MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Seventy-Second Session
February 17, 2003
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:27 p.m., on Monday, February 17, 2003. Chairman Tom Collins presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Tom Collins, Chairman
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Marcus Conklin
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. Bob McCleary
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Erin Channell, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Lorna Weaver, Executive Director, Nevada Wildlife Federation
Louis Thompson, Chairman, Walker Lake Working Group
Chris Miller, Nevada Wildlife Federation
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation
Dennis Hellwinkel, President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation
Joe Johnson, Government Affairs Consultant, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club
Russell Fields, President, Nevada Mining Association
Joe Guild III, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association
Grace Potorti, Executive Director, Nevada Conservation League
Kaitlin Backlund, Program Associate and Lobbyist, Nevada Conservation League
Christie Whiteside, Program Associate, Great Basin Mine Watch
Julie Keller, Director, Wild Horse Preservation League
Chairman Collins called the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining to order. Roll was called. All members were present.
Chairman Collins reminded the audience to turn off devices that emitted noise. He said they primarily had presentations for the meeting. First he asked that everyone sign in and indicate if they wanted to testify so that if they did testify, it would be recorded and become a part of legislative intent. For those who did not want to testify, it would serve as a record.
Chairman Collins said that they had been providing information about events throughout the state related to issues that might come before the Committee. He provided an example from the previous weekend of a barbeque in Fallon; he said that some of the upcoming events were fun, like the Winnemucca Ranch Rodeo, and he wanted to encourage the Committee members, as well as audience members, to attend.
Chairman Collins said that they had presentations for the day and that he wanted to begin with the Nevada Wildlife Federation. He reminded witnesses to speak their names, provide business cards to the secretary, and to have signed in; he also said to address questions and comments through the Chair and restate their names.
Lorna Weaver, Executive Director, Nevada Wildlife Federation, said that she was working on a grant from the Walker Lake Working Group to coordinate efforts of the coalition to save Walker Lake. She introduced the other two presenters who would speak later: Chris Miller and Lou Thompson.
Ms. Weaver needed to make a disclosure that she and Mr. Thompson were a part of the mediation team working to resolve water rights conflicts in the basin, and so they were only going to discuss information already a part of public record. Questions about the mediation would need to be addressed through other avenues.
She began with an overview of the Coalition to Save Walker Lake and began with its initial formation during the summer of 2002 after Senator Harry Reid held a Walker Lake Symposium. The Symposium brought a variety of national, state, and local conservation organizations together to address Walker Lake issues and find solutions. Ms. Weaver said that they were comprised of local and state conservation organizations, business and local government, as well as national organizations and bi-state support from California organizations (Exhibit C).
She asked if everyone knew where Walker Lake was, and Chairman Collins commented that some of the Committee members flew over it on trips from Las Vegas.
Ms. Weaver provided information about its location on U.S. Highway 95 and that snow pack from the Sierra fed the Walker River and Walker Lake. She stated that Walker Lake was a terminus lake, where it had no outlet and water was only lost through evaporation (Exhibit D). She said that Walker Lake was unique in its freshwater ecosystem, supporting species like the Lahontan cutthroat trout that were listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Exhibit C), and that it was one of only a few supporting that particular type of ecosystem.
Because of the abundance of freshwater fish, migratory birds from the Pacific Fly-way were drawn to the Lake while traveling to Canadian nesting areas, and she listed a variety of bird species that used the ecosystem; she particularly discussed the common loon (Exhibit C). She then mentioned the Loon Festival where they celebrated the common loon through public education, with activities like boat rides. She said that events like that and the fish derbies drew tourists to Mineral County that provided approximately 40 percent of the county’s economy.
Ms. Weaver said that Walker Lake also served as a cultural symbol to the Walker River Paiute Tribe, who called themselves agai dicutta, where cultural practices and beliefs centered on the Lake and their cultural reliance on the Lahontan cutthroat trout. She discussed the 30-pound strain of Lahontan cutthroat trout that had died out, and replaced with a stock strain of the species.
