MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Sixty-eighth Session February 22, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining and Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, February 22, 1995, Chairman John C. Carpenter presiding in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Ernest Adler Senator Mark James Senator O.C. Lee Senator Mike McGinness Senator John Regan Senator Lawrence Jacobsen Senator Dean Rhoads ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John C. Carpenter, Chairman Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman Mr. Max Bennett, Vice Chairman Mrs. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman Mr. Douglas A. Bache Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mr. David E. Humke Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Strickland, City of Elko; Dorothy A. Timian-Palmer, Carson City; Les Gould, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection; David Rowles, Clark County Health District; Clare Schwartz, Clark County Health District; Jim Dickey, City of Carlin; T.J. Grady, Nevada League of Cities; Paul J. Vesco, Mayor, City of Winnemucca; R. Chapman, Elko County Commission; Richard Forman, White Pine County; Bunny Hill, White Pine County; Wayne Camron, White Pine County; Barbara S. Smallwood, Douglas County, Board of Commissioners; Jim Regan, Churchill County Commissioner; Sandra Allen, Bureau of Land Management; Fidel Gomez, Mineral County; Tom Fransway, Humboldt County; Ray Abrhams, Mineral County; Michael Cosgrove, City of Wells; David R. Olsen, City of Ely (Attorney); Mary Ann Burt, City of Ely (City Council); Kevin Carnes, City of Ely (City Engineer); Carl R. Cahill, Washoe County District Health; Mark A. Franchi, Disposal Services (Refuse Inc.); Jerry La Miaux, Lander County Commissioners; Tim Echevarria, Lander County Manager; Victoria Soberinsky, Rep. Vucanovich; David Emme, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection; Ken Arnold, Carson City Environmental Control; Robert Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties; Marvin Carr, Lyon County. Chairman John C. Carpenter called the meeting to order and the roll call was taken. Mr. Carpenter welcomed everyone to the meeting and pointed out the importance of the issue, "Landfill Siting and Solid Waste Management," to Nevada. He asked David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst, to give a short presentation (Exhibit C) of what the meeting would consist of and introduce the participants. Mr. Ziegler recognized Ms. Victoria Soberinsky, a representative of Congresswoman Vucanovich's office. Mr. David Emme, Chief, Bureau of Waste Management, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit D), and a slide presentation. Mr. Carpenter asked if there were any questions for Mr. Emme. Senator Rhoads asked what the penalty would be for a county, due to a lack of funds or lack of motivation to refuse to accept the federal ruling by October 1996. Mr. Emme said NDEP did have enforcement authority and Civil penalties of $5,000 per day at the state level. Senator McGinness questioned what the extension was for small landfills. Mr. Emme answered by explaining there were four criteria to qualify for the small community exemption. Twenty tons of waste per day, less than 25 inches of precipitation, no evidence of groundwater contamination and no practical waste management alternatives, to apply for the one year extension. Mr. Bennett asked if there were any breaks in regulations regarding non potable shallow groundwaters to start with. There were no breaks in the regulations in terms of whether monitoring would be required, but it is a factor if there were contamination detected in such non potable water and a factor as to the site being cleaned up and to what level. The policy of the NDEP would be not to predict the future use of groundwater even though it might not be used for drinking water currently, but might be used in the future, the aim was to protect all groundwater. Mr. Fettic asked Mr. Emme to respond to what was required for Elko and parts of Humboldt and Lincoln County. Elko representatives said the county would need 2 million dollars to institute the solid waste management plan. Mr. Emme said each municipality was to submit a solid waste management plan by state regulations and statute. Due to new regulations each municipality was to submit an updated plan. Mr. Fettic asked if it applied to Denio and McDermitt. Mr. Emme said yes, the county would submit the plan in those cases. Elko County did submit a solid waste management plan which was approved by the NDEP. The plan called for setting up a collection network for waste and centralized disposal at the city of Elko landfill, and suggested the sales tax fee would be a means of funding. Mr. Fettic said the regulations were all consuming and did not take into consideration the small per capita in many areas of the state. Mr. Neighbors asked what the consequences were from the Federal Government if the state did not implement the regulations. Mr. Emme said if the Federal EPA disapproved Nevada's state program, EPA would have enforcement authority for the landfill regulations. Mr. Neighbors asked about other states and what had transpired. All other states have sought to gain approval of their state programs by Federal EPA, and Mr. Emme thought all other states had been approved. Mr. Carpenter wanted to know what we had gained by adopting Federal regulations. Several areas where flexibility occurred not only in groundwater monitoring and liners explained Mr. Emme. He said for example an approved state can increase or decrease the post closure care period. The Federal regulations states 30 years, but as an approved state Nevada can increase or decrease the number of years. The list of chemicals to be monitored could be changed as an approved state. Financial assurance can be demonstrated by trust funds, insurance bonds, etc., and by being federally sanctioned the state could approve an alternative mechanism. Mr. Carpenter asked if a ranch had to take waste to a central landfill or could they have their own waste landfill. Mr. Emme said the regulations were predicated on whether a site accepts household waste. He said technically the regulations would apply to farm and ranch dumps, however enforcement would be a problem. NDEP has been working with cities and counties to approve municipal landfills for compliance. The question of costs before and after Federal regulations for landfills was asked by Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Emme said NDEP had not done a cost comparison of the landfills before and after the regulations were put into effect. NDEP had a survey of residential collection and disposal expense in select communities throughout the state to try to provide some measure of the cost. He said the cost to rural areas was about twice the amount to collect and dispose of trash than in the urban settings. Mr. Emme said in the last session of Congress a bill would have restored the small community exemption and would have exempted sites receiving 20 tons a day or less. The bill died and no action was taken. He had not seen a similar bill introduced in the current session of Congress. Mr. Carpenter informed the committee Ms. Sandy Allen from the Bureau of Land Management would speak, and then comments from the cities and counties would be heard. He asked Ms. Allen to outline the procedure for cities and counties to obtain property from the BLM. Ms. Allen stated BLM's function was to assist the cities and counties in compliance with the laws, in site standards, and to make lands available for solid waste disposal, land transfer sites, etc. She said there were three different ways to make lands available, under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act the land could be sold or exchanged. The Recreation and Public Purposes Act provided lands could be sold for landfills at a cost of 10 dollars per acre or leased at a charge of 2 dollars per acre per year. The first requirement would be to identify land suitable for disposal in the land use plan which was required by law. Applications require submitting a plan of development, a plan for management of the site, analysis for the fiscal capabilities of the area to support a landfill, and the history and historic use of the land to check for hazardous substances which might have been present on the site in years past. The investigative report goes to the state for concurrence and eventual certification of the site. