MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Sixty-eighth Session April 3, 1995 The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 2:05 p.m., on Monday, April 3, 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) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Dana Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred W. Welden, Chief Deputy Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Donald O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Marlene Lockhard, State Director for the Nevada Office of U.S. Senator Richard Bryan Earl W. Hodge, P.E., Electrical Engineer, U. S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office Kevin D. Thornton, Management Team, Project Management Division, Department of Energy/Nevada Operations Office Terry A. Vaeth, Acting Manager, Department of Energy/Nevada Operations Office Rose McKinney-James, Director, Department of Business and Industry, State of Nevada Tim Carlson, Executive Director, Commission on Economic Development Stan Warren, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company Robert M. Balzar, P.E., Director, Electric Policy and Planning, Sierra Pacific Power Company Galen D. Denio, P.E., Commissioner, Public Service Commission of Nevada Milee Dazey, Representative, Citizen Alert DeeAnn Parsons, Chief, Nevada State Energy Office, Department of Business and Industry Marilyn Skibinski, Consumer Advocate, Office of Advocate for Customers of Public Utilities Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club Frank A. McRae, Manager, Government Affairs Department, Nevada Power Company Naomi Duerr, P.G., State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning Randy Pahl, Professional Engineer, Division of Water Planning Al Boardman, Chief, Administrative Services Bureau, Division of Wildlife Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife Larry Hawke, Lobbyist, Government Relations Counsel, Nevada Mining Association Chairman Rhoads asked for a committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 50-1781. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 50-1781: Revises provisions governing powers and duties of state predatory animal and rodent committee and places committee to control predatory animals under control of state board of sheep commissioners. SENATOR REGAN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 50- 1781. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER, JAMES AND JACOBSEN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on two measures, Senate Bill (S.B.) 267 and Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 11. SENATE BILL 267: Revises legislative findings concerning energy. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 11: Urges increased development of solar energy in Nevada. Chairman Rhoads welcomed Senator Dina Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, to the committee. Senator Titus remarked she was delighted to see so many people interested in this meritorious legislation on energy. She explained S.B. 267 and S.C.R. 11 are related as they both came out of the interim study committee to develop an energy plan for the state of Nevada. She said both measures were unanimous recommendations out of that committee. Senator Titus introduced Donald O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, the staff person who served on the referred to interim committee. Senator Titus told the committee S.B. 267 is a very simple bill which basically adds a phrase to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 523.011 that sets forth Nevada's energy policy. She said the interim study committee was satisfied with that statute with one exception which was the omission of indigenous resources which can be used in Nevada. Senator Titus indicated the use of indigenous resources within the state is being encouraged where economically feasible. She said those resources are primarily geothermal, solar and wind. The visiting senator took her testimony from a prepared statement (Exhibit C). Senator Titus went on to S.C.R. 11, a resolution calling on the state to work with the federal government to develop what has come to be known as the solar power enterprise zone. She informed the committee a solar power facility is being developed at the Nevada Test Site. She said this is part of a conversion of the test site from defense oriented strategies to peacetime industries. This was made possible as a result of legislation sponsored by U. S. Senator Richard Bryan when he was able to get some funding for a task force to look at the possibility of an enterprise zone and it has developed a good deal since that first appropriation was made. The presentation on S.C. R. 11 by Senator Titus was taken from a prepared statement (Exhibit D). Senator Titus told the committee there were several other people in the committee room who would testify on these two measures. Marlene Lockhard, State Director, the Nevada Office of U. S. Senator Richard Bryan, came forward to offer a prepared statement (Exhibit E) on behalf of Senator Bryan. She pointed