Ms. Weaver said that the values of Walker Lake might be lost due to lack of water, because it was being diverted for agricultural purposes. She said that irrigation of streams had doubled in the past 7˝ years, with more land coming under cultivation. With a decrease in water, an increase in salts occurred that was damaging to native fish. A recent study by Nevada Division of Wildlife reported that salinity levels were so high that the cornerstone species tui chub had not been able to reproduce. The tui chub was a main food source for the Lahontan cutthroat trout and migratory birds; without the tui chub species, it was feared the migratory birds would have an insufficient food supply to sustain their journey.
She said what was currently needed was emergency water to sustain the lake and decrease the salinity; they wanted the Legislature to support the strongest actions by the state to save Walker Lake. For the long-term, a defined conservation plan was needed for the Lake’s long-term sustainability and continuing public education on the values of Walker Lake was important.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if they supported cloud seeding.
Ms. Weaver replied that they supported that effort by the Walker River Irrigation District and the Desert Research Institute; she said that the result was an insignificant volume of water and that they did not expect the water to reach the Lake but said it would support the entire system.
Assemblyman Marvel then commented that they should pray for snow as well.
Ms. Weaver then said that there would be a short presentation on the Nevada Wildlife Federation, an integral part of the campaign.
Chairman Collins said there was a question first and acknowledged Assemblyman Carpenter who wanted further explanation of comprehensive conservation measures, like line canals and water meters, and what she would recommend to increase water in the system and how it related to farmers.
Chairman Collins asked Ms. Weaver if that was a later part of their presentation or something she could answer then.
Louis Thompson, Chairman, Walker Lake Working Group, responded that Ms. Weaver had explained previously that they were in negotiations to address those types of issues and that he was not sure how much of that question he should address at present.
Assemblyman Carpenter then commented that he had spoken with those familiar with the area there, and he had heard that one problem was getting water through the reservation and he was curious as to how that situation stood.
Mr. Thompson replied that the issue for the reservation was the tamarisk plant invasion that was a heavy water user; the Walker River Paiute Tribe had established a program to examine removal of the tamarisk from the area in hopes of releasing water for Walker Lake.
Assemblyman Carpenter then wanted to know if the Tribe had first right to the water flowing to the Lake.
Mr. Thompson answered that the Tribe had the oldest water rights on the River but that it was a small percentage of the water produced in the watershed. The agricultural diversion right was only 9400 to 9600 acre-feet per year where the production average was 310,000 to 320,000 acre-feet.
Chairman Collins thanked them for their responses and indicated that they could continue.
Chris Miller, Nevada Wildlife Federation, thanked them and said she would provide a brief overview of the Nevada Wildlife Federation and its interests in the state. She identified their mission as sustaining Nevada’s natural resources for wildlife, conservation, and education. She said that all except Ms. Weaver, Mr. Thompson, and she were volunteers, and that had been the case since they were incorporated in 1950. She said they were the oldest conservation group in Nevada and they had 3 districts: eastern district members out of Elko, Las Vegas district members, and northern district members out of Reno.
She said they had a partnership with the National Wildlife Federation which was associated with state affiliates and who served the states. They were able to utilize their staff for assistance regarding issues of importance to the state of Nevada; there was a director who attended their board meetings.
They had completed a strategic planning meeting in 2000 to determine campaigns and programs, establishing three: “Save Our Sagebrush Family,” “Water for Wildlife of Good Quality and Quantity,” and Education in the state of Nevada. She said the Save Our Sagebrush Family was one of their largest campaigns, working with a number of other groups (Exhibit C). They wanted to protect biodiversity and prohibit the listing of species as endangered, without harming other Nevada interests.
In the Education Program they had been involved with range camps with members serving as facilitators and donations of funds each year; they saw it as important for youth to know about the habitat of Nevada and its varieties. The program was held in Austin to allow urban children to see what ranching and mining communities were like and to learn about other aspects of the state. Ms. Miller stated that the Nevada Wildlife Federation Poster Contest was a 40-year program that students and teachers enjoyed and the winners had their art published in the newsletter.
