MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Sixty-eighth Session March 29, 1995 The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, March 29, 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 Ernest E. Adler Senator John B. (Jack) Regan Senator O. C. Lee STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary Kathy E. Cole, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Naomi Duerr, State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning Barbara Curti, President, Nevada Farm Bureau Mike Baughman, Representative, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority Jim Weishaupt, Manager, Walker River Irrigation District Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State of Nevada Ann Kersten, Public Resource Associates Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Minor Kelso, Concerned Citizen Chip Porter, Hydrogeologist, Washoe Water Protection Association Joe Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen's Association Ross De Lipkau, Lawyer, Marshall Hill Cassas & de Lipkau, Representative, Southern Nevada Water Authority Stan Warren, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 95. SENATE BILL 95: Requires state engineer to establish system of credit for conservation of water. Senator James gave an introduction of this bill which came from the interim study committee on Use, Allocation and Management of Water, chaired by himself. Senator James opened the hearing by stating: [The bill]...emanates from the simple principle that Nevada has a `use it or lose it' law. That law is designed to make sure that water is being used beneficially for the purpose for which it was appropriated and if it's not used then it is forfeited and goes back into the source for appropriation by others. [Further, it]...recognizes that there are times and circumstances under which [people] might be encouraged to use more water then is reasonably necessary...in order to assure that the water is not forfeited or abandoned. [In other words, they want]...to preserve the right of intrinsic value, a property value...[as noted] in the court case, The Town of Eureka vs. The State Engineer. One of the arguments for the court was that water had not been used in prior years...[the water rights] had been purchased by the town and they were being held by the state engineers and subject to forfeiture. ...[The problem here is that] there's no provision in Nevada...a credit for conservation. Senator James referred to the court's ruling encouraging the Legislature to inquire into whether there could be some kind of "system that would establish conservation credits" through the state engineer's office. According, to the senator this has come to an issue before, but the court has declined to adopt "judicially a system of conservation credits." Senator James said, "the courts ...believed that the Legislature would be better equipped to address this issue and all the parties who might be affected." Thus, S.B. 95 was drafted and introduced this session with the purpose of designating that the state engineer "...establish a system of credits for the conservation of water, to encourage [the] conservation of water." Senator James suggested the bill would address the following major points at the discretion of the state engineer: one, he would recognize if someone had earned credit; secondly, he would recognize a way of salvaging the water that had [already] been used [as a means of conservation]; thirdly, the state engineer would implement the credit, which would in turn protect the appropriator from their abandonment or forfeiture of their water rights; and, finally, the bill would give "adequate discretion" to the state engineer to ensure administration of such a program, so that nobody's water rights would be interfered with. Senator Jacobsen asked Senator James, "I have a brief question. Will [the credits that have been earned] be confined to the source? [That is, they]...wouldn't be able to [be] transferred from one source to another...[with this measure]?" Senator James said, "Yes, that is correct. The Nevada water laws provided that the water right is good only for one use on one source; so, it can be transferred among the parties or within the groundwater basin on a source, but it can't be transferred from one groundwater basin to another." Chairman Rhoads invited Naomi Duerr, State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning, to comment on S.B. 95. Ms. Duerr, referred to an outline of the Division of Water Planning Statement, Credit-For-Conservation sheet (Exhibit C) which [she] explained [was] the concept of establishing a program to reward conservation efforts and outlines concerns with the verbiage of the bill. There was a general discussion that ensued among the committee members and Ms. Duerr regarding some of the potential issues with regard to the language of the bill. In general Ms. Duerr testified that it will be at the state engineer's discretion, to determine if the "water [was] used efficiently" and further, he will need to analyze the charting of "water measurements that show that water has been conserved" that would be both accurate and standardized. She continued to explain to the senators that there are different methods of measurement depending on the nature of the water source, whether it is groundwater or surface water. Senator James referred to Exhibit C from Ms. Duerr with regard to the language of the measure and then, proceeded to deliberate: We considered in the interim study committee whether we should make it [a] more succinct statutory framework for the state engineer to operate within...which would be appropriate, under his own regulations. [Accordingly,]...those are taken care of by the requirement under [S.B. 95] section 1, subsection 3. `The state engineer shall prescribe...' The concern I have is with subsection 3 of [Exhibit C]...if we make it so that it is a 50/50 thing...where part of it goes to the state and part of it goes back to its source for reappropriation then, [we are in essence taking]...away the incentive that we are trying to put in there. I am worried that it will appear that the state is confiscating...