MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Sixty-eighth Session April 10, 1995 The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, April 10, 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 Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Stephanie Larson, 3rd Grade Student, Hawthorne Elementary School Fareha Qureshi, 3rd Grade Student, Hawthorne Elementary School Ciera Cammarata, 5th Grade Student, Hawthorne Elementary School Nate Garrish, Student, Mineral County School District Roby McKnight, Student, Mineral County School District Rosaline Dipty, Student, Mineral County School District Christine Thiel, Deputy State Engineer, Division Of Water Resources Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony C. Brian Wallace, Chairman, Washoe Tribe of Nevada/California Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife Lois Snedden, Lobbyist, Sierra Club Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Coalition for Nevada Wildlife Elsie Dupree, Lobbyist, Nevada Wildlife Federation Larry Pedrette, Carson Valley Rancher Clarence Burr, Heise Land & Livestock Company Herb Witt, Milky Way Farm Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation Stephanie Licht, Secretary/Treasurer, Nevada Wool Growers Association Joe Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen's Association Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Department of Transportation Pam Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands Monte C. Fast, Executive Director, Friends in Service Helping (FISH) Tom Reilly, Acting Director, Department of Human Resources Scott M. Craigie, Self Chairman Rhoads called on Senator McGinness for a special presentation. Senator McGinness announced there are six students present from the Mineral County School District in recognition of the Walker Lake Awareness Day. He said earlier in the day Governor Bob Miller had presented the group with a Proclamation and they had met with U. S. Senator Harry Reid, Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Assembly District No. 3, and himself. Senator McGinness introduced the students present who are winners of an essay contest: Ciera Cammarata, Stephanie Larson, Fareha Qureshi, Nate Garrish, Roby McKnight and Rosaline Dipty. Three of the students were chosen to read their winning essays entitled, "Save Walker Lake." The first essay (Exhibit C) was read by Stephanie Larson. Second to present her award winning essay (Exhibit D) was Ciera Cammarata; and Fareha Qureshi was the third student to read her award winning essay (Exhibit E). Chairman Rhoads told the young students that the committee would take into consideration all the things they have suggested in the essays. Senator McGinness asked the other three students to come forward for a presentation. On behalf of the committee Senator McGinness presented each of the six students with an 1-ounce silver coin with the Seal of the State of Nevada struck upon it, and told them the coins were to help them remember their trip to the state capital on this date. Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 100. SENATE BILL 100: Revises definition of "person" and changes reference from "tax" to "assessment" for purposes of applicability of certain provisions governing water rights. Although this bill came out of the interim study committee chaired by Senator James, he deferred any remarks to the agency officials who will handle the matter. Christine Thiel, Deputy State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, explained S.B. 100 contains "a couple" technical changes to the Water Law which was observed when going through an analysis of that law. One change requested would make the definition of "person" consistent between the two chapters of the Water Law, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 533 and 534. The second change would take the word "tax" out of the law and replace it with "assessment" everywhere the state engineer was in fact assessing a cost for administration of the Water Law. The change is requested because of some concern that if the cost is continued to be referred to as a tax when in fact it meets the definition of assessment, the federal government and other tax exempt entities may object to the payment of their fair share. Chairman Rhoads inquired if the bill as drafted is correct. Ms. Thiel replied in the affirmative. Senator Regan asked if S.B. 100 would affect the sovereignty of the Indian tribes in making the assessment. Ms. Thiel said the bill was written in such a manner that it would not affect the sovereignty of the tribes. Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, came forward to testify that the Indian tribes do have a concern with S.B. 100. She took her remarks from a prepared statement (Exhibit F). She said they understood this measure did three things: 1) It attempted to waive Indian sovereign immunity by forcing them into state court; 2) It aims to apply state Water Law to Indian water rights which are federal in nature; and 3) The bill tries to provide authority for the state to tax Indian tribes. Ms. Berkley said she had been told by Susan Joseph-Taylor, Deputy Attorney General for the Nevada Division of Water Resources, that it was never the intent of the state engineer to put the word "tribe" in S.B. 100. That the bill was intended to do two things: 1) clarify the state engineer's assessment as the assessment ability rather than taxing; and 2) to standardize the definition of "person" in Nevada Statutes. Ms. Berkley indicated an amendment had been previously submitted that would basically eliminate the two mentions of Indian tribes in this measure. Chairman Rhoads said the amendment had been received by Fred Welden, Deputy Chief Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau. Senator Adler asked if taking the word "tribe" out of the measure is a good idea, does that mean water rights on Indian land could not be purchased. He said it was a concern to him because sometimes tribes want to acquire other water rights outside of their own land. He said if "tribe" was taken out of the definition this would not be possible. C. Brian Wallace, Chairman, Washoe Tribe of Nevada/California, who had come forward with Ms. Berkley, said the priority of acquiring other rights under this scheme is a lesser concern than crossing the threshold about having an Indian tribe in whole included in this statutory initiative. He reiterated the points made in testimony by Ms. Berkley regarding tribal sovereignty. Senator Adler remarked in taking "tribes" out of S.B. 100, he thought they were making themselves the only entity unable to purchase water rights under Nevada law. Ms. Berkley related in conversations she has had with tribal attorneys, it was indicated the tribes would rather protect the water rights they currently have rather than have the option of maybe buying some in the future. Senator Adler expressed his personal opinion of the measure in question did not affect the tribe's sovereignty because the U.S. Government is included and they definitely exercise sovereignty rights. Ms. Berkley said she could supply the committee with legal opinions which she has acquired from the tribal attorneys. Chairman Rhoads said such information would be helpful because S.B. 100 would go on the next work session of the committee. Senator Adler reiterated he did not want to see the Indian tribes as the only people who could not buy water rights in Nevada. Senator James pointed out this measure was dealt with as a technical change by the interim study committee and the language was taken from other Nevada statutes in order to be consistent. Senator James emphasized he has always wanted to protect the interests of tribes of Nevada and did not intend to infringe on those rights. He said this bill is intended to put the tribes under the same definition as all Nevada residents so they could take advantage of the state laws when they needed to. But he did not feel it would affect the sovereignty of the Native American tribes which is a derivative of federal treaties. Mr. Wallace said the foremost interest the tribes have is with regard to the whole intention, or maybe not intended, issue of state statute waiving the immunity of tribes with the relation to getting involved with state law on regulation of Indian water rights. Mr. Wallace provided further discussion concerning water rights. Chairman Rhoads asked Mr. Wallace to rethink the section in S.B. 100 which he was opposed to before the measure is put on a work session at a future meeting of the committee. Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.B. 100 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 230. SENATE BILL 230: Establishes wildlife heritage trust account in state general fund. Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, came forward to give a quick overview of the measure. He indicated section 1, subsection 1, page 1, essentially outlines the meaning of the bill. He said it establishes the Wildlife Trust Account and it outlines how the money can be used. He pointed out line 6, page 1, indicates the intent is for the money to be used for "protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game wildlife, game fish, game mammal or game bird..." He explained the funds for the Wildlife Trust Account will come from the auction tags and a new process referred to as Partnership in Wildlife Drawing, which is described in S.B. 230. The fund may also include a gift of money to the account. Mr. Molini continued, saying the funds will be administered by the Board of Wildlife Commissioners and that board would have to approve any expenditures on any particular project. And the commission could adopt regulations to implement the provisions of the account. Mr. Molini pointed out on page 2, line 37, there is some change over the current situation. The current language is changed to not more than 15 big game tags each year for auction. Such number would be determined annually by the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. As a point of interest, Mr. Molini told the committee that at a recent meeting of Safari Club International in Las Vegas, a bighorn sheep tag was auctioned for the sum of $101,000; and more recently a bighorn sheep tag was auctioned for $60,000 at the Nevada Bighorns Unlimited dinner in Reno. He indicated that this measure makes provision for 18 percent of the auction proceeds may be deposited with the state treasurer for credit to the wildlife account in the General Fund for administrative costs. He suggested the language is permissive, using the word "may" rather than "must." Mr. Molini