MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Sixty-eighth Session June 5, 1995 The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 1:35 p.m., on Monday, June 5, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Vice Chairman Senator Mark A. James Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator John B. (Jack) Regan Senator O. C. Lee STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne R. Perock, Acting Administrator, Division of State Parks A. Kent Bloomfield, Manager of Planning, Contracts and Special Projects, Overton Power District No. 5 Alma W. Whipple, General Manager, Overton Power District No. 5 Tom Benz, Executive Director, Nevada Animal Wise Use and Welfare Alliance Chairman Rhoads informed the committee that there had been some changes by the Assembly to Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 12. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 12: Urges Federal Government to adhere to states' laws governing use, allocation, management and protection of water. Chairman Rhoads indicated the Assembly had deleted the words, court degrees, from line 20, page 1, of S.J.R 12. He appointed a conference committee to study the deletion by the Assembly. Conference committee members appointed are Senator James, Senator McGinness and Senator Adler. Chairman Rhoads declared that Senate Bill (S.B.) 97 was processed through the Senate, then it was processed through the Assembly before it was discovered there was a problem with the language, which could cause problems with the water laws. SENATE BILL 97: Defines "subsisting right" to water livestock. Chairman Rhoads said the Governor has already signed S.B. 97, so it is necessary to introduce a "trailer bill" to repeal S.B. 97 of this [Legislative] session. Chairman Rhoads called for a motion for committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) S-2095. BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-2095: Repeals Senate Bill No. 97 of this session. SENATOR REGAN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S- 2095. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JAMES AND SENATOR ADLER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 532. SENATE BILL 532: Transfers county park at Washoe Lake to state recreational area. Chairman Rhoads commented he had already heard this matter in the Senate Committee on Finance and he said they had put the positions in the budget, so it is unlikely S.B. 532 is needed. Nevertheless, he invited Wayne R. Perock, Acting Administrator, Division of State Parks, to come forward and talk on the measure. Mr. Perock related that, at the request of Senator William Raggio, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, there have been negotiations with Washoe County Parks and Recreation to initiate this transfer. He indicated that Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, has commented S.B. 532 is not necessary because the matter is already in the closing budget. Mr. Perock distributed a summary concerning S.B. 532 (Exhibit C), which explains the concept of the transfer of a small 15- acre county facility to Washoe Lake State Park. Senator Jacobsen asked if this transfer takes in Little Washoe Lake. Mr. Perock said the budget has a position in it for the county boat ramp which will allow some staffing and some services at Little Washoe Lake. Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.B. 532 and opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 22. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 22: Urges Congress to investigate additional costs incurred for visitor facilities program at Hoover Dam. A. Kent Bloomfield, Manager of Planning, Contracts and Special Projects, Overton Power District No. 5, and Alma W. Whipple, General Manager, Overton Power District No. 5, came forward to speak on S.J.R. 22. Mr. Bloomfield told the committee that he also is president of the Silver State Power Association, which includes Overton Power District, Lincoln County Power District, Valley Electric Association and the City of Boulder City. He said it was this group that requested S.J.R. 22. Mr. Bloomfield handed out a brochure, "Boulder Canyon Project" (Exhibit D. On file in the Research Library.) He gave an overview of the history of Hoover Dam and explained the reason for the request of S.J.R. 22. He stated: In 1937, Hoover Dam was put into production as far as the power end of it. Overton and Lincoln, both, were one of the first contractors. Those original contracts expired in 1987. Prior to that time, negotiations were undertaken by the federal agencies, Bureau of Reclamation and Western Area Power Administration, and the contractors relative to the renewal of those contracts. Along in that same process, it was determined that the generators at Hoover Dam could be uprated to put out more capacity. The Bureau of Reclamation and the contractors went before Congress, got authorization to uprate the generators and then to rebuild and improve the visitor's facilities. In that original federal legislation was a total of $77 million: $32 million for the visitor's facilities and $45 million for the uprater program. The uprater program was later financed by private financing by the contractors, therefore the $45 million should have gone away. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Reclamation did not see it that way. They reached out, scooped in the $45 million, determined they had $77 million to do the project with, and at that point, made substantial redesign, re-engineering, and uprated the project. Its cost now is on the books at $120 million. It could grow to as much as $150 million by the time they are through with the project. It will open partially this summer. The Bureau of Reclamation has indicated that they will use their best efforts to increase the visitor's fees, etc., and find alternative funding to cover any costs above the $32 million. But from our standpoint, what we see is their best efforts spent the money and I see no best efforts on their part to recover any of it. So what we are attempting to do, and the federal legislature has agreed, [is] to have hearings. Those should be held sometime later this summer. We are asking that a joint resolution be passed in support of declaring those costs above the original $32 million be declared as non-reimbursable, or other alternative financing or funding be provided other than the ratepayers who take power out of