MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Sixty-eighth Session June 16, 1995 The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 3:10 p.m., on Friday, June 16, 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 Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator John B. (Jack) Regan Senator O. C. Lee COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Mark A. James (Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Bunker, Vice Chairman, Colorado River Commission Patricia Mulroy, General Manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Department of Transportation John P. Crawford, Chief Right-of-Way Agent, Nevada Department of Transportation Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife Sam McMullen, Lobbyist, Washoe Regional Water Planning Coalition Gordon DePaoli, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company Joseph L. Johnson, Self Chairman Rhoads directed the committee to Senate Bill (S.B.) 230 which has been in conference committee. SENATE BILL 230: Establishes wildlife heritage trust account in state general fund. Chairman Rhoads commented his concern is the language added by the Assembly on page 1, line 6, or the enhancement of habitats for. He said the Assembly has agreed to delete that language if the Senate will change the "12 percent" back to the original wording of "18 percent" on page 2, line 43. Chairman Roads asked for committee concurrence with that exchange. SENATOR REGAN MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SUGGESTED LANGUAGE CHANGE IN S.B. 230. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER, JAMES AND JACOBSEN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 542. ASSEMBLY BILL 542: Makes various changes relating to Colorado River Commission. Richard Bunker, Vice Chairman, Colorado River Commission, came forward to speak in support of A.B. 542. He recited the list of people who accompanied him to this meeting. They are: Patricia Mulroy, General Manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority; David Donnelly, Chief Engineer, Southern Nevada Water Authority; Douglas Beatty, Administrative Chief, Colorado River Commission; Jerry Lopez, Deputy Attorney General, Colorado River Commission; and Richard Jost, Deputy Attorney General, Bond Counsel. Mr. Bunker referred to a prepared statement (Exhibit C) and requested that it be placed in the record. Ms. Mulroy said it was not necessary at this time to reiterate the reasons for A.B. 542 as it includes the issues presented to the committee during a tour, March 31, to Southern Nevada. She added that predominantly A.B. 542 transfers from the Colorado River Commission (CRC) to the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), the Southern Nevada Water System (SNWS). The SNWS treatment plant, and the facilities connecting to it, deliver 85 percent of the water into Southern Nevada. Ms. Mulroy said all the costs associated with the Southern Nevada Water System are being paid through water rates and charges in Southern Nevada. She stressed there is no state money in the facility. Ms. Mulroy said other sections of A.B. 542 relate to the Colorado River Commission and its water-related duties enabling the Colorado River Commission to fulfill the mission that the legislature has given it on the Colorado River. It also creates the partnership with the Southern Nevada Water Authority for funding the Colorado River Commission. Committee members inquired about language in A.B. 542 concerning employees, etc. R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, said he had been concerned with A.B. 542 when it was heard by the Assembly, but amended language has corrected those concerns. He indicated he does support A.B. 542. He stressed the need for Southern Nevada to augment its water supplies because it will be disastrous to Nevada, if new water supplies are not found to sustain the growth in Southern Nevada. Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on A.B. 542 and opened the work session 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 Jacobsen indicated there is an amendment to this measure. He questioned if the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) is comfortable with it. He explained to the committee the reason for S.B. 237 arose after gates have been maliciously opened in rural areas, allowing livestock to roam on a public highway, and ultimately being struck by a vehicle causing injury to the occupants of the vehicle. The outcome has resulted in the livestock owner being held liable for the accident. He remarked the livestock owners need some kind of protection from such liability. Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, NDOT, explained the suggested amendments (Exhibit D) as prepared for the work session by Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB). Mr. Hutchins indicated NDOT is concerned because highway facilities with access control require locked gates. He pointed out S.B. 237 essentially states if there is a requirement in place by federal law, regulation, or directive, then there is no requirement to place a padlock or other similar device on a gate within a fenced right-of-way. He said NDOT thinks the language in S.B. 237 "is probably acceptable." Mr. Hutchins pointed out the language in S.B. 237 is different from the proposal by NDOT, but "the intent is similar." He cautioned the committee he had not had time to think through all of the ramifications of S.B. 237. Senator Jacobsen said property owners have no objection to putting locks on gates. Also, some property does have cattle guards for easy access. John P. Crawford, Chief Right-of-Way Agent, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), commented he did not think there was a problem with what Senator Jacobsen hopes to accomplish with S.B. 237. He said the language now proposed is acceptable to NDOT, although there is not an explicit federal regulation regarding gates, locked or otherwise, on controlled access facilities. He said NDOT owns the abutters rights and the access rights to all controlled access facilities, so that no one puts a gate in a fence or a lock on a gate, unless they have explicit authorization from NDOT. Mr. Hutchins pointed out that S.B. 237 states there will be no requirement to place a padlock or other similar device on a gate within a fenced right-of-way. He recited there is a criminal statute, chapter 207.220 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that provides for criminal liability for not closing a gate. Senator Regan discussed the intent of the statute on leaving a gate open. Chairman Rhoads suggested S.B. 237 be processed and, after Mr. Hutchins has studied the language, it could be amended, if necessary, on the Assembly side. Senator Jacobsen outlined more features of S.B. 237. Chairman Rhoads asked for a motion on the measure. SENATOR REGAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 237. