MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Sixty-eighth Session May 10, 1995 The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, May 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 GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Brian E. Sandoval, Assembly District No. 25 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Kathy Cole, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Ira D. Hansen, Concerned Sportsman Floyd Arterburn, Concerned Citizen Warren B. Hardy, Lobbyist, Hunter's Alert Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife Donald (Don) L. Cavin, Vice Chairman, Board of Wildlife Commissioners William M. Frade, Yerington, Board of Wildlife Commissioners Merv Matorian, Carson City, Board of Wildlife Commissioners Joe Johnson, Lobbyist, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife Frank Forvilly, Concessionaire Operator Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands Bill Chernock, Director of Marketing, Travel Systems, Ltd. Pamela Drum, Environmental Information Coordinator, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Joseph C. Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen's Association Peter G. Morros, P.E., Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 155. ASSEMBLY BILL 155: Prohibits person who has received refund for hunting license from being denied bonus points for additional chances to obtain hunting tag. Assemblyman Brian E. Sandoval, Assembly District No. 25, said, "I am here today as the prime sponsor of A.B. 155 which allows a person to maintain their bonus points if they receive a refund on their hunting licence." Mr. Sandoval went on to give a brief history of the hunting tag system, the bonus point system, and the merits of this bill, along with its fiscal impact. As the assemblyman explained, before there were hunting tags there was a system called "preference system" in which the hunter could hunt deer, antelope, or whatever. With this system in place a hunter would be allowed a refund of their hunting licence. Following this, the "bonus point system" was implemented due to dissatisfaction of the hunters. Continuing on Mr. Sandoval commented that in this system, as a hunter purchases a hunting licence tag they will also pay an application fee. If they do not get their tag then they get a refund, minus a processing fee along with bonus points. With the bonus points the hunter gets a better "possibility or chance" to receive a hunting tag in a subsequent season. Assemblyman Sandoval went on to say, "If you are a hunter and all you hunt is exclusively that animal for which you applied for the tag and have no use for the hunting licence and you request a refund of your hunting licence, you will get your $20 back under the present system. However, if you do so you will forfeit your bonus points. Which brings me to why this bill was introduced." According to the assemblyman, "Hunters value these bonus points very highly and they want to get that tag in the next season, therefore the hunters won't ask for a refund of their licence because they will forfeit those bonus points." Mr. Sandoval concluded his testimony by informing the committee that this bill would apply to "Nevada residents only" and that this bill would give the hunters a choice to ask for a refund without losing their bonus points. Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Sandoval, "On line 4, instead of putting a $5 fee in there you used language leaving it up to the commission. Is that fair? Are you sure the commission won't abuse that? Where did you get $5?" Mr. Sandoval explained that "This was a product of the ways and means committee and basically the $5 figure came from testimony at the work session on this bill... This was likened to the $5 you would receive on the application [refund]..." Senator Rhoads wanted to know how much of a fiscal impact would this bill be. Mr. Sandoval estimated that it would bring an additional $1500 to the Division of Wildlife. Ira D. Hansen, Concerned Sportsman, said, "I am fully in favor of A.B. 155.... The main justification for the department's position is a revenue enhancement for them. They are having financial difficulties as you are aware and this is another way for them to increase funds from the sportsmen. The way they are going about it is very unfair...it is user unfriendly...." Mr. Hansen then went over the graphs that he had submitted for the record (Exhibit C). Next, he explained his other packet of information for the committee (Exhibit D). Mr. Hansen concluded by listing the names of organizations that he is associated with and by stating that in his estimation "the bottom line is that the department needed the revenue." Floyd Arterburn, Concerned Citizen, informed the committee that he and his family are hunters. According to Mr. Arterburn it is very costly to buy the licence and tags for all six of them and if they want their money back they will lose the bonus points and they will be less likely to hunt next year. He went on to explain that this may go on for 2 or 3 years before they even get a tag and as Mr. Arterburn had said, "...this gets a little bit expensive and it's not a fair way of doing it...the system should be changed and make it good for everybody." Warren B. Hardy, Lobbyist, Hunter's Alert said, "For the record Hunter's Alert supports this legislation and the intent of this legislation." Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, said: There are three members of the wildlife commission to testify on this bill. We're opposed to the bill for the following reasons, first that we feel that the administration of the application hunt system should not be set in statute, but should be carried out by the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. This is one of those elements of the administration of that program. [Secondly,] revenue was mentioned. . .we are not talking about a major amount of revenue...in the neighborhood of $6,000 a year... Thirdly, another area of concern is the differential treatment of residents and nonresidents. While we do that routinely as to the amount of tags that are available and in terms of differential fees this is another area of differential treatment. . . If we allowed nonresidents to keep their bonus points and not retain their licence now we talking pretty significant revenue, in 1994 it would have been $174,000 from nonresident revenue... Mr. Molini continued to explain some possible problems especially in the area of refunding resident and nonresident hunters. He then asked to be permitted to respond to Mr. Hansen's testimony and "set the record right" with regard to how the Division of Wildlife spent "$20,000 of sportsmen's money with an antihunting group." As Mr. Molini explained they had "spearheaded to produce a wildlife viewing guide for the State of Nevada" along with other government offices throughout the country and the state. This was a joint effort. Senator McGinness requested clarification to be made on testimony presented by Mr. Molini. He said, "Will this allow residents to keep their bonus points after a refund?... Do nonresidents get to keep their bonus points?" Mr. Molini affirmed that they do now. Continuing the questioning the senator asked, "If they ask for their money back [then,] they wouldn't keep their bonus points?" Mr. Molini said, "That is correct." In the discussion that ensued Senator McGinness directed the conversation around the legality of treating nonresidents differently than resident hunters. It was surmised that the differential treatment was permitted especially in the area of fees that could be charged to the nonresident hunters. Senator Rhoads asked the three commissioners to come up and testify. Donald (Don) L. Cavin, Vice Chairman, Board of Wildlife Commissioners, informed the committee that the licences that are sold in Nevada "support all wildlife...all types of wildlife." Mr. Cavin explained that the previous testimony had mentioned that there were 311 of our resident hunters per year which might be affected by this bill; but this "is less than one-fourth of 1 percent of the hunting licences that they had sold in 1994" and should not be of major concern. What concerns Mr. Cavin more is the possible court battles over nonresidents who want not only a refund but also who want to retain their bonus points for the next hunting season. However, he said there were only 17 nonresident hunters who had applied for a refund last year. Mr. Cavin closed his statement by saying, "I don't think the $3.50 for seniors or the $20.50 for adults is asking too much from the general public for the hunting privileges and for the wildlife privileges in the state." William M. Frade, Yerington, Board of Wildlife Commissioners, said he had one comment, "I don't know of anyplace in Nevada where you get a free lunch. The bonus point [system] is a part of a raffle or an extra chance...for the next year and I think there should be a charge for it...." Mr. Cavin added to Mr. Frade's testimony by saying, "When we did the bonus point system, regardless of what the general opinion is, every single person who applies has an equal chance to draw. The bonus point gives you an extra number to draw...if you have three numbers, only one number will go into the drawing...only the lowest bonus point goes into the draw." Merv Matorian, Carson City, Board of Wildlife Commissioners, referred to Mr. Molini's testimony with regard to this being "an administrative function...putting it into statute takes away the flexibility of this issue among many others...." Mr. Matorian asserted his concern with the possible court battles over the differential treatment of resident versus nonresident hunters. He then pointed out that in certain western states if a nonresident of that state bought a licence to hunt and chose not to hunt they would simply "eat the fee" and would not be given a refund. Mr. Matorian concluded his testimony by concurring with Mr. Cavin that, "The people who want to participate in the process are contributing to all wildlife in the State of Nevada." Mr. Cavin asked to add to Mr. Matorian's testimony by saying, "The refund currently...is a regulatory document controlled by the commission. We were trying to be fair to everybody and give them an opportunity to get back their licence. It's not in statute. We think that's the way it ought to be." Senator McGinness enquired of the commissioners: This bonus point program is set up administratively by the commission. I am just wondering, let's say next year you decide to do away with the bonus point program. Would having this in statute...preclude you from doing [so] if this were in statute? [Would it] take away your flexibility? Mr. Cavin restated this could indeed "impede them" in responding according to the regulations and to the changing environment. He continued to testify by stating, "That is how they got to the bonus point system from the preferential system and if it proves that this system is not beneficial than we need to have that flexibility to change." Chairman Rhoads requested this opportunity to express his concern over the "attitudes" of those in the field. He said, "They should be more helpful to the public and not harass them." The commissioners agreed with the chairman's concerns about changing the attitudes of those who work in the field, especially, the game wardens. Mr. Cavin added that they were concerned about the frustration levels of the hunters in the state and he believes that they all need to work together to alleviate these problems. Joe Johnson, Lobbyist, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, listed several organizations who oppose or support this bill. Mr. Johnson then spoke with regard to the statutory regulations that permits a hunter to enter the drawing. He declared, "We believe, the majority of our groups hold that the purchase of the licence which is statutorily required allows you to participate in the draw. The bonus points are a bonus for having a licence, not for having entered the draw in the preceding year.... The majority of our groups oppose A.B. 155." Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on A.B. 155 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 156. ASSEMBLY BILL 156: Clarifies period during which certain replacement tags to hunt big game mammals are valid. Mr. Sandoval said: Assembly Bill 156 basically is an attempt to clarify when a replacement tag may be issued when a diseased animal is killed. The history of this bill is that a constituent of mine was out hunting in the field, shot a diseased animal, and brought it back into a warden. The animal was determined to be diseased and in that circumstance, under present law, a hunter is entitled to receive what is called a replacement tag to go out and hunt. The hunter is not entitled to maintain any part of the animal as a trophy, and if he or she does they will not be able to receive that replacement tag. In this situation...the hunter brought the diseased animal in, requested a replacement tag, and the hunter was hunting in what is called a split season. That replacement tag under present law can be used in the current hunting season for the next similar season. This was a split season. The hunter killed the diseased animal toward the end of the first-half of the split season and requested a replacement tag for the second-half of that split season... The warden interpreted the present law, the current hunting season, not to mean the second-half of the split season; and said the hunter would only have the choice of hunting the next year or for the later part of the first-half of that split season which was not tenable for the hunter, which brings me to the purpose of the bill. What the purpose of the bill is, is to clarify what is the current hunting season or the next similar season. For example, if this bill were to pass, if the hunter were to kill an animal in the first-half of the season, which I will call `A' and `B,' that hunter will have the option to hunt in either `A,' `B,' or `A' of the next year. The language in this bill is a solution which was reached between the hunters and the Division of Wildlife... What is important here is the solution that they would come to, so that there would not be any confusion out in the field in the future. With that I will be glad to answer any questions. Senator Jacobsen inquired of the assemblyman, "You are indicating by this procedure that this person would have to take this into a warden or somebody in order to be certified that the animal was diseased. [Is this correct?]" Mr. Sandoval replied, "Yes, I believe there is language within the bill. Typically, if a hunter shoots a diseased animal, she or he will have to bring the animal to a warden to have that certified; and if there is not a warden available then [the animal will have to be taken] into the nearest office of the Division of Wildlife for that determination." The assemblyman then explained that in the situation he had testified about the hunting was going on in Gerlach which is in extreme northern Nevada. He further stated that when they got to Gerlach there was no one to inspect the deer and so they had to bring the animal clear into Reno "to get that determination." Senator Adler said, "I am just curious why you really needed to bring this bill. I would have thought the [Division] of Wildlife could be more reasonable and just let him hunt the next split season... It seems to be awfully inflexible for the department to make you bring this bill to solve this problem." Mr. Sandoval drew attention to the fact that there had been some testimony with regard to this bill and if it was needed or not for the various reasons Senator Adler stated. He went on to explain that he too found the law to be somewhat ambiguous and that there was a need for "clarification of the loss," so that there would not be "a potential for confusion in the future." Mr. Sandoval reiterated that this bill was a solution that had been reached through negotiations and has the support of the Division of Wildlife. Willie Molini said, "I am pleased to be able to support this bill. For one that spends as much time as I do in working with this body, and whose budget is approved by this body, it is never pleasant to have to get up and not support a bill that a legislator supports and testifies to... This bill leaves us a little room for error in our interpretation [of the law]...and we appreciate that, [as] it clarifies [the law]..." Senator Adler restated that the Division of Wildlife needs to tell their people in the field they need to interpret these things flexibly towards benefitting the hunter. According to the senator, "These types of problems could be handled better." Moreover, he recognized that the hunter is in actuality the "customer" and should therefore, be accommodated whenever possible. He then reiterated, "After all, they pay the money and they are entitled to a favorable interpretation which allows them to do what they want to do as long as they don't hurt anybody." Mr. Molini concurred with the senator's remarks and declared that he heard his urging them to be more flexible in interpreting the law. Senator Jacobsen commented that when he saw this bill coming along he had talked to Mr. Sandoval. The senator related an incident that he experienced while hunting a 6-pointer in the Bridgeport area. He had shot the animal and it was diseased. As it turned out another inexperienced hunter came along and expressed that he thought that it was a pretty nice deer. The senator asked him if he wanted the animal to which the man replied, "Absolutely!" The senator declared, "He's all yours!" In this way Senator Jacobsen informed the committee that he had provided his