She then discussed the program “Water for Wildlife of Good Quality and Quantity” where only 5 percent of Nevada’s water was riparian. Projects they were involved in were Walker Lake, desert fish protection, and sustainable communities.
Ms. Miller said the Backyard Habitat Education Program was from the national organization and they had three schools in Las Vegas and one school in Carson City certified, and they were attempting to get more involved through volunteers and their work efforts. She said that they had other programs, like the Elk Campaign, to support the privilege of sportsmen to hunt elk on public lands, and they were trying to establish an educational program for that purpose.
She reminded the Committee of their reliance on volunteers and there were numerous affiliates because of the variety of interests they were involved with. They attended meetings with affiliates, who in turn attended their meetings. She said their annual meeting would be in Las Vegas on May 17 where they would present the conservation awards. State assemblymen had received them in the past, and the Committee was welcome to attend.
She concluded with a brief discussion of their Board, saying that meetings were enjoyable, they were welcome to attend, and that they tried to “camp out” and discuss business.
Chairman Collins thanked them and asked if there were questions from the Committee. He then asked how they had incorporated moneys from the farm bills, or if it was too premature to ask.
Mr. Thompson responded that recently a portion had been made available to the Bureau of Reclamation in Nevada, and the previous Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate had passed the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. They hoped that would allow usage of the money, but currently there had been no usage of funds available.
Chairman Collins thanked them for their presentation and invited the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation to come forward.
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, said that he represented the Farm Bureau’s lobbyists in the legislative process. He said that the Nevada Farm Bureau was a general farm organization and did not represent specific commodity groups. He discussed their Nevada Farm Bureau 2003 Policies (Exhibit E) that listed positions voted on by the delegates to the Annual Farm Bureau Policy Development. He said that when he spoke as a lobbyist to the Committee on any issue, the foundation was already established by the policies that the Farm Bureau members created; he said if he was not speaking on an issue it was because the policy did not provide for that issue direction.
He said that the Nevada Farm Bureau had 13 county farm bureau organization affiliations, with Farm Bureau member families associated with a county farm bureau organization. He said the Nevada Farm Bureau was then a member of the American Farm Bureau which consisted of 51 state farm bureau federations and held activities from lobbying in Washington D.C. to international activities.
He provided personal information about serving for eight sessions with the Nevada Legislature and that they were interested in working for and with the Committee. He then introduced the Nevada Farm Bureau President, Dennis Hellwinkel, a dairy farmer from Fallon.
Dennis Hellwinkel, President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, said he appreciated the opportunity to present to the Committee. He said that in addition to the activities Mr. Busselman spoke of, members were also involved in the promotion of agriculture and in educating the public about agriculture. They attempted to accomplish this through participation in Agriculture in the Classroom events statewide showing students and teachers where food and fiber originated; the two largest events were the Las Vegas Farm Festival and the Reno Farm City Festival.
He said that members helped to fund and distribute educational materials for classroom use through teacher workshops throughout the state. As Nevada population grew and became more urbanized with less attachment to agriculture and how food reached the table, he thought that it would be more likely to see regulations restricting abilities to produce food products that were safe and healthy. He asked that Committee members remember that farm and ranch families statewide care for the lands to feed the United States and the world. He then thanked them and indicated his willingness for comments and questions.
Chairman Collins asked if there were Committee questions.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if they had a policy on Walker Lake.
Mr. Busselman responded that on page 42 of the Nevada Farm Bureau 2003 Policies (Exhibit E), there was a paragraph that referenced Walker Lake; it covered appropriations and their support of the prior appropriations process with regards to water designated for ownership as part of the process.
Chairman Collins asked if there were any other questions. He then commented that he knew they were educating the rural population, but he was interested in details about farm community stability and growth and how equity was factored in.