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND JAMES WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Chairman Rhoads opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 307. ASSEMBLY BILL 307: Makes various changes regarding state department of conservation and natural resources. Chairman Rhoads referred to page 3 of Exhibit D and indicated no further amendments or adjustments are necessary to this measure. Senator McGinness questioned the language in A.B. 307 requiring certain qualifications for an appointee on the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. Extensive discussion followed. At the request of the Chairman, Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, came forward to inform the committee that his agency has records for past years of holders of hunting and fishing licenses. Senator McGinness said because he has some problems with section 3 of A.B. 307, which outlines the qualifications of an appointee to the Board of Wildlife Commissioners, he would like to study it again. Chairman Rhoads closed the work session on A.B. 307 and opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 489. SENATE BILL 489: Provides for comprehensive planning and management of water in certain counties. Sam McMullen, Lobbyist, Washoe Regional Water Planning Coalition, pointed out this measure only affects Washoe County. He indicated there are a lot of people who have worked on A.B. 489 and, for the record, he wished to name them and publicly thank them for their participation. The entities represented included: Sierra Pacific Power Company, City of Sparks, City of Reno, Washoe County, Washoe County Commissioners, Reno City Council, Public Service Commission, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, and Division of Water Resources. Mr. McMullen referred to the proposed amendments to S.B. 489 (Exhibit E) and commenced highlighting the additional changes which are underlined. Mr. McMullen pointed out there was no additional property tax included in S.B. 489, however he wanted to clarify, for the record, "That there has been an existing one-half percent which is continued by a transitional section in the back of the bill for 3 years to amortize the cost of some water research and policy study and information...." The major change in section 7 is the 3 percent on the water bill, and for the record, Mr. McMullen stated, "That is approximately $1 million per year, which equates to the level of planning, administration and operational funds necessary to support the planning process." Mr. McMullen continued the review of the additional changes in S.B. 489, stopping on occasion to address concerns of committee members. Senator McGinness inquired about agriculture being represented on the water planning commission as outlined in section 10. Gordon DePaoli, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company, in reply, said: Because of voting requirements within irrigation districts and the requirement for a minimum parcel size to vote, the Board of Directors that governs the irrigation district in the Truckee Meadows is still composed of people who are really in agriculture. And so, since they are the appointing authority, it is very likely that they would appoint someone from agriculture.... Mr. McMullen offered to change the language on page 4, lines 13 and 14 (Exhibit E) to include "agricultural interests." Continuing the overview of language changes as underlined in S.B. 489 (Exhibit E), Mr. McMullen emphasized the deletion of section 28. He explained that section allowed discretionary replenishment districts with districts that would be aimed at protecting water quantity, and remediation districts which generally are for protecting water quality. He said there will be no replenishment or remediation districts, except as in section 29. Mr. McMullen talked about sections 29, 30, 31 and 32. He explained the concept of the language: What we envisioned here is that to the extent there is such a severe issue with respect to the quality of water that it jeopardizes the supply of water to a smaller area or the water supply to a larger area that NDEP [Nevada Division of Environmental Protection] or the district health officer would, when they identify that, send a letter to the county saying, `this needs to be fixed.'....When that happens, there is a whole participative process that starts out...there are public hearings, a budget and a remediation plan, most importantly developed, again with the approval of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. And once that is developed there are public hearings about the cost of that and the basis upon which it will be assessed... the key language for assessment...after line 16, subsection (c), section 29, [page 10]. Basically it says you will balance equitably and proportionately water use by the property and the increase in market value because of the problem.... Mr. McMullen outlined the language, stating, "That to the extent that you are involved in the district and have paid all your assessments, you are not subject to any further state enforcement action and you are not subject to any state civil action. The only exception to that is the continuing exception for someone who caused it or contributed to it...you do not get out of your liability for that." Mr. McMullen explaining section 34, for