MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Sixty-eighth Session June 12, 1995 The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 2:50 p.m., on Monday, June 12, 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 David E. Humke, Assembly District No. 26 Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33 Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Assembly District No. 36 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Warren B. Hardy, Lobbyist, Hunters Alert Gerry Lent, Lobbyist, Nevada Hunters Association Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife Elsie Dupree, Lobbyist, Nevada Wildlife Federation Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Board of Commissioners Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife Merv Matorian, Commissioner, Board of Wildlife Commissioners Peter G. Morros, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Gordon H. DePaoli, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources Naomi Duerr, State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning Joe Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen's Association Chairman Rhoads asked for a motion to concur with Amendment No. 691 to Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 7. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 7: Expresses support of Nevada Legislature for ranching and farming in Nevada and urges Congress of United States to stop reform of existing regulations governing livestock grazing and management of public rangelands. The chairman explained he had requested the Assembly to amend this measure because the Livestock Grazing Act has been introduced in Congress, therefore Amendment No. 691 simply updates the present action in Washington, D.C. SENATOR REGAN MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 691 TO S.J.R. 7. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JAMES WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Chairman Rhoads asked for a committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 48-1777. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 48-1777: Enables private contracts for supply of water. SENATOR REGAN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 48- 1777. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 551. SENATE BILL 551: Repeals Senate Bill No. 97 of this session. Chairman Rhoads explained S.B. 551 is a trailer bill to Senate Bill 97. He indicated when a problem was discovered in S.B. 97, it had already been signed by the Governor. SENATE BILL 97: Defines "subsisting right" to water livestock. Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), explained he had gotten in touch with Robert O. Vaughan, an Elko Attorney specializing in livestock water rights, who expressed a concern with S.B. 97 as it was enacted. Mr. Welden imparted he was requested by the chairman to work with Mr. Vaughan and the state engineer (R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Rights) to work out a language problem. Mr. Welden said Mr. Vaughan has a problem with the words existing vested in S.B. 97 and Mr. Turnipseed has a problem if the word existing is not in the language. Mr. Welden said it was agreed to leave the existing law as it currently stands, which would require the adoption of S.B. 551. Chairman Rhoads asked for the pleasure of the committee. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 551. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 307. ASSEMBLY BILL 307: Makes various changes regarding state department of conservation and natural resources. Assemblyman David E. Humke, Assembly District No. 26, sponsor of the measure, explained A.B. 307 makes various changes to the manner in which the members of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners are appointed by the Governor. Chairman Rhoads inquired about the change from the original bill to the first reprint. Mr. Humke explained the original bill was a skeletal bill which was designed to be rewritten in the Assembly Concurrent Committees on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining, and Ways and Means in order to make marked changes in the fiscal management of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. Mr. Humke outlined some of the new qualifications for the commissioners. He pointed out the new language requires five members to possess a Nevada resident hunting and fishing license, and the number of commissioners which may come from any one county has been changed from three to two. Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33, told the committee that the main provision in A.B. 307 is that it requires the monies that come from the sale of (hunting) stamps and tags, permits and licenses, etc., be kept separate and be spent only for the management of wildlife. According to testimony in the Assembly Concurrent Committees on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining and Ways and Means by Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, that is the current policy of the division. Mr. Carpenter said having this policy in statute would help to satisfy the sportsmen. Mr. Carpenter further explained the manner in which appointments of commission members would be made. He pointed out that all 17 Nevada counties have wildlife advisory boards so there could conceivably be 17 or more nominations submitted to the Governor for appointments. Mr. Carpenter said the language in A.B. 307 provides for nine commission members. Further discussion ensued concerning the language in A.B. 307. Mr. Carpenter told the committee this measure is supported by most wildlife organizations throughout Nevada. He indicated there seems to be a situation of general unrest among the sportsmen, so it is thought that with the passage of A.B. 307, hopefully more cooperation will develop between the sportsmen and the Division of Wildlife. Senator McGinness asked for an explanation of lines 10 and 11, page 2, which states county advisory board shall submit nominations.... Mr. Humke explained that testimony heard in a meeting of the Assembly Concurrent Committees on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining, and Ways and Means, urged the county wildlife advisory boards to engage in the nominating process. He also stated that strong testimony urged that county wildlife advisory boards be brought formally under the open meeting law, and the nominating system be done in a businesslike manner. Mr. Humke indicated the Assembly committees agreed that such a proposal was worthwhile, and a motion was accepted by the co-chairmen which included the concept that those changes to the county wildlife advisory boards would take place in a trailer bill. Senator McGinness had further concerns about the language in A.B. 307. Mr. Carpenter answered his questions. Senator Jacobsen indicated he would like language that requires one annual meeting prior to the setting of hunting seasons, with