own "new tag" and still had his tag that hadn't been used. Furthermore, the senator clearly was not going to "waste the time" to tag the animal and then bring it into a warden for inspection, when he could deal with the problem in another way. Floyd Arterburn referred to the incident that Assemblyman Sandoval had mentioned in his testimony. It was his son that was hunting out near Gerlach and shot the diseased animal. Mr. Arterburn was along with his son who had tagged the deer and then drove 63 miles back to Gerlach where they were informed that they would have to take the animal on into Reno. The antelope had been shot on a Saturday and they had to wait until Monday morning for the Division of Wildlife's warden to inspect the animal. According to Mr. Arterburn's testimony his son had been "flatly denied to be issued a tag" due to the warden's interpretation of the law with regard to "replacement tags." Chairman Rhoads asked the committee and the public if there was something in the present statute that refers to a veterinarian and their inspection of a diseased animal. Mr. Molini came forward and declared, "Yes, there is a provision that you have to present a certificate from the veterinarian, because we have to have something in order to issue another license." Based on the discussion that ensued, the Arterburns would still have been required to drive into Reno for a new tag, as a veterinarian can only issue a certificate declaring the animal to be diseased, and they cannot issue another tag. Mr. Arterburn repeated that they had only followed the instructions in bringing the animal in for inspection and yet they were refused a "replacement tag" even though the animal was clearly diseased. In his interpretation of the law, his son should have been issued a replacement tag on the spot; but they were told that only a Division of Wildlife commissioner could issue them another tag, even though the person they were communicating with was in fact a game warden. Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on A.B. 156 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 418. SENATE BILL 418: Exempts holder of permit issued by United States Forest Service from certain provisions governing use of state land. Frank Forvilly, Concessionaire Operator, handed out an exhibit (Exhibit E) and then asked for an interpretation of this bill as he just received a notice from the Division of State Lands with a different interpretation of the bill. Senator Rhoads invited Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, to join Mr. Forvilly at the witness table. Ms. Wilcox referred to her exhibits (Exhibit F and Exhibit G) in explaining the bill. Ms. Wilcox then gave her interpretation of what she thought the bill was supposed to do. She said: Last session we set up this fee schedule... Mr. Forvilly and another person who is here from Zephyr Cove are concessionaires on [U.S.] Forest Service Beaches. They are operating under [U.S.] Forest Service permits. The [U.S.] Forest Service was already charging them 8 percent of their gross... Then when we came to them...they said, `Hey, we are being charged twice!' and they are... I don't think it is unreasonable for...the state to be denied revenue for the use of its lands... I have a real problem with this bill. I really object to having these commercial operators pay zero or half of their fee or whatever...it just seems very unfair..." Mr. Forvilly continued to address the committee. He explained how expensive it has been for his commercial operations since the fees have been issued. Also, Mr. Forvilly told in detail how frustrating it has been for him to continue his business due to the maintenance and upkeep of the moorings, beach areas, and so forth. His ultimate statement was, "We are paying, paying, and paying!" A general discussion ensued with the committee members and the two witnesses, Mr. Forvilly and Ms. Wilcox, in trying to come to an understanding in what this bill was intended to do and what it would do if passed. Upon further testimony from Ms. Wilcox the committee learned that if the State of Nevada took California's approach they would only take 5 percent of the gross which is reasonable, instead of the 8 percent of the gross that they are taking. Mr. Forvilly spoke up declaring even at the 5 percent of gross income he would still be paying between $5,000-$8,000 a year in fees and he made it clear to those present that was too much for his small operation. He encouraged the committee to come up with a bill that states what the fees are as well as to produce a bill in more simpler terms. Chairman Rhoads asked Ms. Wilcox, "How much money would this bill generate in a year?" Ms. Wilcox replied: This generated last year $122,000 but that was only a fraction of the things under the permit because we didn't get any staff increase when we got these fees.... This year it will probably generate $177,000 on these annual fees. Depending on whether these fees are revised...they will top out at somewhere near $200,000 on the total revenue on annual fees...." Mr. Forvilly asked the committee what his recourse was for the $25,000 he still owes the state. Chairman Rhoads informed Mr. Forvilly that he planned on putting this bill into a work session. At that time he said, "We will have legal up here who can respond to some of the questions that have been raised in this hearing," as well as interpret the language of the bill. The chairman told the public that he will notify them when the bill will be heard again. Bill Chernock, Director of Marketing, Travel Systems, Ltd., stated for the record, that his company Zephyr Cove Resorts was "...fortunate enough to provide $29,750 of those revenue dollars in 1994." Mr. Chernock wanted to make a couple of points to give the committee a general idea what they were facing. He acknowledged that the U. S. Forest Service would not be willing to give up any of the fees they