[part of their water rights]... Ms. Duerr pointed out that: [The way it is at the present,] a water user retains no saved water and so there is no incentive [to conserve]. It now appears that we have swung the other way, to an extreme. We do have many groundwater systems that are going to be over appropriated or just over pumped...how do we begin to deal with those situations...? We need to provide a method for conservation and put in some appropriate water management that [can] get at some of our issues that we are facing without getting into a regulatory framework or some other type of approach...[Let's make it a] WIN WIN for all! Barbara Curti, President, Nevada Farm Bureau, said: "We support the idea of establishing a voluntary, incentive-driven water conservation approach, as spelled out in S.B. 95." Ms. Curti read from a preprinted statement (Exhibit D). Mike Baughman, Representative, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority, said, "We have previously had some conversations with some members of the committee concerning the bill..." Mr. Baughman referred to Exhibit E which contained a statement from the group he represented. The group reiterated their support of the measure. Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Baughman, "...When you determine what kind of crop you are going to utilize or grow do you make any determination as to which might be the best way to water it, whether it be with flood irrigation, or with sprinklers? Or, do you just go with whatever seems to be the common practice?" Mr. Baughman responded by saying, "... it depended not only on those things the senator had said but also on the source of the water." According to Mr. Baughman, there is a difference in the way in which the water is used depending on its source. He gave the following example, "...the Humboldt River is primarily a lot of surface water and so the water is predominately used through flood irrigation. [On the other hand,] if there is groundwater then there are some other options, such as, sprinklers that can be used to water the land." A discussion ensued between Senator Jacobsen and Mr. Baughman in regard to the various methods of watering and conserving water. Mr. Baughman then brought to the committee's attention a proposed amendment from the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority (Exhibit F). Jim Weishaupt, Manager, Walker River Irrigation District, testified saying: The irrigation district presented at length some discussion on conservation during the interim study committee period. We do endorse voluntary conservation. Conservation is driven by the shortage of water and financial need to increase crop production on the Walker River. I would also like to add that we do measure all our diversions from the district to the Walker River through partial flumes. That doesn't mean we don't need to do further conservation. Further conservation within the distribution system simply means that the amount of water that is served goes back into the river system and serves the next priority. As you know the Walker River system is over-allocated...so conservation probably would not yield that much more additional water to other interests or other stakeholders... Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State of Nevada, said: It's difficult to oppose a bill that advocates conservation [after all,] that is part of our name we are all within the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Conservation is good. Certainly, if we are going to have a program, we need one that is effective by the incentives to conserve. ...If you are in water short years then you can make the water go farther...[by installing]...some of the more modern [forms] of irrigation systems. I, too, have a couple of problems with the bill. On line 5 it says, `conservation of water...' This bill `viscerates the forfeiture statute...' [That is,]...a person could not `bank' up several years of non-use of water (water banking is a government regulation) and decide to cash it in, in 1 year... In addition we have several decrees in this state, both Federal and State... Those are court decrees where the courts [have] stated that [for example,] they have 3 acre-feet per acre in the case of the Humboldt on harvest acreage, 4 1/2 acre-feet or 6 acre-feet in the Carson River...it's not only a decree duty, but it's a decree acreage...and so the opportunity of doing something with the saved water is not there in those kinds of systems. There has to be a difference made...between real conservation and phony conservation... In other words...we need to get to an end and see a program for conservation without adopting rules and regulations. When I issue a permit for a well or change an application on a surface water diversion I don't dictate what kinds of crops have to be grown and I don't dictate the method of application of the water. I simply assign a maximum duty `beyond which ye shall not exceed.' If it's a change application or a decree, right there, [there] is of course, a decree duty per acreage. Whatever system we come up with for a credit for conservation has to take into account that if the guy is conserving water because he is growing a less water-consuming crop that's one thing. It's fine I would not be able to forfeit the amount of water that he did not use; however, if that farm sells... I don't know how we would work through [them]. I agree that he should not be subject to losing that water right but I don't know how I could allow for the expansion of the acreage and then, in the event the new [person] buying the land goes back to a higher water consuming crop and reduces the acreage... Senator Jacobsen raised the question with regard to sewage storage plants and the fact that the water just sits there and evaporates. The senator asked Mr. Turnipseed: "...Could they claim that they are conserving that water and apply for its use some other place?..." Mr. Turnipseed responded by saying: I don't know if this bill treats that kind of situation...a lot of sewage effluent is being used in this state...where it used to be a pain for these municipalities to get rid of it or to do something with it...they now have figured and found out that it is a marketable commodity. Carson City uses all of theirs on the prison farm, golf courses, the median strips along the highways...[and so forth]. I don't think as a state...that we are so water poor that we can't afford to let the sewage effluent sit in evaporation ponds to let it evaporate. There are other uses for that water, it might take a little more expenses to treat it or technology to treat it...but certainly it can be used for some other benefit in the state. Senator Jacobsen enquired even further, "...but by it coming through their plant they have the right...[to leave it sit there and evaporate]?" Mr. Turnipseed concurred that this was true. Chairman Rhoads asked, "Then, if a farmer goes to a drip system and saves 40 percent of what he was using that means he could open up another field and put in several more acres?" Mr. Turnipseed affirmed, "Yes, indeed,...we have done that...with grapevines, pistachio trees...[and so forth]" Senator Rhoads wanted to know "...if they can...choose to...open another field... Can they do so, now under the present rules and regulations?" Mr. Turnipseed responded that "...they really don't have any rules governing this...they just do it..." According to Mr. Turnipseed, the "standard rule of thumb, is 1000 gallons per day for domestic unit." He went on to say: "They basically make the developer bring that amount of water, proof of their water rights, before they would approve a permit to build the homes... In the past, they accepted proof such as `meter data' that showed a certain amount of gallons was used `per day per household.' If this was lower than the standard, the developers would be allowed to build [even] more homes with the same permit. [Further,]...if we are going to error, we are going to error on the high side, after several years of meter data. [After that period of time, if] they can show us a lower water use, then, we can allow more units [to be built] under the same water rights. Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.B. 95 . Senator McGinness was asked by the chairman to "chair a one-man subcommittee" [to study it] and come up with some solutions. ***** Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 101. SENATE BILL 101: Requires development of statewide water plan. Chairman James informed the senators that this bill came from a study committee and what it attempts to do is, "...address the issues of water planning and interbasin transfer of water...transferring water from one area of the state to another or changes in types of use." According to Senator James, there has arisen a conflict with Clark County and their urban neighbors over "not appropriated water rights" and that it was perceived that this bill was an "ad hoc, piecemeal basis." Senator James said: ...[This]...bill attempts to...amend the water plan statute...through an application process. Local governments [would] coordinate with the state water planner and...identify their long range needs, give an idea to it and then, put something in the law that [would] protect their needs for the future. We are not going to have a Mono Lake situation in our state. We are not going to have complete disregard for one area that may be developing slower, in favor of an area that may be developing faster... We want to have a vision for...all 17 counties in the state... Ms. Duerr, gave a brief overview of her statement entitled "Division Mission" as part of Exhibit G. According to Ms. Duerr the Division of Water Planning is to "provide technical, financial, and educational assistance to decision-makers, governmental agencies, and the public concerning state, regional and local water supplies." Senator Jacobsen asked, "Where does the state water engineer come in on your organizational [flow] chart?" Ms. Duerr explained that the state engineer is head of the Division of Water Resources and she is head of the Division of Water Planning. They are two separate divisions. Senator Jacobsen wanted to know if he was at the same level as Ms. Duerr is and she said, "Yes, [the two offices and positions]...are peers and both are administrators in their respective divisions." Ms. Duerr then introduced the Division of Water Planning proposed amendments to S.B. 101 in Exhibit H. She recommended that the language of the bill should "follow more closely" to what is in the policy. Ms. Duerr explained Exhibit I as part of her proposed planning. In this packet she examined where the proposed people would go as part of the budget, how they would work with the public, the fiscal note and an explanation. Senator James and Ms. Duerr had an in-depth discussion regarding her fiscal note for $300,000 which was attached to S.B. 101. The senator was concerned about the bill's survival as it passes through the legislative process. Senator James was not only questioning the `inordinate size' of the fiscal note but also why did Ms. Duerr's office need to double in staff size, and so forth. After all, he