wildlife commissioners and county wildlife advisory boards in attendance. He said he has heard complaints that the county boards indicate the commission ignores them. Mr. Humke told the committee he believes such an arrangement is being provided in the trailer bill. Mr. Carpenter interjected that the Assembly believes A.B. 307 would give more impetus to the local wildlife advisory boards, and encourage them to become more active. Senator Jacobsen said communication between the county wildlife advisory boards and the wildlife commissioners needs to be more positive. Mr. Carpenter indicated the trailer bill will include various provisions which should answer the concerns of Senator Jacobsen. Warren B. Hardy, Lobbyist, Hunters Alert, came forward to add the support of his group to A.B. 307. He said the purpose of this measure is to give the county wildlife advisory boards more control in the system and provide for more input into the system by the boards. Gerry Lent, Lobbyist, Nevada Hunters Association, voiced the endorsement of his group, as well as many other Nevada sportsmen groups, for A.B. 307. He stated, in reply to Senator Jacobsen's concern, that the Board of Wildlife Commissioners currently holds an annual meeting with the county boards for educational purposes. Senator Regan asked if any of the fees outlined in A.B. 307 involve boating. Mr. Lent replied, "No." Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, said the broad-based coalition supports A.B. 307 in its present form. He read a list (Exhibit C) of the groups who make up that coalition. Elsie Dupree, Lobbyist, Nevada Wildlife Federation, expressed the support of her group for A.B. 307 as written. She did indicate, however, they would like to see the language amended to provide that a person who has been charged with a wildlife conviction could not serve on a county wildlife advisory board. Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Board of Commissioners, went on record in support of the amended version of A.B. 307. She submitted a letter from the Elko County Board of Commissioners (Exhibit D) in support of the measure. Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, indicated at a meeting in May 1995, of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners, the commissioners carefully considered A.B. 307 and they unanimously voted to oppose it. He said his major concern involves the method of selection of wildlife commissioners. He remarked the current system is working well and his agency does not see a need for change. He expounded on his remarks. Mr. Molini pointed out that since 1979 there have been eight legislative sessions, and in seven of those sessions, there has been an effort to change the structure of the wildlife commission. He added this seems to be a "never ending process." Mr. Molini asked to "set the record straight" in reference to the comment by Senator Regan. He told the committee the Division of Wildlife does receive boat funds, but they are not a part of the wildlife account, they go into the boat account. Mr. Molini expressed his desire to make a clear statement that wildlife management is not defined in (Nevada) statute. He said when he refers to wildlife management, he is referring to law enforcement programs and administrative services, and public information programs are viewed as part of the wildlife program. Merv Matorian, Commissioner, Board of Wildlife Commissioners, testified in opposition to A.B. 307. He expressed this measure is destructive and he did not see how this bill could possibly benefit the wildlife or the sportsmen of Nevada. Further discussion ensued concerning the selection of county wildlife advisory boards, and the provision for meetings of the wildlife commission. Peter G. Morros, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, reiterated the testimony given by Mr. Molini and Mr. Matorian. He added there are two areas in A.B. 307 which are bothersome to his agency. His concern surrounds the selection process of the wildlife commission provided on page 2, lines 7 through 12. He urged the committee to reconsider that portion of A.B. 307 and suggested it be deleted. He remarked this process could dilute the Governor's ability to select qualified appointments based upon background and experience for the wildlife commission. Mr. Morros said the other concern he has with this bill is page 2, lines 32 through 35. He believes there could be a conflict related to the present authority under chapter 232 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) which deals with the Director's Office in the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Mr. Morros told the committee the language on page 3, lines 27 through 31, is generally the way the fees are currently being managed. Senator Lee inquired if the language in A.B. 307 indicates that Clark County will lose one commissioner, to which Mr. Morros stated that is correct. Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on A.B. 307. Chairman Rhoads opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 96. SENATE BILL 96: Enacts provisions governing acquisition of water rights on public lands for purposes of watering livestock. Chairman Rhoads asked the committee to refer to the document prepared by Mr. Welden, (Exhibit E) Attachment "A", for an amendment to S.B. 96. Mr. Morros said he does not believe the proposed amendment solves the problem. Mr. Morros suggested an amendment which he read: No party holding a stock water right on lands managed by a public agency may deny access to that water to wildlife or to any livestock authorized to graze in the area. Chairman Rhoads expressed the language suggested by Mr. Morros would still give a lot of room for the federal government entities to secure water under their name. Mr. Morros replied: As long as your stock can water at that source, and they can't be precluded under state law from watering at that source, what difference does it make? Chairman Rhoads invited Gordon DePaoli, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company, to come forward and give an explanation of his original idea, (Exhibit E) Attachment "A". Mr. DePaoli said: I want to make the record clear that I am not appearing on behalf of anyone with respect to this bill. During the workshop last Friday, you asked if I could help with the language and I am happy to do that, but I really don't represent anyone in connection with this bill. I recognize there is a real significant policy issue to deal with in terms of the question of under what circumstances, if any, federal agencies ought to be able to acquire water rights for livestock within the state. Mr. DePaoli continued, explaining it seems to him the question is whether or not a classification is created which might discriminate against the federal government in a way that violates, either the state constitution or the federal constitution. He explained the language he