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act where depth to groundwater, soil, culture resources and any other potential conflicts would be investigated. Other encumbrances would be looked at which could preclude the BLM from offering those lands for sale. An example could be mining claims, or issuing a two year notice to grazing operators if use would be restricted or canceled on the area. Applicants would be encouraged to come into the BLM office and talk prior to filing an application. BLM can inform applicants of areas which would be more conducive to landfill sites. Once the environmental assessment has been completed and the history of the site looked at, a notice of realty action would be issued. The notice of realty action would be the determination of suitability issued to the public for comments on the proposed site. The public would have approximately sixty days to comment before a decision was made. The process without any conflicts of mining claims, etc., would take approximately 9 months to a year, assuming most of the application was in order. The average time for a land use planning amendment, if the land has not been determined to be suitable for disposal, adds on time to the process. Ms. Allen said it would help those applying to talk early with the BLM to assist in the effort to find land. Ms. Allen said the BLM has various situations with the landfills. Some of the landfills have been going from a lease status to patent status and the lessee could apply for patents on all or part of the lands leased prior to 1988. She indicated in those cases a landfill transfer audit was required which would be similar to the initial investigation report for a new site. After investigation a report of "no significant risk" would be referred to the state for concurrence, certification would be given, and a state permit issued. The third situation would be existing leases for which no alternative sites were available. Those sites would be authorized on an annual basis. The operations of the lease and any closure of the lease must be in compliance with the state and EPA regulations. Mr. Carpenter asked if there were any questions for Ms. Allen. Senator Jacobsen questioned, if within BLM management planning, sites for landfills were identified. He stated if BLM identified the sites the environmental plans, etc., should be taken care of by BLM. Ms. Allen said BLM worked with local government and municipalities when developing a land use plan. What could be done to assist would be to identify what the constraints were for the community or county. BLM would work together to try to look at sites and identify up front in their land plan, if given a general description of an area of interest. Senator Jacobsen asked if BLM had identified any sites in Nevada which were adequate for waste storage. Ms. Allen remarked she was new to Nevada and was not familiar with everything in the individual resource management plans. Sites probably have been identified as there had been requests from individual communities and counties for land for waste storage. Senator Jacobsen made it clear to Ms. Allen, help was needed from the BLM. Ms. Allen stated the department was willing to give help, but emphasized the need to work together, and Senator Jacobsen agreed. Senator Regan inquired of Ms. Allen the price of land for Recreation and Public Purpose, and if land was available throughout Nevada. Ms. Allen said the Recreation and Public Purposes Act would be the means by which BLM could offer lands at less than fair market value. To buy land would be $10 an acre and to lease land for landfills would be $2 an acre per year under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act as opposed to the other authority BLM had which would require fair market value. Ms. de Braga inquired about the popular rumors an application would take two years to complete rather than one year. The other rumor would be reluctance for the BLM to give land for landfills due to a liability factor. Ms. Allen said in 1988 there was a change in policy by the Federal Government as relates to lands available for landfills. BLM was stopped at the time from using the Recreation and Public Purposes Act for landfills. The only alternative was to sell the land at fair market value. The Act was specifically amended to allow for lands to be sold for landfill purposes. She said there was not a reversionary clause any longer. The clause was taken out to eliminate liability to the Federal Government from landfills and their operations. Ms. de Braga asked if the process could be accomplished in a year or less. Ms. Allen felt sure the application process could be taken care of in a year or less. She felt when sites met the criteria for a landfill the process could be accomplished in six months. Mr. Carpenter thanked Ms. Allen and asked her to be available for further questions. He explained the committees would not hear the bill today which would enable counties to institute a « cent sales tax for the funding of landfill operations. Testimony was welcome and comments regarding the bill would be appreciated. Senator Rhoads would introduce the bill and hold hearings. Senator Rhoads said the bill was requested by Elko County Commissioners and when they testify they will expound on it. He indicated the bill would not be a solution to every county. Many counties would be reluctant to let the County Commissioners control the « cent sales tax and would want a vote of the people. The bill will go to the taxation committee before coming to Senate Natural Resources. Senator Rhoads was interested in testimony to be heard and felt possible amendments could be made to further enhance the bill. Mr. Carpenter called on Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties and Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities to give their presentations. Mr. Robert Hadfield, Executive Director of Nevada Association of Counties, remarked the issue of solid waste management has been a difficult issue for counties throughout Nevada for some time. The problem was not new as the regulations were promulgated in the late 1980's, and during that time NACO convened their annual conference in Pershing County and brought in experts from all over the country to advise the membership of the impending regulations. There were court actions taken against the initial regulations which eliminated the rural landfill exemption. Mr. Hadfield said they appreciated the opportunity to have their membership testify before the committees. Seven counties present at the meeting have submitted written comments, (Exhibit E). Sixteen of Nevada's Counties were present at the beginning of the meeting, many represented by county commissioners. Mr. Tom Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, referred to a paper called "Nevada Trash Talks," from the NDEP. The paper was well done and states county by county the status on the landfill issue. The paper paints a rosier picture than what will be heard from our local governments today, said Mr. Grady. He said the Legislature over the years had heard from both NACO and NLC regarding constant unfunded mandates. The Federal regulations on landfills was a prime example of unfunded mandates. "What is good in New Jersey might not be good in Nevada", said Mr. Grady. Success stories would be heard such as Mesquite being the first city to be in compliance, but not without a great cost. Stories of mandates where no funds were available would also be heard. He expounded on the cost and problems Gabbs and White Pine County were having and the fine which would be given if the mandate was not met. NLC was pleased to hear BLM's time line had been reduced for BLM land. Mr. Grady provided comments (Exhibit F) from many cities on the cost of landfills. Mr. Carpenter announced testimony from the counties would be heard at this time. He called on speakers from Esmeralda County to speak. Ms. Joyce Hartman, Esmeralda County Commissioner, said they have between 900 and 1000 residents in the County which included three communities, Fish Lake Valley, Silver Peak and Goldfield the County Seat. Esmeralda County consists of 80 percent public land. The « cent sales tax would not help as they do not have any shopping available. Ms. Hartman felt Esmeralda County needs their landfills. The landfills do not generate much waste when divided up between the three communities separated by many miles. The state has helped with the waste management plan but noted the county needed some leniency. Funds were not available for equipment. Mrs. Segerblom asked if in the small communities was the landfill issue mandated without funds. Ms. Hartman said yes. Esmeralda County had fenced their landfills and have closed four and have only one per community open. She said they would comply in every way possible. Senator Rhoads asked what other rural states were doing to comply. Were the other states using statewide taxing to help the rural communities. Mr. Hadfield was not aware of any statewide financing plan. The planning effort such as in Utah was helped by the state taking responsibility. The same problems exist in the rural areas as in Nevada. The counties/cities still have to comply and deal with the operating cost of the landfill. Mr. Bennett asked how much of the county budget would it cost for a D-4 Cat to cover up the landfill each day. Ms. Hartman said the road department equipment was used at each site to cover the landfill on a daily basis. She noted at this time Esmeralda County had not hired additional help for the landfills. Mr. Fettic asked Mr. Hadfield if Congress had considered funding for the unfunded mandates. Mr. Hadfield said the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities was looking closely at the new regulatory initiative in Washington, D.C. It is not probable Congress would go back and undo existing regulations. Senator McGinness asked Mr. Hadfield if there were any state grants through the office of Community Services to help the small rural communities. Mr. Hadfield said the Community Development Block Grants used for senior centers and the like would be what Senator McGinness was speaking of. He was not aware of the specifications for those grants but would check them out. Mrs. de Braga asked if the community was assessed at the site for dumping. Ms. Hartman said everyone dumps their own garbage and no fee was charged. Senator Jacobsen asked if there was any documentation on the amount of garbage generated in the county. Ms. Hartman said the only standards would be the national standards for waste per person. Senator Jacobsen felt it would be important to document the amount of waste being generated. He also talked about moving garbage via a train through the rural communities of Nevada. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Lew Dodgion, NDEP, how he would correct the problem in Esmeralda County if the Federal regulations were not involved, but still protect the environment with a low cost budget. Mr. Dodgion said he had started with the Bureau of Environmental Health in 1971 and his first task was to write a solid waste management plan for Nevada and developed the first landfill regulations for the state which included input from the rural communities. Three classes of landfills were defined and those regulations were adopted by the State Board of Health. The rural landfills had fairly minimal requirements and required the landfill be located further away from the community center and allowed cover every seven days. The regulations were set up on the basis of population and the amount of waste generated. There was criteria to control access and not pollute the groundwater or surface water or run off through the landfill. Mr. Carpenter asked if the regulations would be adequate for today to protect the environment and still keep the cost down. Mr. Dodgion said yes, in communities such as Silver Peak or Fish Lake Valley and felt indeed a landfill could be run which would be protective of public health and the environment without extensive lining, without extensive groundwater monitoring and perhaps without daily cover. He said some operating criteria might be inconvenient to the people using the landfills. Mr. Emme was working with Esmeralda County and would explore some concepts for operating criteria which would not bankrupt the county but be within the framework of the regulations. Mr. Carpenter asked if NDEP had the flexibility within the guidelines of the regulations. Mr. Dodgion said by possibly closing the dumps to two days a week as an example to save money would fall within the framework of the regulations. Mr. Bennett asked what was being monitored in groundwater. Mr. Dodgion said they had a list of constituents and the state had the flexibility to look at the list and modify it. If they were to monitor groundwater in a certain area they would look for certain industry contaminants generated which would dictate what kind of priority to monitor. Mr. Neighbors asked what was being done with the pits used by such small communities such as Round Mountain, Carver and Blue Jay. Mr. Dodgion said the State Forest Service and State Highway Department would be required to comply with the same rules and regulations as the communities. Senator McGinness asked Mr. Dodgion if he were aware of any grants to help the small communities such as Esmeralda County. He said he was not aware of any but felt there should be some. In the environmental field for years Federal grant money was available for waste water treatment facilities. The Nevada Legislature had established grant loan programs to help small public water systems. Perhaps this needed to be looked at to help our small communities with their landfills. Senator McGinness asked how they were appropriated. Mr. Dodgion said he thought they were the sale of revenue bonds. Mr. Carpenter called for those testifying from Mineral County. Mr. Fidel Gomez, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, Mineral County had not planned to testify, but felt he might have some pertinent information. Mr. Gomez said the good news was they had hired a consulting firm who had done a great job through the permitting process. He also praised Mr. Emme and his staff for helping them through the permitting process. Mineral County would probably be in the process of receiving a permit to operate the Mina Landfill without monitoring wells and were prepared to get a permit for the Hawthorne landfill. The bad news was when an assessment was put on the users they did not want to hear "unfunded mandates" or "taxes" and were very concerned about the public land issue. He felt no matter how sensible a program might be if it was mandated the public would not buy it. Mr. Gomez said the counties have no control over the laws the Legislature has passed. He asked if the people vote the mandate down what happens, the counties were caught between compliance with the state law on landfills and the courts. Mineral County did not have the problem, but it could happen. The county had worked on the landfill issue for 17 months. The public did not attend meetings and then when an assessment was presented there was a real problem. Hawthorne dump was being operated for 45 thousand dollars a year, and they envision under the mandate the cost will be 218 thousand dollars a year. The 218 thousand dollars would include engineering costs and would not be a one time cost. Without the additional cost for setup the yearly costs would be in excess of 175 thousand dollars a year, every year. He said Mineral County had looked for grants but none were available. Mr. Gomez felt the residents of Mineral County would not pass a raise in taxes of any kind. Funds to be raised would need to be directed by the state. If authority was given to the County Commissioners to impose any kind of a tax, nothing would be gained. Mr. Gomez said personally he did not have any problem with guarding the water tables. He felt the state would have to mandate money required for the landfills and issue the money in forms of grants. Mr. Gomez would like to see training on how to monitor landfills. The attendants hired to check what comes into the landfill need to know what was hazardous and what could be put into the landfill. He would like to see a conference several times a year to update information on the landfills. Mrs. de Braga asked Mr. Gomez if the cost was 175 thousand dollars a year to operate the landfill annually in Mineral County. She had seen figures where the « cent sales tax would only generate 60 thousand dollars a year. Mr. Gomez agreed with her figures and remarked the sales tax would not be a steady revenue. Mineral County needed a steady revenue to operate on. Mr. Carpenter asked what the property tax was for Mineral County. Mr. Gomez said 2.89, but the residents do not want a raise in taxes. He informed the committee most of the residents were going along with what the Commissioners were working on. He said some when mandate, public lands and landfills were mentioned were ready to confront the Federal Government. State departments should have informed the public through the media. Residents did not know what was happening until it happened. Better communications were needed, the commissioners tried to but did not accomplish their goal. Mr. Carpenter did not know what the answer was. The Federal EPA would not be able to get 5000 dollars out of the county and maybe a stand should be made. Mr. Gomez did not agree with Mr. Carpenter and believed everyone should do their best to protect the waters, educate the public, keep the cost as low as possible, and work with Mr. Dodgion who has worked well with the county. Mr. Carpenter called on Mr. Dodgion who informed the committee the compliance date would be extended for at least another year, obviously everyone would be helped by the extension. The NDEP's interest was working with the communities to come into compliance with the regulations. Mr. Carpenter asked about the deficit in Mineral County's budget when considering the landfill would cost 175 thousand dollars a year. How could they be helped in the continuous operation of the landfill. Mr. Dodgion reiterated what Mr. Gomez had said. The NDEP needed to continue to work with the counties and find out where costs could be reduced and still comply with the regulations. Mr. Gomez said he did not wish to offend anyone, but laws were passed by the legislature and both the county and Mr. Dodgion have to comply with the laws. He remarked the only way to reduce costs would be for the legislature to change some of the rules. Mr. Gomez praised Mr. Dodgion's office and remarked how helpful his office had been. Mr. Carpenter agreed with Mr. Gomez and asked Mr. Dodgion what the Federal Government would do if the state took over the requirements. Mr. Dodgion said he could only relate what could happen. The Federal EPA could disapprove Nevada's state plan because of not complying with their requirements, and they could enforce their rules and regulations within the state. The fine by the Federal Government would be 50 thousand dollars a day for noncompliance. Mr. Carpenter said the Federal Government would have all of Mineral County within a couple of days. Senator Adler asked what the tonnage a month would be for Mineral County. Mr. Gomez answered about 12 tons per month, under 20 tons