receive. Mr. Chernock add to this comment by stating that "...they are generally a good producer in the economy of the Nevada portion of Lake Tahoe." Further, he related that some of the problems is in the fact that the Division of State Lands "is asking us to pay for the use of that land that a buoy or boat is anchored to. To our way of thinking there really isn't any intrinsic value to that piece of land if it sits under 12 or 18 feet of water. It only has value in the fact that it is near the federal land, the forest service land; and believe us we pay and pay and pay for that right to operate on forest service land...." Mr. Chernock continued to explain that they do not rely on state lands to do maintenance or upkeep nor are they unwilling "to pay their fair share." However, as he pointed out just because they do not use the state lands' services, they are still required to "pay $30,000 a year.... We feel as if we are being asked to support their activities elsewhere...." In conclusion Mr. Chernock discussed with the committee two other bills that are in the works on the Assembly side which would repeal or delete the "old piece of legislation." Senator Regan had a question for Senator James regarding "air right's analysis and cost evaluation?" Senator James replied that he had never worked on an air right's analysis or cost evaluation case before . Senator Regan then went on to explain what air right's analysis would do. Basically he said, "Could we not use that as a comparable way of renting space within the water...just take the suggestion from Ms. Wilcox. Triangular it. Figure the total square footage in there. Figure the value of the water in cubic feet and do it the same way as we do it in air right's analysis." Senator Jacobsen said: I think you have pretty well gotten the gist of what has happened here.... When we processed it the last session...I don't think we envisioned all that would be happening until these bills started to circulate. That's when I became aware of it. Mr. Forvilly got a hold of me.... Also I served on the TRPA [Tahoe Regional Planning Agency] oversight committee along with Speaker Hettrick...and other legislators.... I didn't know how to stop one of these [bills] once they got to steamrolling along. The immediate concern was, I serve on the 4-H Camp Advisory Board and when we got a bill for the dock, it's not usable, and I thought we sure aren't going to pay a fee on that... So, I asked on the oversight committee even though it wasn't within our prerogative if we could put it on the agenda...and these people came and testified and that's where we are today..." The senator further explained that the fees are a result of legislation that had been passed and therefore, it would take some more legislation to remove it. Mr. Chernock stated that within the old legislation there "was an exclusion or exemption for governmental and quasi-governmental entities. We're being asked as payees to the U.S. Forest Service and operators on their land in this bill to be considered, as we understand it, like the improvement districts... [they would] be considered exempt from the fees that were passed." It was agreed by the committee and witnesses that a work session would be helpful as would more information on how California is handling the fees and this issue on their side of Lake Tahoe. Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.B. 418 and opened the hearing on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 3. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 3: Urges certain state agencies to cooperate with Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and local governments in governments in Lake Tahoe basin and to provide information within their fields of responsibility. Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, was asked to give the committee some background information on this resolution. He said: ...This resolution follows up on the goal of the interim study committee to increase the cooperative nature of activities at Tahoe in the basin and because the state agencies involved have a considerable amount of information, the resolution urges them to even do more than they have done in the past to cooperate with the TRPA [Tahoe Regional Planning Agency] and with the local governments involved in providing that information.... Pamela Drum, Environmental information Coordinator, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, read her statement from Exhibit H. She encouraged the working together of state agencies in their efforts to do a thorough job of planning and implementing plans for the Tahoe Basin. Ms. Wilcox concurred with Ms. Drum's testimony and agreed that the state lands already works with various agencies such as the TRPA to improve the basin. Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on A.C.R. 3 and went into a work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 101. SENATE BILL 101: Requires development of statewide water plan. Senator Rhoads informed the public that they would only be looking at one proposed amendment to this bill and they would not be taking any action on this bill today. He then asked for Joseph C. Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, to come forward with the amendment that they have been working on (Exhibit I). Mr. Guild began his testimony by saying: Briefly what this amendment does is transfer the function of the state Division of Water Planning to the state engineer's office. First let me say the Nevada Cattlemen's Association supports the state's water plan and the maintenance of a state water planning office, so, in no way should this amendment...to be construed by anybody to be a destruction of the office of the state water planner. Furthermore, I think under the statute the advisory board to the state water planner is set forth in [Nevada Revised Statutes] NRS 540.111...," Mr. Guild then proceeded to read from his proposed amendment for S.B. 101 (Exhibit I). After hearing Mr. Guild's proposal Senator James asked him: On this bill I agree with you to the extent that the water plan itself should include interbasin transfers...and that we should amend it... I agree with that. We shouldn't be having a water plan become a separate body of law.... Does this amendment address that concern in changing the language...and protecting the quality of life in the rural counties? Mr. Guild asked to address this concern along with two other points. He said: Already under NRS 532.110 the state engineer is given a very broad authority. Under chapter 540 of NRS the state planner is given a fairly narrow function.... Nothing changes by this amendment to those tasks and duties. Further, the state engineer has review authority over the state water planner already, under NRS 532.165...to make sure that plan or the [proposed] projects are compatible.... Mr. Guild suggested his proposed amendment could be the vehicle to further the dialogue between the state engineer's office and the state water planner's office. Senator Rhoads commented by saying, "The original S.B. 101 passed for a little over $700,000 for a 2-year period to administer a water planner...I think that was over the budget, right?" Mr. Guild affirmed that he thought this was true. Chairman Rhoads asked Mr. Weldan to verify this figure before the next meeting. Senator Adler made a comment directed at Mr. Guild with reference to the state water planner's office which had issued a state water policy statement. There was a discussion that ensued between Mr. Guild who declared he was "concerned" because this water policy statement appears to be "inaccurate in many cases." Mr. Guild was also concerned because it was not recommended in the interim water study committee meetings nor were the other state agencies involved in addressing this issue. Senator Adler responded by including the fact that they had not recommended a water policy, per se, be written. Mr. Guild concurred with the senator and added: Anytime you restate the law and it is not an actual a restatement of the law then it is subject to interpretation and opinion from potentially unqualified people. The law is the law... I think this document is not useful because what we need in this state is a state water plan, we don't need a statement of policy...." Discussion ensued among the committee members and the witness, Mr. Guild. Senator Adler added to the comments by stating, "I agree with you...the Legislature decided that we couldn't arrive at a proper water policy.... We didn't do that because of the request from the state water engineer that we do not define public policy...." Senator James directed his comments to Mr. Guild by saying: Maybe we could address your concern without doing what you are asking us to do with this amendment. Let me explain very quickly why this thing came up. The reason we talked about water planning [was]...to have some overall [guide for]...water use and needs in the future [that would be]...in a coordinated fashion. The plan that was to be developed was to assist the state engineer, local water purveyors, and to assist others in the state who have to make decisions about development of water resources and about future growth in different areas. [This was] to assist them in understanding where we are going with this [and] to give the state a vision in terms of water use and...to protect rural areas.... The plan would be in place as a reference...and to assist the state engineer.... Mr. Guild concluded his testimony by encouraging the committee to resolve this issue and keep in mind that the statutes already give the state water planner the right to plan under statutory guidelines. Senator James was told that Mr. Guild and others would be glad to work with the legislative body and the water planner in developing a state water plan. Peter G. Morros, P.E., Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, gave the committee a little history of the background on the water planning and the Division of Water Planning. He pointed out how the division was created due to "a perceived conflict developing between the state engineer's office and the water planning...efforts. The water planning effort was initiated in the late 1960s when there was a substantial amount of federal money available. [At that time] there was staff set up...[and] very little General Fund money going in for the effort...." Mr. Morris continued his dialogue with regard to the water policy draft document efforts and declared at the end that this document "was not a final document. It is not that. It was never intended to be that. It is intended to be a starting point. That's all... My final instructions to Naomi [Deurr, state water planner] was to put everything in it. Let's get it all out on the table so it can be discussed." Chairman Rhoads said what he has been hearing is that the water planner policy is to be helpful throughout the state. However, from what he understands the water planning policy is going to be more restrictive, not less. Senator James recommended that they call this document a water plan not water policy. Mr. Morros agreed to this and then suggested that they go through the whole workshop process again. In conclusion Mr. Morros asserted that he was a little disappointed in trying to keep the public informed and a part of this process because they are being accused of "trying to shove something down their throats and we're not." There was further discussion from all parties involved until Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.B. 101 and adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Kathy E. Cole, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: _________________________________ Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman DATE: __________________________ Senate Committee on Natural Resources May 10, 1995 Page