suggested is to simply deal with the issue in a way that may be somewhat neutral with respect to any particular person. The language he suggested does not include watering livestock on public lands, but simply relates to when an application is made for a permit to appropriate water for watering livestock. The certificate could only be issued to someone who actually owns livestock. Mr. DePaoli indicated he realizes this language may not necessarily be the right kind of a fix because it would preclude a private land owner, who might lease pasture for grazing, from owning a water right to water livestock on that private land. R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, expressed his agency would administer the law however the law reads. He outlined some problems with the language as proposed by Mr. DePaoli. He said there are over 100 water rights in the name of grazing associations, and to his knowledge those associations do not own any cattle. Mr. Turnipseed, said in addition, some of the livestock operators in Nevada have loans through financial institutions, and the question arises, are the water rights then in the ownership of the bank or the cattleman? Senator Adler inquired if the language could be kept general. He suggested, "When issuing a certificate of appropriation pursuant to chapter 533 [of NRS] for the right to use water for the purpose of watering livestock on public lands, the state engineer shall issue a certificate of appropriation to any person or entity, government or otherwise, that perfects the application." Mr. Turnipseed said that is basically the three-way system that came out of the interim study committee. He remarked that is the three-way system his agency has always operated under, and that is the system he thought was the essence of the bill draft which came out of the interim committee. Chairman Rhoads expressed to the committee something has to be done soon or the federal government will run over the state in this issue. He said an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been suggested, but during conversations with attorneys, the opinion of an MOU is very low so he believes that is not the answer. He said he feels legislative action with strong language is very important. Further remarks were made by Mr. Turnipseed about his concern with federal agencies. Chairman Rhoads told the committee that the suggested amendment in Exhibit E Attachment "A", is worth further review and other suggestions will be considered also. Chairman Rhoads closed the work session on S.B. 96 and opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 101. SENATE BILL 101: Requires development of statewide water plan. Chairman Rhoads referred the committee to an amendment to S.B. 101 (Exhibit E) Attachment "D". He requested Mr. Welden to walk the committee through the lengthy document. Naomi Duerr, State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning, commented on the proposed amendments and indicated she has concerns in some areas of the language. She outlined suggested changes. Ms. Duerr expressed her concern on the final issue of approval authority, "the most important issue." She believes the agency administrator (state water planner) needs to retain authority to implement the statutory duties. She expounded on that statement. Ms. Duerr, in summation, asked the committee to consider only changes which will facilitate the process (state water planning), not hamper it. Mr. Johnson, in coming forward, indicated he is acting as a lobbyist for the Sierra Club on S.B. 101. He said he has testified in support of this bill in a prior hearing, however, he is taking exception to the amendment on page 1, lines 11 through 14. He commented this language will put the two communities in an interbasin transfer, i.e., Las Vegas Valley Water Importation Projects at odds on an economic basis with the rural counties. He indicated the language rural community is appropriate and he urged the committee to retain that wording. Senator Adler remarked he thinks there is a conflict in this measure with the authority the state engineer has over importation projects which essentially provide some protection for rural communities. He said he thought there were two contradictory messages with this measure and the existing law. Further remarks were provided by Senator Adler and Mr. Johnson. Joe Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, commented on the concerns aforementioned in reference to replacing the word "rural" with "an affected" in the bill where rural community is in the language. Mr. Guild expressed the whole thrust of section 3 of the bill, is to address the concerns of rural areas of the state. He said that language makes S.B. 101 a very clear rural protection bill. Mr. Guild added further comments on previous testimony. Chairman Rhoads advised a fiscal note on S.B. 101 will be obtained and then this bill will be scheduled in a future work session. He closed the hearing on S.B. 101 and opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 102. SENATE BILL 102: Revises provisions governing plans of water conservation adopted by suppliers of water. Ms. Duerr came forward to tell the committee she has no issues or problems with the way S.B. 102 is drafted. She advised the committee this measure will require an extra work load in her office, therefore, extra staff will be needed. She indicated that a fiscal note will be necessary. Chairman Rhoads commented with a fiscal note, the measure would have to be referred to the Senate Committee on Finance, and the budget relative to this measure has been closed. Ms. Duerr said she has prepared a fiscal note if the committee wishes to review it. Chairman Rhoads closed the work session on S.B. 102 and opened the work session 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. Chairman Rhoads asked for a motion on A.B. 155. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 155. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RHOADS AND REGAN VOTED NO. SENATOR JAMES WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Chairman Rhoads opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 435. ASSEMBLY BILL 435: Revises provisions governing forfeiture of certain water rights. Chairman Rhoads conveyed apologies from Senator James for the necessity of his absence during the work session on A.B. 435. Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Assembly District No. 36, indicated he has reviewed the amendments to A.B. 435 (Exhibit E) Attachment "F", and he believes they correct the concerns expressed during previous testimony on this measure. SENATOR REGAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 435. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JAMES WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** There being no further business to come before this committee, 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 June 12, 1995 Page