MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Sixty-eighth Session March 8, 1995 The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 1:55 p.m., on Wednesday, March 8, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Vice Chairman Senator Mark A. James Senator Mike McGinness Senator John B. (Jack) Regan Senator O. C. Lee COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Ernest E. Adler ( Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred W. Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State of Nevada Mike L. Baughman, Ph.D., Representative, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club Ann Kersten, Public Research Associates Louis D. Thompson, Chairman, Walker Lake Working Group Everett Temme, Fairfield Ranch Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation Jim Weishaupt, Manager, Walker River Irrigation District Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony Chairman Rhoads asked the committee to review four proposals for bill draft requests (BDRs). He said the first is a request from Nevada rural electrical cooperatives who want a bill to provide for an interim study, copied on a national resolution, on power wheeling. He explained the members of cooperatives believe an interim study should be made. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR A BILL DRAFT AS PROPOSED BY THE RURAL ELECTRICAL COOPERATIVES. SENATOR REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Chairman Rhoads described a request for a bill draft from Senator James which would clarify the definitions of a water system and a public water system. He explained the statutes appear to have a conflict in that each allows for 15 connections, but only 25 users, which results in an allowance for only 1.6 persons per connection. He said the state board of health uses a formula which allows for 3.4 persons per connection, leaving a discrepancy between the agencies involved. He averred the statutes should be amended to reduce the confusion. SENATOR JAMES MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR THE BILL DRAFT DESCRIBED BY SENATOR RHOADS. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Chairman Rhoads said the third request for a BDR had come from Jim Gibson, Jr., which would copy an environmental self-evaluation act in the State of Utah. He explained, "It enhances the environment through voluntary compliance with environmental laws" by providing incentives to identify and remedy environmental compliance problems and through efforts of cooperation on environmental issues. SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR THE BILL DRAFT OUTLINED BY SENATOR RHOADS. SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Chairman Rhoads reminded the committee there has been a Congressional proposal to eliminate the United States Geological Survey (USGS). He pointed out the USGS has worked very closely with state agencies for much of the state's water planning and scientific research. He suggested the committee introduce a resolution that would ask the Congress to continue the USGS presence in the State of Nevada. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR A BILL DRAFT IN SUPPORT OF THE RETENTION OF THE USGS. SENATOR REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Chairman Rhoads invited comments from Senator James on four bills proposed by an interim water study in which both senators had participated. Senator James said the measures were the result of an interim study on the use, allocation and management of water. He expressed regret that he could not stay for the entire hearing because he had to leave to attend a meeting regarding crime measures for the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Senator James explained the interim study committee had carefully considered the controversial issue regarding speculation in water rights. He said the committee had attempted to balance the need to preserve a free market system with the need to protect water supplies, especially in the rural areas, where there may be future development. He reported the interim study committee felt an obligation to find equitable means to prevent water supplies from being sold and exported away. According to Senator James several bills address the problem of water planning and the need for the state engineer to review applications for export or interbasin transfers. He said three of the measures on the agenda will work together to address the issue. He stated he does not view the issue as a problem but only as one which should be accomplished in a well-considered fashion with due care for not only the areas in need of water, but also the areas of origin. Senator James acknowledged one of the resolutions on the agenda will need an amendment to deal with the fact some of the interstate compacts between Nevada and California have been rendered moot by the negotiations in the Truckee River settlement. Senator James stated the last resolution on the agenda would urge the federal government to adhere to Nevada's water laws as part of measures already passed by the committee in an attempt to preserve state sovereignty over water rights. He pointed out the western states have traditionally maintained sovereignty over water rights. Chairman Rhoads called attention to a letter he had received from Edna T. Wohlbrandt of Boulder City (Exhibit C) which he deemed to be very informative on the issue. He then opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 98. SENATE BILL 98: Revises provisions governing approval by state engineer of application for permit to appropriate water. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State of Nevada, confirmed S.B. 98 had come about as a result of the interim study. He recalled testimony regarding speculation not only during the interim study, but also during the 1993 session of the Legislature. He said the 1993 Legislature had made strides to correct speculation. Mr. Turnipseed declared the most frowned-upon type of activity regarding water is that in which water rights are appropriated for speculation. He indicated S.B. 98 is an attempt to clarify the intent of the measures approved by the Legislature in 1993. He said for many years Nevada Revised Statutes chapter 533, section 375 (NRS) 533.375) has addressed applications that proposed to divert 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) or applications that seek to divert cumulative 10 cfs without asking for statements of financial ability. He read: Before either approving or rejecting the application, the state engineer may require such additional information as will enable him to guard the public interest properly, and may, in the case of an application proposing to divert more than 10 cubic feet per second of water, or in the case of multiple applications whose cumulative diversions for a single project total more than 10 cubic feet per second of water, require a statement of the following facts: 1. In the case of an incorporated company he may require the submission of articles of incorporation, and the names and places of residence of directors and officers, and the amount of its authorized and its paid-up capital. 2. If the applicant is not an incorporated company, he may require a statement as to the name of the person proposing to construct the work, and a showing of facts necessary to enable him to determine whether he has the financial ability to carry out the proposed work, and whether the application has been made in good faith. Mr. Turnipseed said after the interim study began he had denied an application for speculation which was then appealed. He noted the application had involved people who were successors in interest to the land where construction of a power plant had been proposed. Mr. Turnipseed related the Sierra Pacific Power Company had purchased some water rights and filed additional water rights to build the power plant, and prior to completion of the environmental study Sierra Pacific Power Company pulled out of the project and sold the land to the successor applicant. Mr. Turnipseed explained the application sought to change agricultural rights to industrial rights and included a new application for industrial use appropriations. At the time he made a request for financial information and for the project plan, and when he learned there was no plan, he rejected the application. He said when the applicant appealed the decision, the Division of Water Resources prevailed. Mr. Turnipseed stated there are other applications under review which convinced the interim committee there is a need to make financial information one of the criteria for approval. He said S.B. 98 would provide criteria for denial of applications. Mike L. Baughman, Ph.D., Lobbyist, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority, offered support for S.B. 98. He said the authority feels it would be an appropriate addition to state water law to curb speculation. Mr. Baughman asserted it has become apparent over the past 18 months that the Yucca Vision project in the Humboldt River basin, which has been in progress for 4 years, is a speculative project. He conjectured the state engineer may not have had the clear authority to prevent such speculation, except for the court case cited earlier. He submitted S.B. 98 would strengthen the public interest criteria in the statutes and help the state engineer's efforts to curb speculation. Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toyabe Chapter, Sierra Club, joined in support of S.B. 98. There being no further testimony, Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.B. 98 and opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.)10. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 10: Urges Congress to approve California- Nevada Interstate Compact. Fred W. Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, explained though the California- Nevada compact was negotiated several years ago, it has never been confirmed by the United States Congress. He declared the compact originally was designed to provide for the apportionment of the waters of the Lake Tahoe basin, the Truckee River, the Carson River and the Walker River. Mr. Welden reported he had been asked to work with people involved in the interim study to consider amendments which apply only to the apportionment of the Walker River basin. He provided the committee with a copy of a proposed amendment to S.J.R. 10 (Exhibit D). Mr. Welden pointed out that only the portions of the Walker River basin which are left in the compact are still of value to the state and which most people feel should be recognized through some type of a formal mechanism. He said the amendment in Exhibit D urges the Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources in Nevada and the Director of the California Department of Water Resources to work together to identify an appropriate mechanism for formally recognizing the apportionment of the waters of the Walker River basin. He explained after an appropriate mechanism is identified it will be necessary to take steps to put that mechanism into affect. Mr. Welden reported Gordon dePaoli, attorney for the Walker River Irrigation District, the Nevada State Engineer, and Peter G. Morros, Director of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, have reviewed the amendment and have approved it. Mr. Welden read a letter received from James Spoo (Exhibit E) regarding S.J.R. 10 written on behalf of Mineral County which outlined some of their concerns. Chairman Rhoads inquired what advantages are to be obtained from forming a compact. Mr. Welden responded a number of years ago Nevada and California agreed to an apportionment of water from the Walker River basin for each state. In accordance with the compact, he said, each state appropriated water based on their state laws. He said: It's my understanding that the two states have been living by this agreement through the recent years. However it was never actually confirmed in Congress or ratified in Congress, so if either state chose not to live by it they wouldn't have to. The advantage to the interstate compact is, once it's ratified in Congress, it's pretty much stabilized. Mr. Welden confirmed with the inclusion of the amendment the resolution would involve only the Walker River basin. He stated it would call upon both states to identify whether an interstate compact would be best for the Walker River basin, to review the specifics