and considered Class II. Senator Adler remarked they were not under as stringent rules as a Class I. Mr. Gomez informed him there was not much difference between the two classes. Mr. Dodgion said in a Class II a lining was not required and the state could wave monitoring. However, Mr. Gomez informed Senator Adler a great deal of money was spent to demonstrate liners and monitoring were not needed. He informed the committee of the problems and mandates involved in complying. Senator McGinness asked about charges on the landfill and was told a charge of $8 a household was included on the property tax roll. Senator Regan asked why not use one of the abandoned mines for a landfill. Mr. Dodgion said an abandoned mine could be used but it would still have to be proved it would not contaminate the groundwater. Mr. Dodgion said Nevada needs to protect their water resources. Mr. Gomez did look at one of the open pit mines in Mineral County but most pits were on a fault which would automatically disqualify the use. Senator Adler asked why they did not charge at the gate for dumping. Mr. Gomez said each household or equivalent to a household would be charged the $8 to assure the money needed to finance the landfill. Mr. Neighbors asked if vacant land would be charged. Mr. Gomez answered in the negative and said vacant land and ranch land without a household would not be assessed. Mr. Paul Henderson, City Manager of Mesquite, spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit F). He informed the committee Mr. Emme had worked well with the city of Mesquite. The process with the BLM was started in June on property owned by Mesquite, only obtaining a road right-of-way to get into the landfill, and the process took over eight months and cost over $120 thousand. Mr. Henderson said it would cost them twice as much to support the landfill then before the mandate. Pickup from residents were charged $6.95 per month, but appears the new charge would be between $12 and $14 per month to pay the fee. He felt low interest loans were the best Mesquite could find for funds to meet the mandate of landfills. Mrs. Segerblom asked where they would get the funds to repay the loan. Mr. Henderson said his community like others were not willing to have taxes raised. The rate increase for pickup was raised to pay the debt off through the revenue stream from user fees. The dump was on the north side of the Virgin river and north of the Mesquite six miles. Mesquite resides within Clark County boundaries and the landfill was located within Lincoln County. He noted the land had belonged to Mesquite and was an old patented mining claim. Mr. Carpenter asked how the residents reacted to the amount of money spent on the landfill. Mr. Henderson believed the citizens had been well informed and did not blame the city council or the mayor. Mr. Carpenter thanked Mr. Henderson for his testimony and informed the committee a short break was in order. Mr. Carpenter reopened the hearing and apologized for the loss of some of the Senators and Assemblymen who had other meetings to attend. Mr. Wayne Camron, Commissioner White Pine County, said they would support Senator Rhoads for the « cent sales tax. The tax would generate between 330 thousand dollars and 360 thousand dollars for White Pine County. Mr. Camron introduced Richard Forman, County Engineer and Dave Olsen, City Attorney who will tell the committee about the referendum vote against them which took away their funding source. Mr. Forman said they had started working on compliance of landfill regulations three years ago. State EPA and BLM were cleared and the county established an ordinance establishing a regional landfill to cover the entire county. With the ordinance there was pickup service for every residence throughout the county at a cost of $15 per month to operate the landfill and pickup service. A referendum was placed on the last ballot and the ordinance was voted out and the county cannot now comply with federal regulations because of the cost of operation of the landfill at approximately 1 million dollars a year (Exhibit G). The $15 a month was to go on the tax roll to save the cost of another office collecting the fee. White Pine County cannot possibly comply with the mandated requirement of a landfill. The only thing left to do to fulfill the landfill requirements would be to file a plan of operation with NDEP. A permit would be given and BLM would grant the land immediately. The Legislature had to look at the entire state and realize the people would not vote in a tax, said Mr. Forman. He would like to see the Legislature give the counties a mandate and mechanism to operate the landfill. It would make it a state issue and not a local issue. A local issue is not going to be passed and the county was out of options. Mr. Carpenter asked if it would cost a million dollars a year to operate White Pine County's landfill. Mr. Forman agreed adding that figure included operating the landfill and the pickup service. Mr. Carpenter asked what the greatest cost in the operation was. Mr. Forman replied the greatest cost was transportation; getting garbage from the point of origin to the landfill. White Pine County's population is so spread out there was approximately one person per square mile. Operation of the landfill was the second greatest expense; groundwater monitoring creates a cost but not a significant one. If the county is required to line the dump, that would be a major cost. After a final plan of operation was developed, whether or not to line the dump would be debated with NDEP. Funds must also be built up between now and when the new dump opens and the old dump is closed. If the old dump received even one ounce of garbage after the October ninth deadline (possibly of 1996) groundwater must be monitored for 35 years. That becomes very expensive. Mr. Carpenter asked whether garbage from Baker, Lund and other communities in the county would be transported to Ely. Mr. Forman said yes, those towns would have house-to-house pickup because it was less expensive than creating transfer stations in those communities. Mrs. de Braga asked whether, as a result of the lawsuit, White Pine County had to refund part of what had already been collected for the landfill. Mr. Forman responded the lawsuit was not settled yet, but the county did have to quit charging as of October, 1994 when the vote took place. Right now there was no source of revenue and the county is still in court as to whether revenues received prior to October of 1994 must be refunded. Mrs. de Braga asked how much money is involved. Mr. Forman said the income per year was around $500,000. Senator Adler inquired whether the pickup and dump fees were repealed when the ordinance was repealed. Mr. Forman explained an ordinance must be in place to establish a fee schedule. Senator Adler asked if garbage was being collected for free. Mr. Forman said it had been because a franchise was awarded for house-to-house pickup throughout the county based on the ordinance. Now the ordinance has been repealed on a referendum vote and the county was tied to a ten year contract. The county has to pay the disposal company even though the county's voters are not paying for the service. Senator Adler stated no fee can be collected at the disposal site nor can a franchise fee be collected and asked if those moneys must come from the General Fund. Mr. Forman said yes but the county has no idea how to correct the problem which was why they were looking for support from the committee and the Legislature. The county needed a method for adopting a fee. Just adopting a gate fee would be very difficult with a franchise service throughout the county. No one would haul garbage if it was being picked up for free. Also, policing 9,000 square miles of county for illegal dumping was not an option. Senator Adler mentioned the creativity of the referendum, and remarked the Legislature had never been confronted with a problem like this one before. Mrs. de Braga asked whether the White Pine County recycling project was still in existence and might ease the financial burden. Mr. Forman replied part of the operation fee for the dump was also to fund part of the recycling costs. White Pine County was right on the edge of 20 tons per day. If recycling was not implemented, the dump would become a Class I facility which would double the fee. Mrs. de Braga asked whether recycling pays for itself or had to be subsidized. Mr. Forman replied according to their figures, it would never pay for itself. Senator Jacobsen asked what one thing could be done by the Legislature to help the situation. Mr. Forman said the one-half cent sales tax previously discussed would be a help and would provide 25-30 percent of overall operating costs. The county would like to be able to adopt an ordinance, or have the Legislature adopt a state law giving the county authority to adopt an ordinance which could not be repealed to pay to operate the dump. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Camron if the County Commissioners would be willing to enact the sales tax without a vote of the people. Mr. Camron replied the commission had gone on record supporting the language Elko County was using, giving the option to impose a one-half cent sales tax without a vote of the people. Dave Olsen, City Attorney for the city of Ely, testified Ely entered into an agreement with White Pine County in support of White Pine County's ordinance. For some of the funding provided by the ordinance, the current landfill would be operated until October, 1995, at which time it would be closed. This would eliminate having to put in monitoring wells and other EPA requirements. The funding was supplied through White Pine County for operation of the landfill even though city of Ely employees were doing the work and the city was basically maintaining and operating the landfill with city equipment. Even with the extension to 1996, the tonnage problems which would push this landfill into a Class I with concurrent monitoring problems, still existed. There appeared to be no problem with groundwater contamination at this time, however, the recommendation was to close the current facility on October 9, 1995. The landfill cost was approximately $120,000 per year to operate and the plan would be to keep the current one open for six months using a gate fee. A vehicle would be weighed as it enters, weighed again as it left and a charge would be levied based on the number of pounds of garbage left behind. Installation of scales was cost prohibitive based on the length of time they are planning to keep the landfill open. Engineers have estimated the costs for closing the landfill at $420,000. The fund earmarked for closure has about $120,000, however that amount would not cover the cost involved in completely closing and covering the landfill in compliance with EPA requirements. The citizens of White Pine County must be commended on their independence and desire to take an active roll in government, however they have tied the hands of their government as far as being able to finance a good plan for a landfill which would serve as a regional disposal facility. Mr. Carpenter asked whether the $15 fee previously in effect would have covered costs of closure and operation. Mr. Forman replied it would have taken care of operation and closure and funds would have accumulated due to the extensions. Collect the funds now, keep the current dump open as long as possible, save the funds to use for closing the current dump and put money aside to open the new dump. Everything would be paid for. All the old dumps would be closed and the new dump would be ready for operation. However, the county was over its tax cap and, as a result, not able to borrow a dime. Mr. Olsen added another dilemma was the new mining operations opening in White Pine County which would be contributing substantially to property tax values and sales tax revenues. One of the mines was possibly amenable to giving the county a zero interest bond to aid in closing the landfill. They might be approachable to similar funding to help open a new landfill. A revenue bond to close the old landfill cannot be floated when the landfill did not generate revenue to repay the bond. Senator McGinness wondered if there was some way the people in White Pine County could be involved. Could public meetings be held to get input, possible solutions and put the onus back on the citizens. Mr. Olsen replied federal mandates were the reason for this dilemma. The general consensus of the people in White Pine County was, "Tell the federal government to take a hike and we will see how many dollars they can fine us before we run out of money, then they can come in and take care of us". Mr. Forman interjected there had been a landfill impact committee in effect for two years. There has been public input and the public was again asked for ideas a month ago. The response was four ideas, all of which had already been considered by the committee. They have looked at every idea presented including transferring the garbage to Reno, Las Vegas, or Elko by train. Several scenarios have been studied but the most economical was to operate their own at $15 a month. Senator Jacobsen asked what tonnage came from the Ely prison and the honor camp. Mr. Foreman said the prison produced around 3,000 pounds a day. The honor camp was pretty small, only about three or four hundred pounds. Senator Jacobsen queried how often pickups were made at the prison. Mr. Forman responded the prison was considered a commercial establishment and not picked up under a mandatory pickup. In addition to the $15 a month, commercial users pay by the ton and the fee was set at $80 a ton. Commercial rates had not been completely established when the referendum changed everything. Mr. Carpenter called upon Tom Isola to present happenings in the largest metropolitan area in the state. Tom Isola, Vice President of Silver State Disposal, operates the garbage companies in Clark County, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Las Vegas and Laughlin and currently service approximately 1.2 million people. Silver State Disposal researched the Title D regulations in advance and with assistance from the state and EPA figured out the most cost effective means to comply with the new laws. With help from the state, county and the health department Sunrise Landfill in Las Vegas, the largest in the state, was closed thereby saving the people many millions of dollars by doing it before October 9, 1993. The combined costs of opening the Apex Landfill and closing Sunrise were $13 million, paid for by the people using increase in solid waste rates. The current rates in Las Vegas was $9.70 a month for twice a week pickup. They also charge $4.50 per yard at the landfill for commercial users. If one were a residential user and transported the waste from one's home there was no fee. Charges at the transfer stations were $6 per cubic yard; again, for residential users there was no charge. Curb side recycling was provided every two weeks and hazardous waste pickup provided once a quarter. Also provided free at all eight transfer stations was disposal of waste oil, batteries and paint. The same types of services were being provided at Laughlin. Tonnage being handled at the Apex Regional Landfill was 4,000 per day while Laughlin was approximately 400 per day. Outlying communities in Clark County closed their landfills and have been offered transfer stations and curb side twice a week pickup with unlimited quantity costing $9.70 a month. Mr. Isola stated their rates were the lowest in the United States for the quantity of service in a community their size. He recommended taking a common sense approach to disposal problems and recycling materials to reduce the volume. The state of Nevada, through the tire tax of 1.2 million dollars a year, has some funds to grant for recycling. Small communities could keep their tonnage down by recycling. There was a market for some recyclables such as cardboard, aluminum, paper and tin. The state needed to work with the people in their communities to attack the solid waste disposal problem. Silver State Disposal and Reno Disposal would be happy to donate their time to help establish recycling programs or establish brokerage for recycled products throughout the state of Nevada. Senator Rhoads asked if the $9.70 per month pickup charge was mandated or on a tax roll. Mr. Isola replied it was in the county and city ordinances. Senator Rhoads wondered if, as collection fees were increased, more illegal dumping would result. Mr. Isola responded that was why there was a twice a week pickup of unlimited quantities and free disposal at the landfill and transfer stations. In comparing his fees with New York's $80 to $100 per month fees, Mr. Isola felt $12 per month was not out of line. Senator Regan mentioned a neighborhood watch program for illegal dumpers in Clark County. More and more neighborhoods were taking photographs and writing license plate numbers down of illegal dumpers. It had become a matter of community pride. In addition, the person who turns an offender in received 50 percent of the fine imposed. Stating he was very impressed with Mr. Isola's testimony, Mr. Fettic asked what could be done about White Pine County. Mr. Isola reiterated every city was different. He would have to go look at the situation. After driving around the state, visiting every city, he believed most cities were under the 20 tons per day limit and with a little common sense approach could handle their waste problems without big dollars. It would not be free; there would have to be a fee but it could be minimized by cooperation with the state, the people and the city governments. Mr. Fettic questioned Mr. Isola's earlier comment that both private disposal companies, Silver State and Reno Disposal, would be willing to help. Mr. Isola agreed to assist with brokerage of recyclables. Mr. Carpenter questioned the costs involved in running the dump in Ely. The old landfill costs $120 thousand per year to operate; the new one would cost $1 million a year. Mr. Isola agreed the numbers might not be correct but he would have to see the circumstances in order to be able to answer the question. Senator Jacobsen commented recycling was one of the best projects the Jean Honor Camp ever developed and asked Mr. Isola if he thought inmates in those camps could be utilized, recognizing trash may contain contraband. Mr. Isola answered inmates could be used for cleanup around a landfill. The wind usually creates a mess around those areas. They could