefore can contract to do that kind of work or use those kinds of powers, we could do that. We, however, thought it would be cleaner to have the board with these specific powers. It is not in the interlocal agreement that was negotiated between the seven members to have a Groundwater Replenishment District. Senator Porter said he understands the groundwater situation but is confused by the other sources of water that the bill provides the Las Vegas Valley Water District with which to work. He asked if this agency can import water from the Colorado River or from Arizona or from the northern part of the state? Ms. Wilcox responded, "Yes, the Groundwater Replenishment District could purchase water from those sources." Senator Porter asked if the Southern Nevada Water Authority has that ability also? He said, "I'm not talking about groundwater recharging, I'm talking about importation." Ms. Wilcox asked, "You are talking about bringing in water from the Colorado River? That is correct." Senator Porter asked why does the Groundwater Replenishment District need to have that authority also? Ms. Wilcox responded, "The water authority would be sitting at the board here, however, they would be doing a different function. This was not in the cooperative agreement. The Groundwater Replenishment District was not discussed at that time." Senator Porter stated he understands about groundwater replenishment, but item number 6 gives the ability to construct and build water works, waterways, and machinery. He said, "Certainly you would not be building your own equipment? Would not that be the districts?" Ms. Wilcox replied the district might do it, but the Groundwater Replenishment District would do it if it is kept separate and is a regional body. She told the committee the Las Vegas Valley Water District is not a regional body, it has one jurisdiction, it is one purveyor. The Southern Nevada Water Authority would be acting for all of the purveyors in the valley and all of the people would be benefiting from it. Senator Porter asked if they have held public hearings on this and met with the Southern Nevada Homeowners Association? Ms. Wilcox answered they are currently doing this and during the interim study there were several hearings in Las Vegas where they held lengthy discussions about this. She testified they have also worked with the large well owners associations. She stated the associations had a lot of concerns initially. The associations are seeing the drop in water production and are concerned the wells will go dry or they must deepen their wells. She explained it costs about $20 per foot for them to deepen the wells. She said the associations are working very closely with the Las Vegas Valley Water District. She said when the bill came out it was transferred to the associations for their participation. She testified the discussions with the associations are ongoing. Senator Porter asked her if the 6,000 domestic well owners and the 1,000 quasi-municipal well owners are all aware and if they have been contacted. Ms. Wilcox responded she did not know if all of them have been contacted. She stated they contacted the large well owners' associations. She clarified all of the domestic well owners who are part of these associations have been contacted. She explained part of the task of Las Vegas Valley Water District is to do an inventory of domestic wells. She said they have a lot of numbers, but not a lot of data to go on. She responded to an earlier question whether $30 is enough to go on. She said it was an estimate they had based on the work they think needs to be conducted. She declared it will do for starters and will help them conduct an inventory. She remarked the 3-year exemption period for domestic wells in the bill is to provide time to conduct an intensive survey which will take about 2 to 3 years to complete. She stated the advisory committee can meet during this time. She mentioned the advisory committee will consist of domestic well owners, quasi-municipal well owners, all of the concerned citizens and the board of the Southern Nevada Water Authority could determine what the rate should be. She remarked maybe the rate is too much and maybe it is not enough, but knowing exactly what the rate should be is difficult until data is available. Ms. Wilcox stated the entity who will pay the most will be the Las Vegas Valley Water District because they have the most water rights and are pumping the most water. She said they will be paying from the very beginning and are not proposing to be exempted from the beginning. Senator Porter responded the fee could be useful to educate the well owners about the source and use of water. He said if they do not recharge the water, there will not be water. Ms. Wilcox stated this peaked their interest and gave the Las Vegas Valley Water District the opportunity to get good dialogue with the owners. She told the committee she would be glad to report to them in the future. Senator Shaffer stated one requirement to have a domestic well is the person must own one full acre of land before drilling a domestic well. He asked how this bill affects the number of new domestic wells coming on-line. He also asked how many current wells there are and if the mass growth occurring is terminating existing wells. He said he is sure as the growth is occurring they are spreading into areas where domestic wells have been and they would no longer be in existence. He stated before he could vote on the bill, he would need to know a hard number, projected for the 2 or 3 years, regarding existing wells and new well drilling rates. Mr. Katzer responded they could answer his concerns now. He said it will take some time to figure out the number who have abandoned wells and hooked up to water services. He stated he knows there are domestics in the valley who are using a purveyor to and using their domestic well for irrigation. He said some wells had been improperly abandoned and caused concern. Senator Shaffer