of the compact and to obtain approval of both the state legislatures for any changes before taking the matter to Congress. Mr. Welden pointed out the portions being deleted regarding the Lake Tahoe basin, the Truckee River and the Carson River were not consistent with the negotiated settlement. Senator Regan noted the amendment does not delete the reference to Lake Tahoe, the Truckee River and the Carson River on lines 18 and 19 of the bill. He asked if those should be deleted along with the identified portions of lines 4 and 5. Mr. Welden replied the people involved in the drafting of the amendment thought it would be better to leave those lines unchanged because of the later reference back to the existing compact. He explained if the amendment is adopted the resolution would state certain aspects have already been addressed while other aspects should be retained. Senator Jacobsen quipped the issue had been around longer than he had. He indicated similar resolutions have gone from Nevada to federal subcommittees on the constitution. He suggested that was an indication some national legislators felt the matter was unconstitutional. He asserted it was time to resolve the matter. He pointed out Congress has ratified similar compacts, such as the oversight committee for Lake Tahoe. Mr. Welden responded the proposed amendment would no longer urge Congress to ratify the compact, and because of the negotiated settlement it would no longer be in Nevada's best interest to ratify the compact. Chairman Rhoads interjected the resolution would become a directive for the two states to work out a solution for the Walker River basin. Senator Jacobsen iterated his concern there could come a time in the future when a court might reject the agreement if it had not been ratified by Congress. Ann Kersten, Public Resource Associates, identified her group as a nonprofit organization of concerned citizens. She expressed concern over the language in the compact regarding the Walker River basin. She said the compact expressly excludes Walker Lake, which is a major portion of the Walker River basin. She asserted: The compact confirms all existing water rights under federal court decree C125 and adds additional water rights on top of that. C125 today over-allocates the Walker River already to the extent that all water rights are filled only in a 130 percent water year. This over- allocation has, over the past 100 years, caused a potential ecosystem collapse at Walker Lake. Ms. Kersten blamed the loss of the fishery on the over-allocation of Walker River system water. Ms. Kersten reiterated her concern that Walker Lake is not mentioned in the compact and it should be considered if California and Nevada renegotiate the language. She pointed out the terminus of the river, Walker Lake, should be part of the basin, but the description does not specifically mention the lake while it expressly includes everything above the lake. Louis D. Thompson, Chairman, Walker Lake Working Group, stated the group consists of private citizens joined together to try to save Walker Lake from "its imminent demise." He acknowledged he was unaware of the proposed amendment and he had planned to address concerns regarding the current compact. Mr. Thompson insisted there are two compelling reasons why the current compact as worded should not be ratified by the Congress. First, he said, the compact specifically precludes any water from flowing into Walker Lake. He called attention to NRS 538.6 section 2 under which Pyramid Lake is included as part of the Truckee River basin, whereas Walker Lake is specifically excluded as part of the definition of the Walker River basin. He read: It shall mean the area which naturally drains into the Walker River and/or Walker Lake upstream from the intersection of the river and/or lake in Mineral County. Mr. Thompson added the statute further defines unused water as "that which was not specifically allocated" and states that the unused water shall be used only within the Walker River basin. He charged that provision would preclude water from flowing into the lake. Referring to the federal decree cited by Ms. Kersten, Mr. Thompson said it is the basis for the provisions in the compact as currently written, thus the compact reflects the decisions made by the court. He noted the decree is being challenged in the Federal District Court as the result of petitions by the Walker River Irrigation District (WRID) and the Walker River Piute Tribe asking for the renegotiation of the distribution of compact water. Mr. Thompson said Mineral County has asked to intervene in the Federal District Court case on behalf of Walker Lake. He stated: Assuming that it is reopened and the distribution on the Walker River system is reallocated ... anything that is written now would have to be redone, and then have to go back to the Senate again to have the compact modified, amended and approved again. Nevada and California have been operating under the provisions of the current interstate compact for 30 years, and we think asking for it to be ratified by Congress at this time, when there's litigation going on, would be counterproductive. Chairman Rhoads pointed out the amended resolution will no longer refer to the compact, it will only suggest that the two entities find a solution. Mr. Thompson declared his concern with the amendment is that it does not address the C125 decree. He said since the waters of the Walker River basin are under the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court that should be addressed. Chairman Rhoads agreed to take the matter into consideration. Everett Temme, Fairfield Ranch, declared he has both private and public concerns regarding S.J.R. 10. He expressed confusion as to why the bill is necessary. He told the committee he had recently discussed the matter with a representative of the California Division of Water Rights who voiced the understanding there is no conflict at the present time, and no conflict regarding the allocation of water between the two states is anticipated. Mr. Temme averred he has a concern the measure will open "a Pandora's box." He said: We have something that is working right now. There have been problems, but apparently the Truckee River settlement, by the interpretation of California water rights, has settled that, and I'm concerned with what happens if we go into this 30-year old situation which has been languishing, and I'm concerned about what we'll do by opening this situation again. Mr. Temme added his public concern is in accord with that of the people from Walker Lake, that the lake is dying. Mr. Temme suggested Walker Lake is in danger of becoming another Mono Lake. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, acknowledged his original intention had been to support the ratification of the interstate compact, a position which he said the farm bureau has held for a long time. He agreed it is important for both states to work together to come to a new resolution of what needs to be settled. Upon review of the proposed amendments, he asked that his comments be put on the record. He said: There needs to be provisions in the process to make certain that in the final new compact that might be created, that valid existing water rights that are currently being honored in the present system that's been in operation for 30 years, not be jeopardized as part of that new deal. Farm bureau policy on jurisdiction states that we maintain any legislation affecting water, or its ownership or use that circumvents Nevada law, or requires changes to existing court decrees, must have the approval of all those under the jurisdiction of the decree in question. Mr. Busselman reiterated his request the remarks on the resolution be on the record in his endeavor "to make certain provisions are put in place to protect those valid and existing water rights that are currently in place." Mr. Turnipseed recounted the history of the California-Nevada compact. He explained the 1969 session of the legislature ratified the compact, and the compact was amended by the California Legislature in 1970. The Nevada Legislature ratified the amendments in 1971. Mr. Turnipseed declared he is bound to abide by the compact as long as it is ratified by the State of Nevada, just as the California Water Resource Control Board is bound to abide by the compact as ratified by the California Legislature. He explained there is nothing to prevent the California Legislature from undoing the law and allowing California to issue appropriations at the headwaters of the Walker River and divert the water to the Mono Lake basin, which is the headwaters of the Los Angeles County aqueduct. Mr. Turnipseed asserted it is essential to have Congress act on the compact to make it binding upon both states and to prevent the water administrator in either state from issuing a permit to the detriment of the other state. When asked by Chairman Rhoads if Mr. Turnipseed felt the resolution should be retained as drafted, Mr. Turnipseed agreed the bill needs to be amended. Mr. Turnipseed suggested the two state directors or the California-Nevada Interstate Compact Commission should rework the language to make it acceptable to both states, obtain ratification from both states and then send it to Congress for ratification. Chairman Rhoads asked if it would be a compact even if it only included the Walker River basin. Mr. Turnipseed affirmed the query. Mr. Turnipseed told the committee authority is granted under state law to enter into joint management agreements, but warned those agreements could be overturned by either state legislature. Jim Weishaupt, Manager, Walker River Irrigation District, said he, along with Mr. Turnipseed, is a member of the compact commission on the Walker River. In response to a question by Mr. Turnipseed, he acknowledged it is not very far from Twin Lakes to the California drainage into Mono Lake. Mr. Weishaupt pointed out the additional concerns and requests for allocations on the Walker River, specifically the Walker River Paiute Tribe and the Walker Lake requirements, make it imperative that the issues should be addressed simultaneously. He asserted if any new allocations are going to be made downstream the states should share those allocations equitably rather than take the new allocations only out of the Nevada portion. Mr. Weishaupt reported Gordon dePaoli, attorney for the WRID, had assisted in crafting the new language in the amendment. Mr. Temme inquired: If California were to literally turn the water off and prevent Nevada from getting its share, or if there were a dispute, this would clearly be a violation of a contractual agreement and certainly this could be adjudicated ... at a federal level. So I don't know why ... it has to be approved by Congress and 50 states when in fact it really is a bistate issue that could certainly and quickly and be adjudicated between the two states because there is an agreement. If the agreement is violated, certainly there is remedy for it without having to go to Congress for such remedy. Chairman Rhoads requested a response from Mr. Turnipseed. Mr. Turnipseed agreed part of Mr. Temme's allegations are true. He said if California were to throw up a dam at the state line to divert water, there would be a lawsuit, but the lawsuit would begin in the United States Supreme Court. He explained no state can sue another except in the U.S. Supreme Court. Chairman Rhoads remarked that would cause a massive legal battle. Mr. Temme countered the nine members of the Supreme Court would come to a quick and decisive action to resolve the matter without having to involve the other 49 states. He felt his method would be the most expedient way to resolve the issue. Chairman Rhoads asked, "Doesn't it take a long time to get a ... case before the supreme court?" Mr. Temme, admitting he is not an attorney, declared in his experience it depends upon the seriousness of the event. He reiterated his concern about taking the matter to the United States Congress, which he called a "massive bureaucracy" that frightens him. Mr. Turnipseed responded: Generally a compact is ratified by Congress because it is basically in agreement between the two or three or more parties that are the subject of the compact. When you go to the supreme court, in one state suing another state, they have lots of different theories on how water ought to be apportioned. Equitable apportionment is one of the