also be used to sort materials in a recycling program, particularly if a conveyer line were used. Sorted products were worth much more than unsorted. If the state would grant money for a baler, and someone would help broker the recyclables, it could be a great savings. Mr. Carpenter thanked Mr. Isola for coming to Carson City and sharing his ideas with the Legislature. Mr. Llee Chapman, Chairman of the Elko County Commission, was next to testify. Mr. Chapman, co-drafter of S.B. 123, has been working on this landfill project for many years and presented a brief chronology of events. Agreeing with Mr. Isola that a common sense approach was absolutely necessary, Mr. Chapman emphasized his appearance before the committee today was a necessity. Elko County was the largest of the small counties and the sixth largest county by land mass in the United States with a population of over 41,000. This was an unfunded mandate, which would cost eighteen percent of the Elko County general fund or $2.2 million per year. Ripler Rules/Subtitle D hit in 1991 and the county spent 1992 trying to be exempted. Elko was not a 20 ton per day landfill and therefore not eligible for the additional year's extension. An advisory board composed of representatives of all the cities, towns and the county was set up to study the plan and had been working on it for two years. To find out what might happen, landfills in the cities of Wells, Carlin, Spring Creek and Ryndon have been closed. These communities were close to Elko and allowed solid waste from those areas to be transported to the regional landfill. Based on facts collected by closure of those landfills, better estimates of annual operating costs might be generated, (Exhibit H). Elko County has 18 sites required for solid waste pickup and disposal. Being the biggest of the small, Elko County has a unique problem. The 41 thousand residents were spread out over 2 thousand square miles of land, over 12 thousand square miles of area. For instance, one round trip by a garbage truck to Jarbridge and back to Elko was 414 miles. The city of West Wendover was 225 miles round trip; Jackpot a 244 mile round trip and Montello a 208 mile round trip. The user fee situation was closely perused because the people who use the service should pay for it. However, when one looks at the map, communities in Elko County vary in size from ten people to 25 thousand. The plan must be physically accessible to the citizens of the county and also must be accessible monetarily. To avoid illegal dumping spoiling the scenic beauty of Elko County, pickup sites must be located where the people were. The towns were not densely populated and people spread out. Door to door pickup was not as easy as in urban areas. Obviously, the solution would be expensive. Elko County currently has a six and one-half percent sales tax. S.B. 123 would allow the county to levy a seven percent sales tax. Why a sales tax? Because it would apply equally to everyone. Much of the waste was generated by people who come through Nevada, for instance campgrounds, from the Nevada Department of Transportation and from tourists. The sales tax collection system was already in place; already administered and added no administrative burden. If Elko County would comply, there was a lot to be done between today (February 22, 1995) and October of 1995. The county cannot generate $2.2 million within the current tax structure. The choice would be compliance or non-compliance. Four landfills have been closed in good faith, a plan had been developed and submitted, the engineering work has been done and the county had worked hand in hand with the state. The state was as responsible as Elko County to find a solution to this problem. The state accepted the EPA rules and was administering those rules. We all must solve the problem by October 9, 1995. Senator Rhoads asked when this request must be processed to meet their deadline. Mr. Chapman responded between now (February 22, 1995) and October 9, 1995 the project must be put out to bid, built and an operating plan in place. Senator Rhoads commented the time frame was not really tight and passage did not need to be in place by March 15. Mr. Chapman pointed out Elko County was at the mercy of a whole lot of people. Walt Sanders, Mayor of West Wendover, stressed his community was in full support of S.B. 123. West Wendover has a unique problem because it disposes of its garbage in Utah. The state of Utah, in accordance with the federal mandate, was planning to close the dump. As a result, West Wendover turned to Elko County for help in disposing of twelve to fifteen tons of garbage per day. Looking at building permits issued, in the next two months the figure might jump to 20 or 22 tons per day. All the hotel casinos were actively involved in a recycling program, however, there would still be the left over garbage to dispose of. The only alternative would be to transport raw garbage to the landfill in Elko County. West Wendover was very much in support of the sales tax increase which would take the financial burden off the 3500 local residents. In any given day, there were from 6 to 8 thousand additional tourists in West Wendover and the sales tax was seen as a way to help bear the costs of their solid waste problem. Mike Cosgrove, City Manager of Wells for six years, presented the next testimony. His first task on becoming city manager was to find another landfill site which had been quite difficult because Wells sits at the headwaters of the Humboldt River. Their landfill was closed in October, 1993 because of the federal mandate. A franchise service hauls their garbage to Elko City. A tipping fee had been added to help close the existing landfill, which was currently being done. Wells is a small community which did not want to be a dumping ground, but since the landfill was closed, illegal dumping occurred in the gullies and ravines. Transfer stations were one answer. The city council and the citizens have held hearings and were in support of S.B. 123. Something needed to be done but Wells did not have the resources to open and operate a new landfill or buy equipment to run one. Assemblywoman Segerblom, as a former Ruby Valley resident, agreed with Mr. Cosgrove and would support Elko County's efforts to solve this problem. Mr. Chapman, in summary, stated in the last two years they have been trying to find a solution. Four landfills were closed to test these theories and now there was garbage all over the place in Wells and Spring Creek. The tax increase would be a solution which might work for Elko County. Jerry LaMiaux, Chairman of the Lander County Commission introduced Tim Echeverria, Lander County Manager/Engineer and Mike Bidart of Western Technology Systems. Lander County is located in north central Nevada and the principal communities are Battle Mountain, Austin and Kingston. Lander County attempted to respond to the federal landfill mandate. Regulations were passed in 1991 and further defined by the lawsuit in 1993. NDEP was authorized to become an agent for the United States EPA in May of 1994. The current compliance deadline was October, 1995. The total costs of compliance would result in expenditures which will amount to about 25 percent of the general fund for fiscal 1995. The impact on discretionary funds was about all the money which could be scraped up in two fiscal years and only because of a windfall in revenue from some mines in the area. The county could make it financially, however, needed projects such as sewer and water systems, juvenile programs, Battle Mountain and Austin airports, upgrading, paving and maintaining county roads and establishing capital replacement funds would not be accomplished. Tim Echeverria, Lander County Manager and Engineer, explained the current status of the landfill project. The county had accepted what the federal government mandated, but now the time frame has been compressed. In addition, two federal agencies, the BLM and the Forest Service, were hampering the project. In the northern part of the county, no private land which could be used had been identified; in the southern part the only private land was on top of a mountain with patented mining claims or down in the river bottoms which agricultural people patented at some point. Noner of the above places met federal landfill regulations or the criteria Mr. Emme discussed earlier. Lander County was being forced to deal with either the BLM or the Forest Service. A large amount of money was being absorbed in environmental assessment costs with the BLM for one site. Engineering fees would cost $43 thousand for the environmental assessment, excluding any drilling or engineering assessments. The EPA, one federal agency, had regulations which needed to be complied with on a deadline; the BLM also has their regulations which must be addressed. The BLM would not issue a drilling permit, which was needed to determine the landfill design, until a final design was submitted. Counties with limited resources were unable to just throw people and money at these problems. Was it right to have the federal government mandating a level which, speaking as a professional engineer, was far in excess of what was needed for our dry area. Without water there was nothing to drive household waste contamination into our