Hoover. That is the reason for the request. Chairman Rhoads asked if there was a suggested amendment to S.J.R. 22. Mr. Bloomfield said they would like to see additional language added at the end of line 22, and to develop alternative funding for all costs in excess of the original $32 million. Chairman Rhoads asked Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, to obtain a copy of the suggested language. Mr. Bloomfield added there has been an audit by the office of the Inspector General, U. S. Department of Interior, on the visitor facility and they have confirmed the position of the Silver State Power Association concerning the $32 million versus the $45 million, which is outlined in Exhibit D. He indicated that position was also confirmed by an internal report by Dan Beard, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation. Chairman Rhoads questioned how so much money could be spent on a visitor's center. Mr. Bloomfield stated the Colorado River Commission actually issued a bond issue for the Nevada share of the $45 million, so that has been spent and that is now being paid back. He added that by the Bureau of Reclamation scooping that into the visitor's center, that means the $45 million will have to be paid twice. Senator Lee asked who, or what procedure is done to approve the original numbers of dollars and then who approved the overruns? Mr. Bloomfield said he believed that has been a subject of the audit by the Inspector General of the U. S. Department of Interior, and also Commissioner Beard's internal inspection. Mr. Bloomfield pointed out the policy of the Bureau of Reclamation is to determine that it needs some type of a project, and in this case to upgrade the visitor facility because they have close to one million visitors go through that facility per year. And he explained the further process which was ultimately approved by Congress. He indicated it is yet to be determined exactly who made the final decision to scoop in the $45 million into the visitor center. Senator Jacobsen related that during a recent trip to Boulder City by the Senate Committee on Transportation, it was learned the big concern in that area is the heavy vehicle traffic over the [Hoover] dam. That there seems to be more concern of how to bypass the dam or build another bridge. Senator Jacobsen said the townspeople of Boulder City seem very unhappy with the traffic directed through their downtown area. During further conversation by Senator Jacobsen and Mr. Bloomfield concerning the area under discussion, Mr. Bloomfield stated the residents of Boulder City have not been as strong an advocate of the visitor center cost issue as have been the power districts involved. Chairman Rhoads asked for a motion on S.J.R. 22. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.J.R. 22. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Chairman Rhoads opened the work session on Assembly Joint Resolution 26. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 26: Expresses vehement opposition to storage of radioactive waste in Nevada. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 26. SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Jacobsen indicated this measure is worthy of some discussion. He stated: ...this legislature sanctioned it in 1975, and I guess been fighting it ever since. But it just seems funny that we invite almost something identical in one voice and then, because public sentiment gets so vehement, that we turn around then and decide we don't want it. It just doesn't seem realistic to me. I think there are some advantages, some we haven't taken advantage of. I know it is a very emotional subject. I think we have to realize that somewhere along the line, we are going to have to store our own, so I don't think we should be cutting off our nose, in a sense, unless we think we are going to find somebody that is going to take our waste. I think there is also another responsibility. And that is to the military. And I think that all of us have that kind of responsibility. You can't live any closer to a unit than being on a nuclear sub...almost all our ships at sea today, military ships, are nuke ships.....With me, I guess I can see the disadvantages. You don't like some of these things that are detrimental to the environment. I don't think all the answers are in yet as far as scientific judgment as to whether it could be safe in Nevada, it could be an economical factor. It was suggested that because I like it, then put it in my backyard, I guess I'm not crazy about that either. But I think at this point to express our dissatisfaction with something, not really knowing all the facts.... The reason I express this feeling is that we have a committee on high nuclear waste and I serve on that and I somewhat wonder what my position is. Is it to be realistic or just to be anti. We are asked to participate on a national basis in this area. I think we have some responsibility here....I don't know, I'm sure it is passed here almost like a dose of salts because it's something you don't really appreciate or don't like to take.... Senator Regan referred to testimony taken in a past hearing on A.J.R. 26 from Judy Treichel, who, he said, stated she was "just a civilian." Senator Regan related he asked the question of Ms. Treichel concerning what payments she has received in working with the Nuclear Task Force. He made the following statement: I have documentation that Ms. Treichel is paid over an average of $14,000 per month for $337,000 over a 2- year period to conduct public participation programs....She publishes a monthly newsletter which is decidedly anti-nuclear in its slant. This newspaper is mailed to hundreds of out-of-state anti- nuclear, peace activist organizations. In exchange for her $1,400 [sic] per month, Treichel does very little. According to her own monthly activity reports she takes as few as 10 phone calls per month, attends perhaps five meetings per month, receives as few as four visitors per month and makes fewer than five presentations per month. Since 1988, the State of Nevada has paid nearly $1 million to Judy Treichel and the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force. And I would just like to know where that money is. I would like to see an accounting of Mr. Loux' [Robert Loux, Executive Director, Agency for Nuclear Projects] office to see just where all these dollars that have been coming in for oversight, where, in