said, "This bill just says that the water planning people are going to have to plan. We already have a division of water planning; it's here in the book [the Nevada Revised Statues (NRS). There are duties, and they are set forth in the statutes..." Ms. Duerr explained to Senator James and the committee that she followed the directives as issued from the Legislature who had requested her to do some research and put together a proposal with regard to the water planning budget for the State of Nevada. Senator Rhoads referred to "...the problem is [one in which]...we have a fiscal note [and] the agency that is responsible for that management makes the choice of where it goes... If they don't like the bill...they attach a high fiscal note... We need to change that procedure..." Senator Rhoads further said to Ms. Duerr, "I am concerned that the original bill refers to `water resources' and now we are referring to `water resource management.' Could you give me a memo as to what you mean by those?..." Ms. Duerr said she would send him a memo with the information he is requesting. Senator James said, "On the other issue, Ms. Duerr is correct on section 1, subsection 1 [NRS 540.101], [it] should say `or regions within the state'... That is appropriate wording and encompasses more of the purpose of the water plan." Ann Kersten, Public Resource Associates, addressed the committee by stating: We wish to express our strong support for S.B. 101, which would require the state to develop a water plan and provide funding which would assist in this. Our generation of Nevadans has been left sorting out some of the mess left from the fact that previous generations did not have a water plan. [A] solid water plan would provide input from all of Nevada and would go a long way to leaving a sensible water heritage for the next generation coming along. Perhaps with good water planning some of the 100-year water conflicts we've been dealing with in the courts could be solved in the future outside the courts. We've been very impressed with the efforts of the Nevada water planner and her staff who have literally criss-crossed the state seeking input from all Nevadans on water planning issues, and we feel that the results are a very balanced water plan...We just urge your support of S.B. 101. Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter Sierra Club, said, ...[I would]... simply like to state that we are in favor of this bill. In particularly the language that is included in [S.B. 101] section 3, line 9...[which] includes provisions designed to protect the identified needs for water for current and future development in the rural areas of the state... [The] quality of life [should extend to] all living things... Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau read from a prepared statement (Exhibit J). "[The] Nevada Farm Bureau stands solidly behind rural county defenses of the water resources within their boundaries and will support meaningful debate before any control or change is attempted." Minor Kelso, Concerned Citizen, testified regarding the quality of life which he believes has been threatened by the lack of rainfall and the ensuing drought conditions. Further, he was concerned that the growth within our state was not matching the growth of the water supply. Mr. Kelso went on to say, "There is a real need for more water [and] better management of the water that is available." Mr. Kelso then told the committee that he is a member of the Citizens for Sensible Water Policy [group] which according to Exhibit K supports the search for "new water sources which are environmentally sound, financially self-sufficient..." Mr. Kelso summarized his testimony by stating: We have some 70 years...or 80 years of unresolved water issues [which] planning, years ago would have avoided, [with regard to] the ...availability and allocation that we are facing today and the millions of dollars that have been spent in litigation... So, in conclusion, [the] quality of life in our state is very much at stake, based upon the water we have, the allocation of that water, and the long range planning we do for meeting our needs for the future... All will take more water, there can be no question... We have to allocate it, conserve it, [and] do whatever we need to [in order for the state to grow and prosper]... Chip Porter, Hydrogeologist, Washoe Water Protection Association, stated: ...We are generally in support of S.B. 101. ...There are some revisions that have been proposed that [we] would like to take issue with. One is within section 1. We feel that the proposals would result in the reduction of the flexibility of the division of water planning. To focus on a region within the state is a tremendous tool for an office as small as the planning office is. To try to develop an entire state plan is probably going to be too much for the size of the office. Because of the staff size limitations they should [by all means] be allowed [to] develop a plan on a basin by basin basis. Certainly, in the areas of Las Vegas, Reno, and Douglas County [they] have much greater problems at this point in time then some of the other basins, [as a result] of the population demands. ...The planning office has a very important task and...they should be given a greater responsibility and control over allocation and use of water in this state. ...There has been too many independent focus' that were related to development or acquisition of water resources and they were working opposed to each other. There has to be one unified voice...defining the policies of the state water resources...they can't be divided... With regard to section 3. It may not be appropriate to specifically exclude interbasin transfers of water... Several of the basins within the state are already in serious