groundwater. Jerry LaMiaux presented local reactions, which were identical to reactions from rural communities throughout the state. Rural Nevadans felt federal government was invading their lives and they felt frustrated and fed up. Local governments were fed up too. They had local goals and plans which were now being pre- empted by the federal government. Senator Roads inquired whether Mr. Lamas was supporting S. B. 123 as written. Mr. Lamas responded his emotions were mixed. The ongoing problem of operating these landfills had not been faced. Lander County would be closing three landfills and opening two, one north and one south. Senator James commended the presentations for their excellence however he did not see how the state could help and asked if Mr. Lamas had anything else he would ask of the Legislature. Mr. Lamas explained he was hoping to get support in terms of unfunded mandates. He wanted to see lobbying pressure and information sent to the legislative branch showing there were people on the ends of these mandates who get hurt. Tim Echeverria noted the county was being asked to spend a large portion of their general fund, 25 percent, on this project. If one looked at the time frame, (Exhibit I,) NDEP gained USEPA approval on May 7, 1994 for implementation by October 9, 1995. That was not enough time for the county to react; they needed a few fiscal years to implement something which would consume this large a portion of the general fund, especially since it was his understanding special elections for bond issues could no longer be held. Senator James asked where the implementation date originated; was it from federal statute or from the state's decision implementing the law. Mr. Echeverria responded it came from federal regulations. Senator James further inquired whether there would be any flexibility on the implementation date for the counties. Mr. Emme stated the effective dates came from federal EPA as did the proposed extension for another year until 1996. In terms of implementing the regulations, the only discretion the counties had was how enforcement was handled. Senator James wondered what the consequences might be if the counties fail to comply by October 9, 1995. Mr. Emme pointed out the regulatory agency was responsible for enforcement. The tools and statutes were available to issue orders, however in a case where a landfill was not in compliance by that date, the first approach would be negotiating a schedule to come into compliance. Fining a county $5 thousand per day was the authority for civil penalties and would be used as a last option. Senator James hoped fines would not be levied given today's testimony. The circumstances testified to in this hearing really cry out for the law to be changed at the federal level so there would be greater flexibility. Mr. Emme emphasized NDEP had bent over backwards trying to accommodate the local governments in dealing with the regulations. His advice was to do the best you could. Stonewalling or trying to backtrack in the regulations was probably the wrong thing to do. If the counties could work with NDEP, Mr. Emme was confident reasonable solutions could be developed. It may take longer than October 9, 1995 or 1996, even. Senator James mentioned the gallant attempt on the part of local officials to try to comply. Senator Jacobsen pointed out all Nevada's Congressional delegation would be in Carson City during the month of March and suggested staff develop a letter to be sent requesting a response to some of these problems and questions. There was a need to work together on the local and federal levels, the state did not have all the answers. Some of the mandates should be tempered in some manner. Communities did not have the funds and the state was short of funds. Staff should put together some of the comments from today's testimony and ask these issues be addressed when our Congressional representatives speak to the Legislature. Tom Fransway, County Commissioner from Humboldt County, began his county's testimony explaining Subtitle D had been a major focus of disruption in Humboldt County since 1991 when the federal government first mandated new landfill regulations. Humboldt County appointed a county-wide advisory committee to inform, educate and explain what the mandate consisted of. The committee makeup included rural communities such as McDermitt, Golconda and Paradise. In 1992, the county hired Vector Engineering to help throughout the process. At that time they were asked to help with a study to see where the county was and where it needed to go as far as compliance went. In 1993, Vector completed the rural landfill site. There were eight rural sites below the 20 ton limit which would be very much affected by the deadline. So far Humboldt County had spent $120 thousand using the services of Vector Engineering. Winnemucca landfill had two options originally. The first was to close it and move the refuse to Reno and the Lockwood dump. The other option was to keep Winnemucca landfill open which depended upon getting a waiver from groundwater monitoring and the liner requirement. Recently the county heard a waiver was forthcoming and they would be able to keep it open. When the mandate was implemented, Humboldt County would be forced to close its eight outlying dumps and transport all refuse to the city of Winnemucca's regional landfill. Estimated costs for the first year including closure of all eight landfills and operation of the Winnemucca landfill were in excess of one million dollars. After that, costs to operate and maintain Winnemucca landfill were estimated to be approximately $750 thousand per year. Mr. Fransway emphasized Humboldt County was not unhappy with the state of Nevada. Mr. Dodgion and Mr. Emme had been really helpful in obtaining the waiver. Where the county goes now would depend on funding, including the fee schedule. Approximately 10 thousand people who live in the city of Winnemucca and close surrounding rural areas were within a Winnemucca landfill district currently in existence. In compliance with this mandate, those district's boundaries would not be kept intact and would ultimately include the entirety of Humboldt County. The eight out county landfills were currently funded by road department funds which would no longer be possible under the mandate. Because the Winnemucca landfill had a waiver, talks with other counties might produce a plan to make the Winnemucca landfill a regional facility. Some of the other counties were interested in this possibility. They would help with funding and Winnemucca would help with their disposal problems. Humboldt County had been working on this for four years and trying to reach a solution in a cost effective manner. The people understood and realized their county commission and city council were doing all they could. In response to Senator James' question about what the legislature could do, Mr. Fransway said he really did not know. He did not expect the Humboldt County Commission to promote S.B. 123 because it would not be palatable to the voters. If S.B. 123 passed, the county would accept the money and find a place to spend it. They also asked the bill be a ballot question. Mayor Paul Vesco of Winnemucca, added he agreed with everything Mr. Fransway had said, and commented mandates must be dealt with. He agreed our legislators in Washington, D. C. needed to be informed of the citizens' and elected officials' dissatisfaction with these unfunded mandates. Mr. Vesco also complimented Dave Emme and his department in their efforts to help the small counties and cities. As a result of Mr. Emme's efforts, Winnemucca and Humboldt County do not have nearly the problems Ely and some of the other cities and counties have. The city of Winnemucca has been working with Humboldt County since 1991 with the two entities sharing the costs of Vector Engineering. Mr. Vesco would like to see another year's extension to allow additional planning and gathering of moneys. He feels the state has its hands tied by the feds, and really cannot lend much aid in this problem. Senator James commented this is a shameful example of a federal mandate that has resulted in the preceding citizens being forced to come before the Legislature asking for a tax increase. It offends him no end. The Senator asked Dave Emme what the sanctions would be for a state which the federal government perceives is not aggressively enforcing the implementation of these regulations. Mr. Emme answered there is no sanction, enforcement would be similar to the Clean Air Act where highway funds are taken away for noncompliance. The way the mandate was worded, EPA could determine our program was inadequate and would formally disapprove it. The enforcement authority for implementing these regulations would fall back to the United States EPA. One is left with the risks and potential liability of a federal enforcement action which can be substantial and merciless compared to dealing with NDEP. Senator James noted S.B. 123 is designed to raise funds so a locality can comply with the federal mandate. It will be fazed out as other alternatives are discovered, facilities are built and brought up to standard. As a community grows and the burden is spread out among more people, the costs decrease. Of course, once a tax is