drew attention to page 2, line 47 which authorizes the commission, by regulation, to establish the "Partnership in Wildlife" drawing. This change will allow an unsuccessful applicant of a big game tag to keep credit for those tag fees and apply for some of the special partnership deer tags, of which there will be a set number of tags to be established annually by the wildlife commission. The special tags would be valid statewide during any open season. In reply to Chairman Rhoads' question, Mr. Molini indicated the 15 tags available for auction, are above the allotted quotas drawn for each year. Senator Adler asked if this system becomes law, will the monies go to the big horn sheep and elk and antelope programs in terms of habitat improvement and bringing in animals in certain instances. Mr. Molini said the statutory language is not restricted to use of the monies specifically for those species, however, it does restrict the use for game wildlife and as a practical matter, most of the money would be used for those species. He said the intent would be to essentially use the funds as they have been used in the past for things that benefitted those species. Further discussion ensued by Mr. Molini and committee members. Lois Snedden, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, testified that the Sierra Club supports wildlife and the concept that wildlife belongs to "all of us." She said they further agree with the concept of S.B. 230 of setting up a Heritage Trust Fund. They too, are concerned with line 6, page 1, that this has been specified to refer only to game animals rather than wildlife as a whole. Ms. Snedden said it is her understanding that a great deal of money which supports the work on wildlife habitat, does come from the hunters and perhaps they are not willing to give up this language. She further suggested that line 10, subsection (b), indicates a gift of money goes to the Wildlife Heritage Trust account, but if that money is to be used only for game animals, then she requested that the bill be amended so there is also a trust fund which would support either nongame activities or game specifically. Chairman Rhoads asked what additional term would need to be added to the language already in the bill to cover "wildlife." He pointed out on line 6, page 1, the language includes "game fish, mammal or bird...." Ms. Snedden said if it means "wildlife," why not state the same. She commented her interpretation is that the existing language means game fish, game mammal, etc. Chairman Rhoads said the language will be checked with the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau for an opinion. Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Coalition for Nevada Wildlife, spoke in support of S.B. 230. He pointed out there has been continuing concern about the use of "obligated reserve" and this measure is a very good method of protecting that reserve. He said comments that have come to him from various organizations include a concern that as the fund builds up and only the interest is being spent, that the principal could be used for funding normal operations if there happens to be a budget shortfall. He read a list of supporters of S.B. 230 which includes: The Ormsby Sportsmen Club (with additional comment), Nevada Public Access Coalition, Nevada Trapper's Association (with additional comment), Nevada Mule Deer Federation Foundation (with additional comments), Elko County Conservation Association, Ducks Unlimited, Humboldt Hunting Club, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, (with additional comment), and Nevada Wildlife Federation. Mr. Johnson pointed out the language in the original bill simply used the term "wildlife." It was the general consensus of the hunting groups that they would encourage the language being directed toward the game species. Mr. Johnson indicated the point of having an additional ability or separate fund created for the nongame species or general wildlife fund was discussed and there actually was not a poll position taken by the coalition on that issue. Chairman Rhoads asked Mr. Johnson to leave a copy of his notes (Exhibit G) which he had been using during his testimony. Elsie Dupree, Lobbyist, Nevada Wildlife Federation, went on record in support of S.B. 230, as written. Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.B. 230 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 237. SENATE BILL 237: Clarifies provisions relating to liability for certain damages which are caused by herding or grazing livestock or domestic animals. Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Senatorial District, gave a background of S.B. 237. He said gate locks have been cut allowing gates to be opened along highways, so that livestock gets on the roads, ultimately causing accidents. He indicated there are many incidents currently throughout Nevada where fences are being cut which allows livestock to run free, many times on well-traveled roads. Senator Jacobsen said S.B. 237 points up that the person who owns the livestock is responsible for that livestock. However, if an unknown person allows that livestock to run free, then the owner of the livestock should not be responsible for the liability that is incurred. He noted in some rural areas livestock is moved across a highway right- of-way on a daily basis. He said he thought the present law is archaic in this respect and that he did not think S.B. 237 is strong enough. He maintained he realizes it is difficult to apprehend the culprit or guilty party who cuts locks or fencing, but that anyone who perpetuates this kind of activity in any manner or enhances it should be charged with a felony. Senator Jacobsen asked three friends in the committee room to come forward and outline their experiences with livestock being set free. They were: Larry Pedrette, Carson Valley Rancher; Clarence Burr, Heise Land & Livestock Company; and Herb Witt, Milky Way Farm. Mr. Pedrette spoke first saying there was some verbiage in S.B. 237 that he was not pleased with, but that overall, it was a good bill. He said it is hard to legislate common sense, but livestock gets out on the highway all the time ultimately causing accidents and injuries. He declared if the animals get out at no fault of the livestock owner, then it is very hard to make that owner liable for an accident. Chairman Rhoads inquired how the livestock owner can prove that the enclosure has been cut, thus letting the livestock roam free. Mr. Pedrette replied he did not have an answer for that. He said livestock gets free frequently and that it is not known whether it is through neglect or malicious actions. However, the open range laws pretty well protect the livestock owner, and that he believes this measure is attempting to do the same thing. Mr. Burr then told the committee of his experience about 6 years ago when there were 23 gates opened onto Highway 395 and Highway 88 during a period of 10 nights and one barn was set afire. He related how a gate was opened during one particular night resulting in livestock getting on a highway. He said a garbage truck hit one cow and a passenger car hit another cow. He commented his insurance company paid over $1 million for the passenger car accident. The legal society maintained Mr. Burr was liable because he did not have a lock on that gate nor was there a cattle guard. Mr. Burr said he was not aware that the gates should have been locked at all times. He cited the inconvenience of locks freezing during the cold months and other inconsistencies of locks. He said he would like to have protection against those people who believe that all animals should be let to run free. Mr. Burr pointed out that the fencing along the state highways is being maintained through state highway efforts, which is a help, and the ranchers also watch for holes in the fencing in order to protect the animals contained. Mr. Burr expressed the bottom line is the fact the ranchers have no control over gates being left open. He concluded by indicating he is in support of S.B. 237. Chairman Rhoads asked if cattle guards would be more practical than gates. Mr. Burr responded that smaller animals can get caught in a cattle guard. Mr. Burr recognized that they are dealing with a human problem because there are people who are definitely against raising of animals. Mr. Witt testified in support of S.B. 237 and he recited some of his experiences with cut fences on his property where he runs dairy cattle. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, read a prepared statement (Exhibit H) in support of S.B. 237. Senator McGinness inquired if this problem of cut fences, etc.,will increase as Nevada is urbanized. Mr. Busselman said as one moves away from the open range scenario across most of the State of Nevada and move into agricultural areas and into urban areas, this type of problem will prevail. He said a liability standpoint primarily is the interest in S.B. 237. He summarized in an open range scenario, this type legislation will have no real effect, because in that scenario the liability is on the motorist that hits the cow. But he said in an agricultural area, somewhat like Gardnerville, a fenced-in type scenario, so if the livestock gets out of the fence through the problems which have been earlier related in this meeting, that definitely puts the liability on the owner of the livestock when he was not responsible for the problem. Stephanie Licht, Secretary/Treasurer, Nevada Wool Growers Association, came forward in support of S.B. 237. She expressed there is concern for the farmers and ranchers, especially when the urban crawl sprawls out into the agricultural areas closer around cities and counties and urbanization is going out to the rancher who is not capable of moving his industry, especially if it is a several- generation operation. Mr. Busselman came forward again to pass along to the committee, the support of S.B. 237 from Joe Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattleman's Association. Chairman Rhoads informed the committee of a problem that farmers and ranchers incur in reference to open gates, is that if you are in a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) permit or a U. S. Forest Service (USFS) permit, the BLM will fly over and spot livestock that is on their land, then they write a letter to the rancher about it when the rancher was not aware of the livestock being out. Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), told the committee that NDOT empathizes with the livestock owners and the testimony heard before this committee. He said he thought some kind of remedy for the vandalism was what people are looking for. He remarked it is a difficult situation, but he is not sure what the remedy is. Mr. Hutchins spoke to a couple of problems which exist with the bill as seen today. In focusing on page 2, he pointed out there are two different types of highway facilities that NDOT primarily maintains or has concerns with. They have controlled access facilities and uncontrolled access facilities. He explained the controlled access facilities are those that NDOT controls the access -- people cannot get off the highways without some kind of requirement or restriction, etc. That includes primarily the federal highways. The uncontrolled access is where the control of access was not purchased so NDOT does not have the right to limit the access. Reasonable access has to be provided to those facilities. Mr. Hutchins continued, saying the federal highways have to have maintained and locked gates which control the access to the federal highway. Chairman Rhoads questioned why cattle guards would not be more satisfactory than a locked gate. Mr. Hutchins said that would permit a vehicle access. Mr. Hutchins said the federal requirements issue an encroachment permit and a record is kept for these permits and of the locks placed on the gates. He said the real concern is at the top of page 2 of S.B. 237 where it essentially says there does not have to be a lock on a gate. He maintained that language tends to do away with any liability, responsibility or accountability for those areas where there are no locked gates. He asked what is the incentive to maintain some kind of gate that is closed? According to the present law, Mr. Hutchins said there does have to be a proof of negligence. He asked what kind of responsibility will there be if a lock does not have to be maintained on a gate. He said a limited liability is one possibility. Mr. Hutchins testified the other practical effect this measure has is that it really places responsibility and potential liability with NDOT for the maintenance of gates and fences. He pointed out NDOT does not own all the fenced rights-of-way, so if the liability or accountability or responsibility was done away with for those who own the domesticated animals, the practical effect would likely be to throw the liability potential on NDOT. Mr. Hutchins drew attention to section 3, lines 24 through 28 which he said prohibits a court from providing a remedy for what could be a known hazard, even to the point that it might constitute a nuisance. Mr. Hutchins said whenever NDOT is aware of a hazard on one of its facilities, it has a duty to warn of the known hazard or to make it safe, which is a statutory authority. Mr. Hutchins pointed out NDOT has some very big concerns with the language in S.B. 237. He indicated the department was willing to work with the sponsors of the bill and the Legislature in order to remedy what appears to be a difficult situation. Senator Jacobsen said he felt there was a real problem, for the state too, if the livestock owner owns only half the fence, if a car goes through a fence owned by the state and the stock gets out, is the state responsible? Mr. Hutchins said NDOT will have some kind of responsibility if the hazard is known. Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Hutchins if he saw a remedy for the problems in S.B. 237 which would make it reasonable. Mr. Hutchins replied that he has discussed this bill with Mr. Busselman and Mr. Burr and came away with the opinion that it is not intended to do away with any accountability whatsoever on the part of the livestock owners. He said NDOT could live with some type of limited liability, but he was not sure how that could be done. Chairman Rhoads asked Senator Jacobsen to work with Mr. Hutchins, Mr. Busselman and Mr. Guild on attempting to work out some ideas to solve the problems seen in S.B. 237. Mr. Pedrette came forward and related another scenario regarding livestock on the highway. Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.B. 237 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 261. SENATE BILL 261: Authorizes lease of state land to certain nonprofit or educational organizations for reduced charge. Senator Ernest E. Adler, Capital Senatorial District, explained the whole concept S.B. 261 addresses has been a problem in terms of the state always having to lease its land out at what is considered fair market value. There has been many instances where no one has been willing to lease the land at fair market value. Senator Adler declared this legislation will allow nonprofit organizations that perform a function that perhaps otherwise would be performed by government, to lease land at less than fair market value so that: 1) state land can be utilized and bring in some income, and 2) a necessary service for the area could be provided through a nonprofit organization. He stressed this has been a major problem with the state not having flexibility to lease land. Chairman Rhoads asked if there would be a "hit" on the state if state lands were to be leased out for less than the fair market value. Senator Adler said that was discretionary in S.B. 261, and it seems there is no lessee who is willing to lease land at fair market value. Pam Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, indicated she had provided the committee