out that both S.C.R. 11 and S.B. 267 will support continued development of Nevada's most prevalent indigenous energy source, solar energy, of which Senator Bryan has been a longtime supporter. Earl W. Hodge, P.E., Electrical Engineer, U. S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office; Kevin D. Thornton, Management Team, Project Management Division, U. S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office; and Terry A. Vaeth, Acting Manager, Nevada Operations Office, came forward to speak in support of S.C.R. 11 and S.B. 267. Mr. Thornton read a prepared statement (Exhibit F) outlining the history of solar energy and the Department of Energy (DOE). He referred to the Nevada Test Site Solar Feasibility Study (Exhibit G. On file in the Research Library.) and the Nevada Solar Enterprise Zone Development Study (Exhibit H. (On file in the Research Library.) during his presentation. Chairman Rhoads inquired if a power company would be required to purchase a certain percentage of geothermal power in Nevada. Mr. Thornton replied it was his understanding there was no specific requirement which would require a utility to buy a particular mix of generation. Chairman Rhoads asked if the power generated at the test site would be sold. Mr. Thornton said they would contemplate marketing that power first within Nevada and secondly, to everyone else in the southwest. Chairman Rhoads asked if geothermal is economically competitive. Mr. Thornton replied that in the case of solar energy, there is one very major player in the power marketing industry offering to provide a power plant and operations and maintenance of the power plant, and energy at 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour. He indicated that offer is very comparable to the rates presently paid in southern Nevada to Nevada Power Company. Mr. Thornton informed the committee a grant of $3 million has been totally processed and the funds have been approved for transfer to the Nevada Operations Office. That amount is estimated to last about 9 to 12 months. There is no match required. Senator Jacobsen referred to the tour the committee had taken to Las Vegas water reclamation plants the prior week and remarked about the high power bills at those plants. He inquired if there was any kind of facility operating in the west similar to the mode being discussed. Mr. Thornton replied there is a large trough photovoltaic plant near Bakersfield, California, at Kramer Junction, and some other smaller photovoltaic plants around the southwest. Senator Jacobsen said in visiting with some of the people in Las Vegas they had indicated at the moment there was an abundance of power, but it was almost cheaper to buy power out-of-state than to produce power in Nevada. He asked if that is true. Mr. Thornton replied that it is true. He said that the situation is likely to continue for a few years. That a merging of supply and demand is anticipated. He indicated the failure of utilities to site and plan for major generations sooner or later will undercut demand. Senator Jacobsen asked if this type of enterprise has any hazards as far as maintenance and upkeep or environmental concerns. Mr. Thornton said environmental consequences of solar power production appear to be significantly less than all competing generations. That established hydroelectric generation on rivers is one set of circumstances and geothermal has some environmental consequences as well. Rose McKinney-James, Director, Department of Business and Industry, State of Nevada, said she enthusiastically supports S.C.R. 11 and S.B. 267. She referred to a fact sheet (Exhibit I) which had been prepared by the Solar Industries Association. She indicated there are people who have serious questions about the legitimacy of solar energy production, particularly the cost associated with developing that energy source. She said Exhibit I would bring the committee up to date with the status of the solar industry over a period of about 20 years. She reviewed the statistics included in Exhibit I. Ms. McKinney-James pointed out that during the 10 years she had been with the Public Service Commission of Nevada (PSC), she had the opportunity to preside over a docket which was devoted to establishing regulations that would provide the most economic benefit to the State of Nevada with respect to energy resources. She said through that process she had an opportunity to hear from experts across the country who came to Nevada, excited about this rules-making process (PSC Rules General Order 65) because they thought Nevada was taking a step in the right direction. She mentioned she had seen a prepared map of the United States which pinpointed Nevada as one of the states with the greatest potential for solar energy. She said because she had become interested in renewable energy and particularly in solar energy, she strongly encourages passage of S.C.R. 11 and S.B. 267. Ms. McKinley-James discussed STAR (Corporation for Solar Technology and Alternative Resources) referred to in Exhibit F. At an inquiry from