agreed there should be control on the abandonment and capping of the wells. He said he does not know what role the Clark County Health District could play in the abandonment process, but he said they keep close watch of how many wells are being drilled. Mr. Katzer responded the contractors have to file an "intent to drill" card with the state engineer's office. Senator Raggio asked what are the proposed boundaries of the district? Mr. Katzer stated it is for the entire Las Vegas Valley Artesian Basin. Senator Raggio remarked to Mr. Katzer the bill does not state this. He asked if this is essentially all of Clark County or the basin being governed by the Las Vegas Valley Water District? Mr. Katzer responded line 11, section 3, tells the boundaries. Senator Raggio asked if those are identifiable boundaries? Mr. Katzer stated the map in the handout (Exhibit E) essentially identifies the boundaries. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Katzer to explain the need for eminent domain. Ms. Wilcox stated they are writing a bill to establish a separate district because of the cooperative agreement and put the powers in the bill for the district. She testified the last time the Las Vegas Valley Water District invoked its eminent domain clause was 6 or 8 years ago when they needed an easement for a power line. She explained negotiations had failed and they needed an easement for a power line to go to a reservoir. She stated she does not view it as something which they would use very often, but it is a power within the other district's powers and therefore this is the reason they included it in the bill. She said if they needed to build a pipe to move water from one place to another and needed an easement and could not get it through negotiation, they would still be afforded the opportunity through eminent domain to follow through on the project. Mr. Katzer continued his explanation of the handout (Exhibit E). Senator Porter asked Mr. Katzer if the valley includes the lake of Las Vegas? Mr. Katzer responded the lake of Las Vegas is in the Black Mountain Basin so it is outside the boundary. Senator Porter noted they estimated the budget at $2 million a year. Ms. Wilcox stated this was a preliminary estimate and until an inventory is completed, they do not have a better figure. She stated these are good figures based on how much research will need to be completed. Senator Porter asked if they would be contracting with the Las Vegas Valley Water District to do the maintenance and improvements? Ms. Wilcox answered they could contract or do it through the Southern Nevada Water Authority through its staff, managed by the Las Vegas Valley Water District. She said they have some dedicated staff and if the bill went through, they would probably look at realigning staff. John B. Hester, Director, Department of Comprehensive Planning, Washoe County, addressed the committee regarding S.B. 294. He stated he supports the groundwater management and replenishment concept. He said Washoe County is working with local cities and Sierra Pacific Power Company to come up with a comprehensive planning and management program. They anticipate it will lead to some groundwater replenishment legislation as well. He stated the concepts would be the same. He noted groundwater replenishment in Washoe County will be used for approximately 10,000 to 11,000-domestic well users to clean up some groundwater pollution problems they have. He stated they also plan to use it for conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater. Senator O'Connell asked him to address Senator Shaffer's earlier question of septic systems which domestic well users normally use. Mr. Katzer responded to this inquiry. He stated in the Las Vegas Valley, some large septic systems return water into the shallow groundwater system. He explained to the committee the shallow groundwater system is a discharge system from the artesian system. It would feed the shallow groundwater system with discharged water and then that water would evaporate. He explained the shallow system is moving to the east toward Las Vegas Wash and is a tremendous amount of evaporation. He said evaporation could take place 10 to 12 feet below the surface. He said they have seen the shallow system become higher in total dissolved salts. He testified they have seen very little evidence of pesticides or any other contaminants other than the hydrocarbons he referenced earlier. He told the committee the water will never get down into the principal aquifer because of the high evaporation transfer rate and because of the geology of the western part of the valley where growth is occurring. He said they have monitored it in public supply wells and numerous other domestic wells. Senator Shaffer stated his experience is that west of Interstate 15, the terrain and under terrain are very coarse. He said a well drilled out there does not hit water until about 575 feet down and has to be encased because of the poor soil conditions. He suggested there is much porous area in that terrain. Mr. Katzer explained the area is porous and unconsolidated. He said there is not secondary calcification, but throughout most of the valley they do find the calcification. He testified they have drilled many wells there. He said it is a concern which points out the need for the district in the basin is important. Mr. Hester testified in Washoe County they have different basins and experience horizontal movement of nitrates and the possibility of pulling geothermal water to stop salt water intrusion. He repeated groundwater replenishment is used in many western states, all over the country, and all over the world. He stated no matter what form it takes, it is an important tool for use by local governments. He strongly urged the committee's support of S.B. 294. Senator Raggio reminded Mr. Hester the bill only applies to the Las Vegas District. He asked Mr. Hester what Washoe County is doing for groundwater replenishment. Mr. Hester responded they anticipate this will be part of a package dealing with other water issues as well. Senator Raggio asked if there is some district assessing well users for this purpose or if they have authority for it. Mr. Hester answered, "None of which I know." Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Hester was saying it would occur in the future? Mr. Hester responded, "We anticipate in the near future bringing something forward like that for Washoe County as well. We think it is needed and that is why I wanted to take this opportunity, even though this is not for Washoe County, to let you know we think this is a good idea." Senator Porter asked Mr. Katzer and Ms. Wilcox how they will determine acre footage determined by some other well owners in the Las Vegas area. Mr. Katzer responded some of the wells are metered which is the easiest and most accurate way to determine acre footage. He said many are estimated. He said it is difficult to apply water in excess of an acre foot on an acre of land without proof. He stated via inventories with today's satellite coverage, it is possible to see lawns, large grassy areas, swimming pools, etc. He added they can make an accurate audit. Senator Porter told the committee there is a deep concern in the rural area of the northwest about having to tie into a Las Vegas Valley Water District system. He asked how this bill would relate to those concerns? He stated the residents are concerned that they will be forced to tie into those water district systems. Ms. Wilcox asked, "You mean domestic wells?" Senator Porter replied, "Yes." Ms. Wilcox stated at some point the Las Vegas Valley Water District would want to hook in people who are within the district which would include all of the purveyors (Henderson, Boulder City, and North Las Vegas). Senator Porter asked if they would require the residents to tie into the water district system at some time. Ms. Wilcox responded if the district system is within a certain amount of feet of their property, yes. She added part of the goal of the replenishment system would be to help with those connections. She stated they would also help in the abandonment of those wells in a proper way so there are no contamination problems. She said there are 500 people whom they could take off the system who are internal, as there are many people on both systems who use the wells for irrigation and use the water district system for inside use. She said it would allow more people in outlying areas who are not living within a purveyor's district to drill wells and still manage the water replenishment. She said, "It is a wash. Then you are not dipping into the groundwater." Senator Porter told the committee the residents in the northwest area have real concerns about growth patterns, transportation and lifestyle changes. They are concerned about losing their groundwater rights and having to tie into the district system and the costs associated with this requirement. He reiterated these people must be contacted and have the benefits explained to them. He insisted the water district contact these people and provide them an opportunity to have their views heard when possible. Ms. Wilcox stated the water district is working with the large well owners' association in the northwest. She said those are large associations of small users. She asserted those well owners are aware of the need for the groundwater replenishment because they see first hand how their wells have dropped in water production. Senator Shaffer stated he has the same concerns as Senator Porter regarding the northwestern valley. He said those people have spent between $12,000 and $22,000 for their wells. He stated to tell those people after 2 or 3 years that they must start paying for their investment is going to be difficult. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 294 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 180. SENATE BILL 180: Revises duties of state public works board concerning conservation of energy in state buildings. (SCR 35) Senator Townsend told the committee Senator Raggio and he have not discussed the bill. He stated they were both absent when the amendment was drafted. He asked the committee to hold the bill until both Senator Raggio and he have an opportunity to review the amendment. Senator Titus stated she would work with both Senator Townsend and Senator Raggio to help them to understand the amendment. Senator Townsend asked Senator Titus if he could work on the amendment to section 3 of the bill with her. Senator Titus stated she would accept all offers of help. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 180 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 225. SENATE BILL 225: Makes various changes relating to Airport Authority of Washoe County. (BDR 30-517) Senator O'Connell stated they had discussed the language in the amendment in the committee. Senator Shaffer stated he thought the committee had already dealt with the amendment during the last work session. Senator O'Connell stated there had been a motion to have the amendment drawn up during the last work session, and this is the amendment. Senator Raggio stated he would abstain from the vote because his law firm represents them. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 225. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 225 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 277. SENATE BILL 277: Revises administrative procedure for ad op ti ng an d am en di ng ad mi ni st ra ti ve ru le s an d re gu la ti on s. Senator O'Connell stated this is the amendment brought to the attention of the committee during the last work session. She said the Public Service Commission of Nevada demonstrated good reasons why they should be exempted from the bill because of the regulation process and the number of hearings they go through. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 277. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs April 3, 1995 Page