doctrines, and it has to do with how much of the watershed is in one state versus how much of the watershed is in another state. Obviously, had there been a federal decree on the Colorado based on equitable apportionment, Nevada would have had none, because the majority of the headwaters are in Colorado and Wyoming and they would have had most of it. Therefore the states drew up the Colorado River compact which was ratified by the U.S. Congress in 1922. And we split the state into two parts, and there had to be an upper basin compact that was ratified and then the lower basin was allocated by lawsuit. But nonetheless, they have a lot different theories on how water ought to be allocated and one of the ways is as to who holds the majority of the headwaters, and in this case California has all of the headwaters. Mr. Turnipseed surmised Nevada would not fare as well in an interstate lawsuit as it would with an interstate agreement to be ratified by the U.S. Congress. Mr. Johnson said it had come to his attention that with the amendment it may be necessary to redefine the "basin." He pointed out neither Mineral County nor Walker Lake have representation on the California-Nevada Interstate Compact board, nor is there statutory language which would include the interests of the lake. Mr. Johnson requested the committee consider how that issue is to be addressed. He stated the Sierra Club would like to see representation from Walker Lake or Mineral County in any future negotiations. In the absence of further testimony on S.J.R. 10, Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing and opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 11. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 11: Urges Congress to investigate utility of importing water to Nevada from sources outside Nevada. Mr. Johnson declared the time was inopportune for bringing the measure forward. He reported listening to presentations by the Colorado River Commission in which displeasure was expressed over the thought that Nevada might be "irritating our neighbors to the north." He pointed out the Colorado River Commission is looking for support from upstream resources. Mr. Johnson stated generally the Sierra Club opposes large scale interbasin transfers, particularly when they might provoke other jurisdictions over efforts that could be deemed environmentally and politically unobtainable. Mr. Johnson compared S.J.R. 11 to a mythical resolution from the State of Oregon asking Congress to make a study of building a dam on the Humboldt River in order to pump the water north. He asserted that was the type of request being made by S.J.R. 11. He voiced strong opposition to the measure by the Sierra Club. Mr. Johnson suggested Nevada should not be asking Congress to spend funds to benefit the state and he alleged the request does not conform to the spirit of fiscal conservatism. There was no further testimony on S.J.R. 11, so the hearing was closed. Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 12. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 12: Urges Federal Government to adhere to states' laws governing use, allocation, management and protection of water. Paula Berkley, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, came forward to speak. She said the tribal chairmen of both the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony and the Washoe Tribe were in Washington, D.C., and unable to testify. She relayed their thanks for the letter they had received regarding Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 27 of the 67th Session. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 27 Proposes to amend ordinance of Nevada OF THE 67TH SESSION: constitution to repeal disclaimer of interest of state in unappropriated public lands. Ms. Berkley reported the letter had been duplicated and disseminated to tribes throughout the state. Ms. Berkley declared S.J.R. 12 addresses many of the same issues as S.J.R. 27 of the 67th session. She read from a letter (Exhibit F) prepared by Arlan D. Melendez, Tribal Chairman of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, in which he asserted S.J.R. 12 could undermine the trust relationship between the tribe and the federal government regarding water rights. The letter contains an amendment to S.J.R. 12 proposed by the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony. Ms. Berkley indicated the tribe would support S.J.R. 12 with the addition of the amendment. Mr. Johnson voiced the support of the Sierra Club for the proposal. Mr. Busselman added his support. Chairman Rhoads told the committee the Babbitt Rangeland Reform Act of 1994 was due to go into effect in January, but the United States Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt postponed it for 6 months, and it will go into effect on August 26. He said thereafter the only way the act can be changed is through litigation or through the political process. He said the final version of the Babbitt provision on livestock water rights on public lands provides that it will remain under the ownership of the federal government which is contrary to state law. He indicated the act may be the source of a major confrontation between the State of Nevada, other states, and the federal government. He suggested that makes it more imperative that S.J.R. 12 be processed as soon as possible. Mr. Weishaupt endorsed the measure on behalf of the Walker River Irrigation District. In the absence of further testimony on S.J.R. 12, Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing. Chairman Rhoads asked the committee to approve committee introduction of the USGS resolution which had just been handed to him, Bill Draft Request (BDR) R- 1653. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1653: Urges Congress to maintain United States Geological Survey. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR R-1653. SENATOR REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS JACOBSEN, JAMES AND ADLER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * In the absence of further business to come before the committee,Chairman Rhoads adjourned the hearing at 2:50 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Natural Resources March 8, 1995 Page