Chairman Rhoads, Ms. McKinley-James informed the committee that the activities of STAR has commenced and expounded on the application status of that process. She reiterated there are no state funds involved. She did indicate as the Director of the Department and Business Industry, her willingness to share those resources to the extent feasible in the effort. Tim Carlson, Executive Director, Nevada Commission on Economic Development, read a prepared statement (Exhibit J) in support of S.B. 267 and S.C.R. 11. Stan Warren, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company, in introducing Robert M. Balzar, P.E., Director, Electric Policy and Planning, Sierra Pacific Power Company, pointed out Mr. Balzar had been active in monitoring the activity of Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.J.R.) 35 of the Sixty-seventh Session during the 67th Session and he is here today to talk about S.B. 267. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 35 of the SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study to review present efforts to conserve and develop energy resources in Nevada. Mr. Balzar presented views of the Sierra Pacific Power Company on S.B. 267 and S.C.R. 11. He told the committee his company is generally in support of use of Nevada renewables at competitive pricing. He said Sierra Pacific Power Company has signed over 200 megawatts of northern Nevada geothermal contracts, however they would like the committee to consider two points specifically when discussing S.B. 267. They are: 1. The PSC Rules General Order 65 as referenced by Ms. McKinley-James, deals with environmental and economic externalities. He said those rules that apply to the utilities already require the power to consider renewables and the social impacts of all resource options during the utilities resource planning processes; and 2. Concerns the changing utility environment. It was just last April, 1994, that the California Public Utilities Commission came out with a "blue book" on regulatory reform, "Direct Access Retail Wheeling," and those issues are coming to the forefront. He is concerned that legislation in regard to utilities purchases be considered in that vein of a changing competitive environment for utilities. Mr. Balzar indicated that ended his comments for the Sierra Pacific Power Company. Chairman Rhoads inquired how the price is determined for the megawatts which Sierra Pacific Power Company purchases. Mr. Balzar replied through an avoided cost analysis, that the company tries to anticipate what the cost will be in the future, and that is the price that is paid in contract negotiations. He said through some subtle changes in the future, they hope to get more into a market-based kind of pricing where there is an actual competitive analysis which is more sophisticated than the mathematics of an avoided cost calculation. Senator Lee asked if the "Clause for its Economically Feasible" takes care of the cost. Mr. Balzar said he would suggest that economically feasible would and could mean a wide variety of things to individuals. He gave an example where economically feasible could mean the future pricing as opposed to today's price, and cause some short-term price increases. Senator McGinness asked how the term economically feasible has been interpreted when put before the PSC. Mr. Balzar said that term is subject to interpretation. An alternative could be "market-based" pricing, which also could be subject to interpretation. Senator Titus inquired if the PSC had to go with the lowest cost which could be a safeguard. Mr. Balzar said when resource plans are developed, they go with the lowest present worth of revenue requirements of a 20-year plan. He indicated it is a sticky point and can cause some short-term increases---that it is always a concern. Mr. Warren added that when the action was pretty well along on S.C.R. 35 of the 67th Session, the California thing came about that was kind of an eye-opener to the country. That was the idea of being able to market and buy the cheapest electricity available, which was kind of a new world. He stressed he wanted it to be very clear that Sierra Pacific Power Company is very supportive of the intent and purpose of the measures being discussed and that economically feasible is one of the main conditions of it. He said, "Times are changing and good merit is seen in what the bill is attempting to do." He remarked now it will be necessary to look forward to see what the future is going to be for the electric industry. Senator Jacobsen inquired if any of the electric companies had invested capital in the solar energy venture. Mr. Balzar said Sierra Pacific Power Company had not invested capital to date, but they did send a letter of support to the Nevada Department of Energy and Conservation which possibly was forwarded to the DOE showing their support. Galen D. Denio, P.E., Commissioner, Public Service Commission of Nevada, came forward in support of S.B. 267 and noted it deals with a change in NRS chapter 523. He informed the committee there is a