with a discussion paper (Exhibit I) for their information. She testified that her agency is neutral on S.B. 261. She said they have never requested a bill on this subject for several reasons. One reason being it will cost the state some money if property that could be leased for fair market value goes for less money; and another reason is that it would make more work for the agency (Division of State Lands). She said there are a lot of worthwhile causes that could use state land, but the state laws have always treated state land as an asset that must be sold or leased for fair market value only. Ms. Wilcox related the history of how the current lease statute for state land came about in 1979. Ms. Wilcox said she has given a commitment to Senator Adler that she would work with him on this measure and would look at the best ways to give this bill fair consideration. And she said if the Legislature decided to enact S.B. 261, the Division of State Lands will "faithfully implement the law" and do the best they can with it. Ms. Wilcox then referred to Exhibit I and went through the included points, expounding on each of them. Chairman Rhoads asked what the gross annual income is now for leasing of state lands and buildings. Ms. Wilcox said about $28,000 which is mostly for buildings. Senator Regan said he thought a point which has been omitted is "hold harmless on ongoing liability." Ms. Wilcox said there is a standard condition in the leases and reducing the price would not affect that. That all lessees have to get written authorizations because the "hold harmless" clause is included in the document. Senator Adler said the state has had lease problems because of the lack of flexibility in the leasing. He added there have been state buildings sitting vacant for years that have not been utilized for anything. Ms. Wilcox said Senator Adler's remarks reiterated the special problems at the Stewart complex. She added Senator Jacobsen has introduced a measure, Senate Bill 339 which addresses the Stewart situation. SENATE BILL 339: Authorizes lease of certain areas of Stewart Indian School without regard to fair market value. Senator Jacobsen said S.B. 339 deals directly with the Stewart complex which he said is a special item because it is a state- owned property. Then he explained the unique ownership and how it came about by the state and how the buildings are being used currently. He said that Ms. Wilcox needs and deserves the ability to be flexible in renting state properties. Ms. Wilcox provided further discussion on S.B. 261. Monte Fast, Executive Director, Friends in Service Helping (FISH), noted he was testifying in support of S.B. 261. He said his interest is in expediting contracts on the buildings at Stewart. He said FISH serves the counties of Lyon, Douglas, Storey and Carson City, and houses about 25 people nightly the year around at Focus House 1 at Stewart. He said Focus House 2 and Focus House 3 also at Stewart, were brought into the FISH program because of the good work of Senator Jacobsen. He continued a commentary on the work by FISH at Stewart. He said lease contracts on two of the buildings FISH occupies at Stewart were delayed for 18 months from the original approach in attempting to secure permission to begin rehabilitation work on the buildings. He reiterated that anything that can be done to expedite contracts on state property would be very important. Mr. Fast suggested that this measure should include a clause which freezes in place the existing leases. And he suggested on page 1, line 17, the language should not state "25 percent," which he said is an arbitrary figure, but "actual cost," could be a better term. Mr. Fast referred to a letter (Exhibit J) which he asked the committee to review for a better understanding of the situation facing FISH. Senator Adler added to the discussion having to do with Exhibit J. Mr. Fast appealed to the committee for quick passage of S.B. 261. Tom Reilly, Acting Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources, came forward in support of S.B. 261. Scott M. Craigie, Self, testified as a former director of the Department of Human Resources and former Chief of Staff. He related some of his experiences while in those positions of trying to get facilities offered by the state and not being successful due to all the red tape that the state deems necessary to go through for a lease. Mr. Craigie simply stated the Nevada laws in this area are archaic. He expressed S.B. 261 is a good first step toward solving the problems. He suggested that the Governor be allowed to sign as a party to a lease of state land, with a nonprofit organization, with the lease being subject to approval by the interim finance committee, or legislative money committees, then there would be some checks and balances. Mr. Craigie concluded his testimony by saying he is in support of S.B. 261. There was further conversation between Senator Adler and Mr. Craigie. Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.B. 261. He requested Senator Adler to work with Mr. Welden and Ms. Wilcox in incorporating into S.B. 261 some of the suggestions heard during testimony. There being no further business to come before the meeting, Chairman Rhoads adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Natural Resources April 10, 1995 Page