raised it never seems to go back down. Senator James inquired whether the burden could be eased some by allowing more time and giving the cities and counties more leeway. If this goes on a ballot, the taxpayers probably will reject it as they did in White Pine County. Mr. Fransway responded this unnecessary federal mandate will be funded by sacrifice. Unfunded mandates victimize local governments and take services away from the people they represent. A one-half cent sales tax increase will place a large burden on big industry in Humboldt County, mainly mining and cattle. Senator James would like to soften the effect of the implementation of the law and summarized Dave Emme's testimony noting extensions may be obtained and enforcement modified by working with the localities. The law should be implemented as prudently and cautiously as possible within the parameters of a local government's resources. Mr. Emme noted his agency was already doing that. Communities with particular problems needed to present those in their solid waste management plans and NDEP would do the best it could to help. Senator James indicated he was not interested in watering down regulations which were good for the environment, however, he felt local citizens should have more input. The Senator asked whether, in enforcing regulations and deciding on penalties, NDEP was able to see whether or not what the locality was having difficulty complying with was really necessary for the area even though federal law did not take that into account. Mr. Emme replied there was flexibility within the regulations as he described in earlier testimony. There was some "wiggle room". Senator Regan mentioned nine federal requirements including solid waste, endangered species, clean air, Grand Canyon clean air requirements, grazing fees, mining royalties, charges now proposed for Lake Mead, federal ownership of water rights over private rights within the state and federal judges' control of our state's prisons. The Senator suggested, when our four Congressional delegates are in Carson City next month, a "line in the sand" be drawn and they be told Nevada was not going to cross it on any of the nine issues. Cameron McRae, Chairman of the Nye County Board of Commissioners, agreed with Senator Regan. Federal regulations promulgated in 1989 and a state of Nevada plan published in 1992, created a difficult situation for all Nevadans but particularly for those in the rural counties. At 19 thousand acres Nye County was the largest land mass county within the state of Nevada. The population was booming in the southern portion of the county particularly in the community of Pahrump. Public hearings have been held for a number of years while a local plan was developed. If Nye County had to go to a regional landfill in the largest community, Pahrump, the county would be looking at a 700 mile round trip from the community of Current Creek for instance, to utilize the facility. The county had looked into using the assets and facilities available in neighboring Clark County and found overall costs for just the community of Pahrump, which generates approximately 20 tons a day, were well over one million dollars a year. For the Tonopah landfill to comply with monitoring requirements as modified by the state, it must drill three 1100 foot wells. At that level one would find the water was already unusable for human consumption which was the sole reason Tonopah gets its drinking water from a well patch a number of miles outside the community. Here was a set of regulations, if followed even as modified by the state plan, which would cost approximately $750 thousand not including the cost of a liner. These wells would be drilled to monitor water which was already unsuitable for human consumption. State agencies have been helpful in developing Nye County's plan, however, the state of Nevada and its legislative branches should put as much time, energy and effort in directing and fighting this issue as some other issues they have fought in the past. The state has not filed suit against the federal government for implementing regulations which probably did not fit our environment and hydrology. Testimony heard earlier claiming these efforts were producing a cleaner Nevada was in direct opposition to other testimony, noting an increase in illegal dumping where regional landfills have been closed, or fees initiated or increased. One item not completely addressed was exactly what kind of landfills most of Nevada's communities had. The issue of our shallow cut landfills being placed in the same category as a standard landfill with its creation of leaching and methane gas should be addressed. Nye County's position on federal mandates was well known. Whether the federal government had certain jurisdictions over issues being imposed on the residents was a separate question, but just as important. All these rules and regulations should be adapted to the reality in an area. Regarding the issue of the current bill adding one-half cent to the sales tax, Mr. McRae did not believe this type of action was appropriate. More attention should be spent on reducing the costs. Mr. Isola quoted a figure of thirteen million dollars to construct the Clark County landfill. It was an excellent facility; it does the job, but could that facility have achieved the same end result for six and a half million dollars by not addressing regulations which were inappropriate. If that was the case, then the lower amount was what we should be funded with public money, not the $13 million. The one-half cent will raise about $700 thousand in Nye County. In Nye County's efforts to comply, (Exhibit J) which were modified from what the standards were, $700 thousand would only cover half the costs of a manual operation. Projected costs for implementation to the modified standard the state was going to allow were projected to be $1.5 million. Annual operating costs were estimated to run approximately $800 thousand per year. If the final amended implementation was not allowed, for instance lining the landfill pits, the cost would increase by $600 thousand per landfill per year. Mr. Ray Dummar of Gabbs, the only incorporated city, has a payment on their water bond of $40 thousand per year of their $250 thousand per year budget. The closure of their dump has been estimated at $300 thousand which was a little more than their annual budget. Out of the $40 thousand payment on the water, $39,998 was interest so this was a very long term loan. The town puts about one ton of garbage into their dump per day and charges eleven dollars per month for garbage for approximately one hundred families. However, the maintenance fees for the dump run about $30 thousand per year. In larger areas with greater numbers of users the per yard costs could be much lower. Assemblyman Neighbors mentioned he was familiar with Gabbs' assessed valuation and pointed out that Gabbs was already at their statutory limit. Mr. Dummar agreed. Mr. Neighbors added even if the entire tax rate of $3.64 were applied there still would not be enough money to fund compliance with this federal mandate. Mr. Dummar replied the only other alternative was to close their dump. The closest landfill then would be Tonopah which was 115 miles away. Mr. Neighbors recalled when he was Nye County Manager in Tonopah a well was drilled at the new dump to provide water for a caretaker. At 800 feet dust was still coming from the hole and they gave up. Mr. Carpenter thanked all those who testified for making the effort to come to Carson City. Mr. McRae added Nye County had implemented through its solid waste plan a fee placed on everyone's tax bill on a per parcel basis in an attempt to try to fund this. The county allowed for an exemption and has an appeal process. The commissioners have acted on approximately 250-300 separate types of appeals from people who did not like the fact that, without a vote, a fee was placed on their tax bill. Again, it was only funded on a modified level and not for full compliance. Jim Regan, Churchill County Commissioner, mentioned their problems were "septage" and dead animals and the county was working with Fallon on the septic problem. As a result, the costs of pumping out the approximately 4 thousand septic tanks in the county had doubled. NDEP was concerned because if the tanks were not pumped the aquifers could be degraded. One suggestion Mr. Regan made was a mention which when the safe drinking water legislation was enacted, the state could allow variances based on cost and health matters. Maybe Subtitle D could be amended so the state would be allowed to make variances based on cost and common sense. There being no further testimony, Mr. Carpenter stated Senator Rhoads would appoint a Senate subcommittee and he would appoint an Assembly subcommittee. The two subcommittees would meet and try to come up with a plan for relief. He requested support from those who testified today. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pat Menath, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: _____________________________________________ Senator Dean A. Rhoads Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Chairman Assemblyman Marcia de Braga, Chairman Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining February 22, 1995 Page