companion bill forthcoming which addresses directly the issues related to the authority of the PSC. Mr. Denio said the PSC also supports S.C.R. 11, with the understanding that solar energy used for providing power to Nevada ratepayers be considered in the context and provisions of filings before the PSC, which would include resource plans. He noted there are a number of solar projects in the southwest, namely Sacramento, Phoenix, and two in the California desert, one near Barstow at the Southern California Edison Cool Water Plant and one at Kramer Junction. In reply to a question by Chairman Rhoads, Mr. Denio said the PSC does approve the contract that the utility purchases the power from a qualified facility or the producer. Milee Dazey, Representative, Citizen Alert, read a prepared statement (Exhibit K) in support of S.B. 267 and S.C.R. 11. DeeAnn Parsons, Chief, Nevada State Energy Office, Department of Business and Industry, Nevada State Energy Office, read a prepared statement (Exhibit L) in support of S.B. 267. Her presentation urged maximizing the use of indigenous resources and reiterated an earlier statement that Nevada is in a prime location for solar utilization. Ms. Parsons then read a prepared statement (Exhibit M) in support of S.C.R. 11. Next to testify in support of the two measures under discussion, was Marilyn Skibinski, Consumer Advocate, Office of Advocate for Customers of Public Utilities. She said her office strongly supports maximizing the use of indigenous resources to the extent economically feasible because they have long supported the use of renewable resources and those are the same resources indigenous to the State of Nevada. And in supporting S.C.R. 11, she reiterated the potential for solar and geothermal previously testified to. She said by developing these resources, Nevada could become an energy exporter rather than an energy importer in the very near future. Ms. Skibinski expressed S.C.R. 11 is an important resolution because it addresses a long-term commitment to solar energy. She said recently the Union of Concerned Scientists along with the Coalition of Energy Efficiency and Renewables, has pointed out that "while solar technologies are projected to be cost competitive for large scale development by the year 2000, the industry must be able to sustain themselves and mature in the interim in order to meet that demand." She continued, saying a long-term commitment is needed---a state energy policy which supports solar in order to attract the investment necessary to develop the industry. She concluded her presentation by urging passage of S.B. 267 and S.C.R. 11. Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club, spoke in support of S.C.R. 11 and S.B. 267. He quoted that renewable energy resources give meaning to the saying, "A clean environment can mean a green economy." Frank A. McRae, Manager, Government Affairs Department, Nevada Power Company, came forward to testify in support of S.B. 267 and S.C.R. 11, saying the Nevada Power Company generally supports and encourages the development of economic indigenous resources in the State of Nevada. He said as part of Nevada Power Company's lease-planning process they have taken several steps to enhance the research and development of alternative sources of energy and maximize the use of indigenous renewable resources. He indicated one step was an all source competitive solicitation including renewable technologies to meet Nevada Power Company's near term resource needs. He said they have received no proposals from developers of solar energy technologies. Based upon a consultant's assessment of the state of technology for solar energy, Nevada Power Company has proposed a strategic plan for the development of solar technology resources. He said the strategic plan is specifically intended to assist solar technologies transition from the research and development phase to a pre-commercial and commercially available phase. The strategic plan is in addition to the Nevada Power Company's participation in the Solar 2 Project near Barstow, California. He informed the committee the strategic plan was the result of Nevada Power Company's lease cost planning process. He said the Nevada Power Company, the Consumer Advocate, the staff of the PSC and the Land and Waterfront of the West all came to an agreement about the appropriate elements and goals for this strategic plan. Nevada Power Company believes this strategic plan represents an appropriate balance of the interested parties and the plan was ultimately accepted by the PSC. He also reiterated some of the comments that Mr. Balzar made concerning the transitions from a regulated utility environment to a less regulated utility environment and why it encompasses competition. He said the structure of the electric utility industry has been undergoing significant change for some time and it will be faced with even more changes in the near future. Mr. McRae said many of the changes are precipitated by the customer's desire for lower rates. Mr. McRae told the committee the Nevada