my opinion, they should have been spent either at UNLV, UNR or the community colleges for the scientific evaluation, as opposed to political activities, including one month ....of September, 1991, she attended an art show sponsored by Citizen's Alert and 3 days later she participated in a Pine Cone Ball. Well, I don't know very few people in this state that are taking $14,600 a month out of their business, let alone a contract like that from the state. And I would just like some responsibility answers from Mr. Loux on that. Chairman Rhoads commented the subject of Senator Regan's statement would be a good point to clear up with the committee on high nuclear waste on which Senator Jacobsen serves and Senator McGinness is vice chairman. Chairman Rhoads asked them to look into the report given by Senator Regan. Senator Adler asked Senator Regan what he was reading from while making his statement concerning Ms. Treichel. Senator Regan said he was taking his statements from data he had acquired over the past 15 years regarding the activities of such groups as Citizen's Alert. He added that the information has been in his files and that he is not sure how it was obtained. Senator Adler said he thought it is hypocritical to criticize Mr. Loux' expenditure funds when the entire Yucca Mountain project is "spending more money to characterize it" than they are to actually build it, which, he remarked he finds an appalling waste of taxpayer's money. Senator Regan said it is not taxpayer dollars being spent to characterize the analysis of Yucca Mountain. He stressed that it is ratepayer's money. Senator Adler, said in reply to Senator Jacobsen's remarks, that none of the waste that was proposed to be stored at Yucca Mountain, is generated within the State of Nevada. And he stated, to his knowledge none of it is military waste. And in terms of the economic impact, he said he thought it definitely will have a detrimental impact on Nevada's economy because of the impact on the tourist industry in the Clark County/Las Vegas area. Senator Adler stated that A.J.R. 26 essentially is similar to the ones passed in 1989. He emphasized the bottom line is that the people of the State of Nevada have the right to protect the health and safety of their citizens and he said there is no doubt that the materials that are to be stored at Yucca Mountain are among the most dangerous known to man and do have a severe health and safety impact on this population. Senator Adler added that this also gets down to the matter of sovereignty of the State of Nevada. He commented that basically, the government of the State of Nevada has the right to protect the health and safety of its citizens and "if we let the federal government steamroll us in this area, there will be other things to follow." Senator Adler said he thinks A.J.R. 26 is an appropriate resolution and an appropriate time to take a stand against things such as nuclear waste being forced upon the State of Nevada without the consent of its citizens. Chairman Rhoads commented that Senator Adler expressed his sentiments. He said he has been consistent on this issue since coming to the Nevada State Legislature in 1977, for two main reasons. One is state's rights and the other one is "if we get this, what will we get next." Chairman Rhoads called for the vote on the motion before the committee. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JACOBSEN AND SENATOR REGAN VOTED NO.) ***** Chairman Rhoads opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 45. SENATE BILL 45: Establishes rights of owners of livestock Chairman Rhoads informed the committee there are amendments to this measure, and he read those amendments as outlined in the work session document (Exhibit E) prepared by Mr. Welden. Chairman Rhoads invited Tom Benz, Executive Director, Nevada Animal Wise Use and Welfare Alliance, to come forward and apprise the committee of his suggested amendments to S.B. 45 outlined in Exhibit E. Mr. Benz added his group thinks this measure is necessary and that they are anxious to work with all of the suggested amendments as outlined. Senator James asked to make a statement concerning S.B. 45. He said: I have something to say about this bill and I want to say, first of all that this is with the greatest respect for Senator McGinness, and I think he, by proposing this bill and bringing this to bay, he focused some very important issues that exist between the two parties on both sides of this issue. However, I think it would be imprudent to process this bill, at least as presently constituted, for the following reason. I read this bill and I don't see a single thing that is stated in this bill that is not a right that somebody has over an animal already. And I would be very surprised to see any of the proponents of the measure concede that anything in (a) through (h) of subsection 1 of section 4, is not something that everybody already has as an existing right to deal with their animals. It is also understood that my proposed amendment (Exhibit E) states the obvious that I talked about, and that is that you can do all those things, but you can't do them if they are going to be causing the animal to undergo unjust cruelty. So the law already is, as is stated in the bill, and that is that you can do all these things and have every aspect of control over an animal like other property, so long as you don't run afoul of the criminal statutes for cruelty to animals. ....I think it is not good policy for us to indicate, through passing a bill that we have to set out in the law every way in which somebody is protected in the exercise of their property. That gets us into the problem of...inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other. And so if you go about listing everything that you can do with your property, the natural flow out from that, in a judicial interpretation or otherwise, is if the Legislature didn't list it you can't do it. And that is not the way our government has worked. You have all control and all rights over your property and the government does not have to announce what you can do on a prospective basis. What I heard the proponents of this bill, Mr. Chairman, saying is that they are concerned about the burgeoning animal rights movement and that it may in the future somehow infringe on that and they want a policy statement out of this Legislature. So for that reason, I would support passing this bill as a