the record, said: We had envisioned basically at the time that the legislation was final, that a lot of additional questions would be answered... we didn't give ourselves enough time to answer them. But I would say that what section 34 embodies... is the sign of just how much cooperation there is... in Washoe County... and making sure it is done. And the cities were fully informed... but because we didn't get far enough, we need some interim rules and functionally that is what section 34 is. Interim rules as to wholesale service, interim rules as to service territory and fundamentally...says that until service territory is defined, that issues that might be considered to be confidential or proprietary, would disadvantage the utility in dealing with the county that actually also operates utilities, do not need to be transferred over, but it also envisions that they will work ... as expeditiously as they can to come to some sort of agreement....So it [section 34] says, in addition, that wholesale service, other than that which the county may already have envisioned, or facilities in place, or under construction, or have approved subdivision maps that they are going to serve... the rest of the wholesale service will be provided by Sierra. And again, with another exception...except as they might agree that the county can do it more cost effectively.... Mr. McMullen asked that the record show that the PSC (Public Service Commission) position is clearly spoken to. He said: We clearly struck the provisions that would say that any acquisition price, if ever, was automatically translated to rate, or that service territory, because of some potential acquisition, was ever transferred quickly over without the PSC review. We have gone just the opposite in the upper language, and it basically says, 'that even if they define service area between themselves or no matter what...may happen inside Washoe County, the PSC basically still has its rules and regulations.' We need to comply with them and we will. Mr. McMullen asked that a memorandum directed to Senator Adler by Mr. Turnipseed suggesting a language change to section 35, be attached to Exhibit E and made a part hereof. Mr. McMullen explained the old section 40 was deleted, and he asked that the reason for the deletion be on the record. He said: We had clearly contemplated that the regional plan is, in fact, the underpinning...its policies are the underpinning for our water planning effort. Because of a bill drafting convention that you can't have the ...responsibility of the same words in two different sections...they were going to be stripped out of this. We are really asking for the indulgence of clarifying that because the regional planning body has responsibilities in that area, we like them left there, as well as the responsibilities that are in this new act. And by deleting section 40, we leave the regional planning act in Washoe as it was before. Mr. McMullen concluded his presentation by emphasizing the proposed legislation is 2-years worth of solid work. He thanked all those who worked on it, and added this plan has the full support of all entities involved. He told the committee that any reasonable change can be made that is within the spirit of S.B. 489. Senator Jacobsen, chairman of the subcommittee on S.B. 489, made a few comments and recommended that the committee accept the subcommittee's report and work from Exhibit E dated June 16. Chairman Rhoads thanked the subcommittee members, Senator Jacobsen and Senator Adler, for bringing this legislation together. Joseph L. Johnson, Self, indicated he has served on the City of Reno Planning Commission for several years. He commented he wanted to compliment the people who have worked on the proposed plan over the years. Mr. Johnson said his comments at this meeting reflect the one group of people who have not been seen in the audience, and that is the general public. He said there are mechanisms in S.B. 489 for creating tax assessment districts and many other things. He remarked he did not wish to delay a vote on the measure, but he reiterated the general public has not had a chance to see the language or experience an input. Mr. Johnson expressed he specifically has a concern which deals with the section on setting up the assessment districts for cleanup. He said it appears such districts (older metropolitan areas) will be tagged with ad valorem tax. He stated he did not wish to see statutory language that would exempt those areas that are most contaminated and the tax burden shifted onto the residences of those areas that are not contaminated. He said he assumes the way tax policy is developed, there probably is no exemption in S.B. 489 for the tax increment districts. He added he wished to see some provision made in that consideration. He encouraged the committee to continue with processing S.B. 489, and he encouraged the participants to schedule a public hearing on the document before a final vote on the Assembly side. Chairman Rhoads said he would accept a motion to amend S.B. 489 with a request it come back to this committee after the amended language is in place. Senator Adler talked on the question of the remediation districts. He said it needs to be stated that if the party can be identified who contaminated an area, they initially would be the first people who would be assessed, so the present language would apply only in instances where there is no identification of those individuals. Mr. Johnson provided further remarks on contamination. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 489 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT EXHIBIT E IS THE GUIDE FOR THE AMENDMENTS. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JAMES WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator Jacobsen commented the subject of the remediation districts was covered very well during the subcommittee hearings on S.B. 489, and he indicated there was input from the public during those hearings. There being no further business to come before the committee, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Natural Resources June 16, 1995 Page