trouble... To exclude interbasin transfers would in effect exclude any solutions to this problem that already exists. If water is not brought into some of those basins there's not going to be a way to recover them. I don't believe that interbasin transfers should be considered for the purposes of furthering the expansion of the development of a water system. ...They should be used to recover the damage that has been already done. Some other comments with regard to the water planning office... I was quite surprised when I went to their office to obtain some data concerning water resources...that this data was generally lacking. I found more information from the Washoe County Utilities District concerning water levels in that particular region then they have [in the water planning office]... A situation that shouldn't exist! ...All of the information being collected by the independent surveyors of water should be, by law, provided to the state which can be used to develop a comprehensive plan. ...There is significant damage being done within the Nevadan basins...without any real checks in place. That must be corrected. Joe Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, said: We are not opposed to the purpose sought to be furthered by S.B. 101. ...This bill would probably result in the protection of the interests of rural Nevada and in particular the ranchers and the farmers of Nevada who own almost all the water [rights] in rural Nevada. I am troubled because a noble proposal can be derailed with the wrong direction in the hands of a person who is not necessarily concerned with the needs of the people in the interest of the legislative bill that it is seeking to protect. Mr. Porter then referred to an unofficial draft document produced by the water planner of Nevada. He read from this document and voiced his concerns with its contents by stating: How does [this] relate to S.B. 101? ...I am concerned that we have a state bureaucracy coming in here and asking for $300,000 additional money, people, and so forth, and I believe the planner is not addressing the spirit of S.B. 101... Mike Baughman representing the Humboldt River Basin Authority, testified in support of the intent of S.B. 101 but he was not sure that it would in fact "protect the rural interests." Mr. Baughman gave the following reasons for their concern with regard to this bill: One [of our] concerns is...it is not clear who...will approve this plan. We know [that] the...advisory board on water resources [may]...approve the plan in some draft form [before it goes before the Legislature]. I would just note that both the advisory board and the Legislature are dominated by...[special] interests... [So,] Who decides? Who in the end decides, `Ok, this is the population growth potential and the resulting economy that we are going to protect.' I would also note that it says...on line 11, `provisions must be approved' and on line 12, `interbasin transfer that would be in adversely affected.' These are provisions of the plan...[that] would be new criteria. So, when a state engineer reviews this application to appropriate water and to move it from one basin to another, he now has three criteria to look at... Is this a new criteria? It would not be a statutory criteria... It wouldn't be a part of chapter 533 [NRS]. It would be in the plan. So, he might consider it...write a decision, and not be subject to some kind of a challenge were he to use it explicitly. Who is going to decide what is [an] unreasonably, adverse effect [as described in the plan]? It gets back to who actually puts the stamp of approval on the plan upon which the state engineer uses that information in rendering decisions. We should not only be concerned about protecting the source area, [but we should also be concerned about protecting the] source economy in deciding if it is appropriate in the public interest to transfer water... Should we move the water?... Is this in the public interest? [What of]...the fiscal impacts? ...Water seems to flow to money... Why can't we think of the idea of money flowing to water [instead]? We have the ability in this state...[to] make investments in rural areas that may tend to grow them. It may increase their demand for water...but...we might actually have money flow to water... Ross De Lipkau, Lawyer, Marshall Hill Cassas & de Lipkau, Representative, Southern Nevada Water Authority, said: My client is in favor of water planning. ...I would like to [call to] the attention of the committee that we in Nevada have lived under the doctrine of prior appropriation since the first case decided by the Nevada Supreme Court in 1866. From 1866 to this date with the exception of one short period of time, we have lived under the doctrine of prior appropriation. This bill...in particular subsection 3, does away with the doctrine of prior appropriation. Besides doing that, it also delegates to an official other than the state engineer, the power to reserve water. ...We have a problem with both these issues... Therefore, it is [at] the request of the Southern Nevada Water Authority that paragraph 3, line 9, be discarded or omitted. ...At some unknown date in the future of Nevada we will have to go outside of its borders to obtain water. With this type of language, meaning that within sub-paragraph 3, it may very well come back to harm the State of Nevada. I will, hereby, offer to work with whomever the committee may designate to assist on writing or rewriting this bill if that is the request. Senator James responded to Mr. De Lipkau's testimony by saying: ...I [too,] represent clients who are concerned about trying to import water into Nevada... It wasn't even conceivable that this [bill] would [have any bearing]...on that [issue]. If it does, then, I would have to evaluate