resolution and as a resolution only. I would not support and will not vote for, putting into statute a prospective announcement of legislative policy. I even think that the way the bill is drafted is not....doesn't even make sense to me...line 9, ...the legislature hereby declares...and that is supposed to be codified, I suppose, that we are declaring something. Well, we don't really declare things other than in resolutions. We pass laws that you have to live by and that is why I think this legislation doesn't make sense to me.... I respect the sponsor of the bill and his concerns that he seeks to address. I would be willing to work with him, Mr. Chairman, to come up with a resolution that would prospectively state our intent that we respect the rights of people over their property, but I don't support passing it into law as a bill.... Senator Adler remarked he has a similar feeling as those stated by Senator James. Mr. Benz commented that one of the problems that created the need for this measure was the preemptive legislation, the "puppy mill bill" which was passed 4 years ago. He said his group is asking for one pro-active bill that will state "once and for all" where the position stands on the lawful right of animal ownership. Senator James in responding to Mr. Benz' comments, said: This is the difference. We pass a bill like the `puppy mill bill' and we say `this is the limit, you can't do these things with your animals because of whatever grounds we have here at the Legislature....We are telling you what the limits are of your exercise of dominion over your personal property and you want to do the opposite. You want to say `these are all the things that you can do.' I think that is already understood...to prospectively say here is all the things you can do and you can't touch this is a bad precedent....We are just saying the bounds around which you can do things in society, hopefully, we are doing it in a constitutional way. Mr. Benz asked if that is what is being done with the "renter's bill of rights" and all the other bill of rights that are presently coming before the Legislature. Senator McGinness expressed appreciation for Senator James' comments and he said he agrees that if a right is not spelled out that it is an implied right. But he stressed that is exactly what the proponents of this bill are trying to do. They want to codify those rights and spell them out. He reiterated this bill is saying "we have our limits, too, and these are the rights we feel we have." Senator McGinness indicated that some of the things being talked about are standard animal husbandry practices, something the West was built upon such things as rodeos, roping events, 4-H Clubs and Future Farmers of America. He remarked that people who have these animals see their rights being attacked at every opportunity. So, he said, Senator James is right because these rights will be codified and say, "this is the barrier and the limit. Nevada is still part of the West and we want to set that out." Senator Jacobsen indicated he favored S.B. 45 without amendments. He further commented that he did not want anymore restrictions, especially on agriculture people. That if cruelty to animals exists, then that problem should be attacked from another angle, not with a law. Senator McGinness said in working with the Research Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau in drafting of this measure, he indicated to them the one thing he wanted to stay away from was interference of any humane societies or other animal organization contracts. Nor did he want to interfere with any local adopted ordinances. He said S.B. 45 with the amendments would be the proper form. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 45. SENATOR REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JAMES, SENATOR ADLER AND SENATOR LEE VOTED NO.) ***** Senator Adler expressed he preferred to see this measure put into a resolution. Senator James said he would support such a resolution. Senator McGinness expressed his appreciation of the support of Senator Adler and Senator James on a resolution, but he said a resolution would only be in effect until the next Legislature opens and "if we are going to do something, we either do it or we don't." Mr. Benz thanked the committee for their help in a difficult decision. Chairman Rhoads opened the work session on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 11. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 11: Urges Congress to investigate utility of importing water to Nevada from sources outside Nevada. Senator James expressed that he will not be taking part in the debate or voting on this measure because of his representation of clients who have direct cannier interest in such Congressional action. SENATOR REGAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 11. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Jacobsen commented he wondered what kind of process would be necessary for one state to urge Congress to act on this matter. He remarked he is not sure the Nevada congressional delegation wants to be a party to this issue. Chairman Rhoads called for the vote. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JAMES ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.) ***** Chairman Rhoads asked for a committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) R-2100. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-2100: Urges Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Interior to make certain portion of Tolicha Mining District available for use by public. Chairman Rhoads explained there is a sliver of land on the Nellis Air Force Range that has mineral activity on it. Therefore, Russ Fields, Administrator, Division of Minerals, has requested a withdrawal of the land for public use through the Military Lands Withdrawal Act. SENATOR JAMES MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR R- 2100. SENATOR REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Chairman Rhoads asked for a committee introduction of Bill Draft Request 40-854. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-854: Revises provisions governing use of Uniform Plumbing Code. SENATOR ADLER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 40- 854. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Rhoads adjourned the meeting at 2:25 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Natural Resources June 5, 1995 Page