Power Company believes it is important for the Legislature to keep in mind the potential cost of increasing the use of indigenous resources. He concluded by asking the committee to give particular attention to the economically feasible language in the proposals, a concern expressed earlier by Mr. Balzar. Chairman Rhoads inquired if there should be some new language added in addition to economically feasible. Mr. McRae said he thought the intent of the legislation needs to be spelled out as to what the particular aim of the statute is. He reiterated the statement made by Mr. Balzar, that there can be a temporal interpretation of what economically feasible means. It can also be an ownership. Is it economically feasible from a developer's perspective or from the State of Nevada's perspective. Chairman Rhoads implied that concern would be taken into consideration. There being no further comments on S.B. 267, Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing. Senator Regan suggested that S.C.R. 11 be amended to add the Colorado River Commission, and to correct page 2, lines 11 and 12, which reads the Board of Regents of the University of Nevada. He said it should read, Chairman of the Board of the Regents of the University and the Community College System of the State of Nevada. Chairman Rhoads said that amendment would be taken under consideration during a future scheduled work session on the measure. Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.C.R. 11. Chairman Rhoads opened the work session on previously heard measures. SENATE BILL 92: Provides for distribution of administrative fine imposed for violation of certain laws and regulations governing suppliers of water. Chairman Rhoads asked if there had been an understanding on how much money this measure would generate. Senator McGinness recognized that $200 had been collected during the past 4 years. He said the only addition to this measure is setting up a fund for the fines. He remarked it looks like there are also some water companies wanting fines to fund the education which he thinks is a great idea except he thinks another way should be found. Chairman Rhoads asked Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, where this measure originated. Mr. Welden replied it came from an interim committee study. No action was taken on S.B. 92. Chairman Rhoads guided the committee to Senate Bill (S.B.) 103. SENATE BILL 103: Authorizes board of directors of irrigation district to allow transfer of storage water to land excluded from storage benefits of district irrespective of size or ownership of parcels of land. Mr. Welden said there had been no testimony in opposition to this measure when it was previously heard before the committee. Chairman Rhoads asked for a motion on S.B. 103. SENATOR McGinness MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 103. SENATOR REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATORS JAMES AND ADLER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Chairman Rhoads, in bringing forth Senate Bill (S.B.) 141 and Senate Bill (S.B.) 159 indicated that it had been concluded that S.B. 141 was the best vehicle. He asked Mr. Welden if an amendment was necessary on this measure. Mr. Welden said some of the people he had visited with suggested that it would be better to have a minor amendment. Chairman Rhoads asked Naomi Duerr, State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning, to come forward. With her was Randy Pahl, Professional Engineer, Division of Water Planning, who has been administering the State Water Planning program for the past l l/2 years. She discussed the program and its duties. She said her agency is supportive of these measures but that they do prefer S.B. 141 as it is written over S.B. 159, as S.B. 141 is a more clear statement. Ms. Duerr indicated they would like to make an amendment to S.B. 141 which would add to line 12, those systems that will become part of an existing publicly owned water system by the completion of the project. She explained this recommendation is made because of a number of systems that are currently privately owned, whether for profit or not for profit, that have an intention of becoming publicly owned as part of the project that the grant is for. They cannot qualify for a grant now as they are not publicly owned. Chairman Rhoads asked Ms. Duerr to furnish the suggested amendment language to Mr. Welden so that it would be available to the committee in another work session. Senator McGinness asked if the amendment would put older systems that now need help in jeopardy of losing grant money. Ms. Duerr said there is a cap to the amount of money available. Mr. Pahl further addressed the subject. He said the major projects have been taken care of. And he said the smaller ones are more groundwater oriented so the cost would be less. Senator McGinness said he is concerned that if a big project comes in that a smaller project which has been having problems, would be shut out. He asked "could that happen?" Mr. Pahl said it is always possible because they