whether I [should] abstain from voting on this measure... [That is,] if there is a question of...importation of water into the state... We don't want to unreasonably or adversely affect other states' economies or their quality of life... That is not one of our objectives [with this measure]... Stan Warren, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Resources, responded by saying, "If you put a subcommittee with outside representation on it, I would like to ask that we be included...to [help] refine it...if that is your choice." Ms. Duerr responded to some of the prior testimony. It was her intention to inform the committee that the state water policy was still being produced. She said, "...According to the state water policy document, water may be appropriated for a broad-range of beneficial uses, [also,] it is the policy of the State of Nevada to manage its water allocation process on a prior appropriation system." Ms. Duerr concurs with Mr. Guild's testimony regarding interbasin transfers, "in that there should be a system of balance between the rural water rights and the urban water rights." Finally, she flushed out some information on the topics of in- stream flows and water rights acquisition and discussed with the committee on the importance of preserving existing water rights. Mr. Turnipseed sought to clarify some points made by other witnesses, too. He spoke in brief about water planning in general and then specifically with regard to S.B. 101, section 3. He thought the state water planning division was doing a good job of water planning considering the other states and their water problems. However, he said: ...Some have read in this bill that it takes the state water engineer out of the loop when it makes decisions concerning interbasin transfers. I don't read it that way... Certainly, we have to and have considered the impacts on the basin of origin and these rural economies... I understand that [this measure has some]...fairly, guarded language...and I understand that there are some fears out there due to some filings. ...There have been some proposals to ship large quantities of water long distances within the state. ...We can work through them...with monitoring programs...and other built-in systems, such as public hearings... Senator James commented that his desire was to have the Legislature be able to input with "some expressed intent" regarding the decisions that the state water engineer would be making. Further, the senator supports the changes that had been suggested by the witnesses as to the language of the bill. Mr. Turnipseed reiterated that there was some "real value in the Division of Water Planning working with all the communities in the state to insure that they have water to meet their growth needs way beyond 2010... Some of the fears [as a result of the Las Vegas filings]...are unfounded..." Senator Jacobsen voiced his concern by saying, " [This bill appears to create]...a have or have not situation. How do we get everyone in the State of Nevada to plan, whether they have the water or not in a uniform way, so, that we don't create a lawyer's haven...? ...We [need to] move forward with some kind of plan that's universal, uniform, [and] proper... So, when we are done...we can plan for the present, with what is here today, and realize some expansion. ...We don't want to get into a water war... Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.B. 101 and said he would put this bill into a subcommittee chaired by himself. He indicated he appreciated those who have voiced concern over the language of the measure and offered to work with Fred Welden and himself. The Chairman then opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 102. SENATE BILL 102: Revises provisions governing plans of water conservation adopted by suppliers of water. Senator James gave a brief description of what this bill proposes by saying: This bill takes the conservation efforts that were required by local governments and has them report on their progress of their efforts ...and adopt amended plans under certain specified circumstances. There is a requirement, which builds on a previous mandate, and yet, there isn't a fiscal note associated with it... Ms. Duerr spoke in support of S.B. 102 by saying, "...it builds on a law that went into effect in 1992, requiring conservation plans... I have put together a generic fiscal note (Exhibit L)...for a conservation planner and their associated equipment..." Senator Jacobsen said, "I appreciate the hand-out...but, I would like to know what are the qualifications for [a conservation planner]...?" Ms. Duerr responded with the following statement, "...what you are after are the job specifications and requirements, what kind of personality, what kind of abilities, and that...[which] is a part of putting this position together..." Senator Jacobsen's final comment was, "...[the conservation planner] needs to be practical and realistic..." Ms. Duerr concurred with the senator and added that "...the person needs to [be able to] educate the public...on conservation, what works, what doesn't work..." Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.B. 102 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. The Chairman noted one of the witnesses to speak on this measure was not present, and no one else was present to address this measure either. Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.J.R. 11 and adjourned the session at 4:50 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ____________________________ Kathy E. Cole, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: _________________________________ Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman DATE: __________________________ Senate Committee on Natural Resources March 29, 1995 Page