operate on a first come, first served basis. However, Mr. Pahl said that the funds now available will help what is seen in the near future. Ms. Duerr offered further discussion. Senator McGinness said he was wondering about some of the rural areas that did not have the expertise to get their applications in for a grant. Ms. Duerr and Mr. Pahl continued discussion on possible situations that could arise. Chairman Rhoads announced action would be delayed until the amendment was prepared. Chairman Rhoads asked the committee to turn to Senate Bill (S.B.) 173. SENATE BILL 173: Revises provisions governing evidence of compliance with emission control programs. Chairman Rhoads said this was a "cleanup" measure which complies with the federal regulations and he asked for a motion on S.B. 173. SENATOR JAMES MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 173. SENATOR McGinness SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Chairman Rhoads opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 174. SENATE BILL 174: Increases fee for issuance of certificates of ownership and number for transfer of certain motorboats. Chairman Rhoads said $50,000 had been built into the budget from this legislation, and the testimony had indicated this measure was comparable to other states. He stated the fee is being raised from $5 to $15 with this measure. Chairman Rhoads called for committee action on S.B. 174. Senator McGinness indicated he was out of the committee meeting room when S.B. 174 was heard. He asked for a bill explanation. Al Boardman, Chief, Administrative Services Bureau, Division of Wildlife, indicated this measure was a "cleanup" bill to make the transfer fees consistent with other fees. He said the number of boats continues to expand with the population increase in Nevada, and the additional fees are needed to expand the services of the Division of Wildlife. Senator Jacobsen inquired what services they would be expanding. Mr. Boardman said a seasonal employee has been hired to register boats throughout the northern Nevada area and they have requested that position be made permanent to keep up with the expanding services. Senator Jacobsen said he had received correspondence indicating equipment had been purchased with money from the boat fund, 27 shotguns to be exact. Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, answered the question by saying the boating people had been provided with shotguns and pieces of armor. He said on Lake Mead, southern Nevada, there are more contentious situations than the rest of the state. He declared the field wardens are provided with that kind of equipment and that the boat wardens needed the same equipment. A motion was not heard for action on S.B. 174 so Chairman Rhoads said action on this measure would be taken up at a more appropriate time. Chairman Rhoads announced Senate Joint Resolution 6 had an amendment found in (Exhibit N) as prepared by Mr. Welden. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 6: Expresses support of Nevada Legislature for activities and operations of all mining industries in Nevada and expresses its opposition to any extensive and unreasonable reform of existing federal laws governing mining Chairman Rhoads invited Larry Hawke, Lobbyist, Government Relations Counsel, Nevada Mining Association, to come forward to inform the committee why changes were made in this measure. Mr. Hawke referred to Exhibit N, Attachment "B", and explained the reason for the delay in changes in the measure was due to members of the Nevada Mining Association working on the Washington, D.C., scene. He expressed appreciation for the efforts of this committee in making the resolution more relevant to the 104th Congress, and more specifically to legislation that has just been introduced in the U.S. Senate (S506). The amendment to S.J.R. 6 brings the whereas clauses more up to date and focuses on the support for S506, a bipartisan Senate Bill sponsored by U.S. Senator Richard Bryan and U.S. Senator Harry Reid. Mr. Hawke referred to a Briefing Book on the General Mining Law (Exhibit J. Now on file in the Research Library, referred to in the minutes of the February 1, 1995 meeting of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources.). Mr. Hawke indicated he had distributed an updated version of that publication to individual members of this committee (which was not available in the committee) that incorporates the new economic numbers that were not available for the original publication. Mr. Hawke referred to the Gold Study by John Dobra, University of Nevada, Reno, which also had been distributed to all committee members outside of the committee meeting. Mr. Hawke told the committee that he had a full draft of S506 and would make it available to those who requested it. Additional discussion followed concerning wording of that measure. Chairman Rhoads announced S.J.R. 6 would be held at this time. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Rhoads adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Natural Resources April 3, 1995 Page