Mr. Hellwinkel answered that the agriculture community had suffered in recent years for several reasons. First, the price of commodities through all sectors of the agriculture community had suffered economic losses because of low prices. Those members of the agriculture community could not charge the consumers what was required to make a profit. The second reason was the drought condition across the western United States. He said that with 87 percent of the land under public management, the dependence of the cattle industry on utilizing public lands, drought conditions, and fire hazards, the ability of the cattle industry to profitably operate had been limited.
Chairman Collins asked if there were any further questions, then thanked them for presenting; he recommended knocking on their doors if they needed to educate any of the Committee members. He then announced Joe Johnson for the next presentation by the Sierra Club.
Joe Johnson, Government Affairs Consultant, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, said that he was a lobbyist for the Sierra Club, which was a national organization with over 40 chapters nationwide. He said that he was a contract lobbyist with the Toiyabe Chapter, including the entire state of Nevada, with two groups in Nevada, the southern Nevada Mojave Group of approximately 2,000 members and the northern Nevada Great Basin Group with just over 2,000 members.
He said there were also two other associated groups mostly made up of Californians: the Tahoe Lake Area Group was a joint group of the Toiyabe Chapter and the Foothill Chapter of the California Chapter of the Sierra Club, where members had membership in one of the state chapters; the Range of Light Group was in the Bishop-Mammoth Mountain Area. He said that their legislative interests were handled by the California Chapter legislative lobby organization of the Sierra Club.
Mr. Johnson said there were nationally determined policies that they abided by because locally and nationally it was a grassroots organization; he said that it was very democratic and that they studied policy with numerous groups working on policy. He said that the policy he directed to the legislative level in Nevada was supervised by a legislative committee, that they were flexible in their issue orientation and positions, and that they could negotiate. The liked to see legislation and issues resolved; he also said outcomes varied, and that most issues that came before the Committee was something the Sierra Club had an interest in.
He then provided personal information including that he had graduated from the University of Nevada and was a professional geologist registered in California and met Nevada state criteria. He spent much of his professional career working in the exposed mineral industry as a private consultant, working for a large corporation, and working for the Bureau of Mines.
Mr. Johnson said that there were a number of issues that they would take a position on as part of their higher priorities. First were public lands issues where many of their members participated in related activities and outings. Next was an agency bill that dealt with recycling funding, with prior assistance in its formulation by Assemblyman Carpenter and Assemblyman Geddes, which asked for a tipping fee at disposal sites to fund the Recycling and Solid Waste Management Program. A tire fee was established instead, and they were proposing a retraction of the tire fee so it would be revenue neutral.
He said that there would be several public lands bills, they might not see some of the water right bills but would see some water quality bills; he said there were several resolutions on wilderness from the Senate that might progress to the Committee. An air quality issue that dealt with diesel emissions had already been assigned to the Committee for which the Sierra Club had been working on negotiations.
He stated that there were two other issues; first was wildlife funding for wildlife agencies and for the Lake Tahoe reclamation projects and that they would like to see General Funds appropriated for wildlife to support habitat and resolve some of the tensions with sporting groups. He continued with comments on Tahoe funding and that a bonding bill and other money issues would go before the money committees. The second issue Mr. Johnson discussed was corporate surety for the mineral industry, and that it was an issue of concern for them. He then said he was willing to answer questions.
Assemblyman Marvel asked what their position was on wilderness study areas and if they had a national policy on them.
Mr. Johnson answered that the local position was that they were supportive of the process of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, that the process worked, and that they would like to see additional land wilderness bills progress and settle the issue of study areas. They wanted to declare the areas from the negotiations process as being recognized as wilderness and the remaining areas placed into multiple use.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if the local chapters had recognized those areas yet.
Mr. Johnson said that the local chapters had been active in inventorying the areas and taking positions on them. He said that each of the wilderness study areas had a negotiation position on it but he was not aware of the specifics on individual ones. He said that they were open for negotiations and wanted to see federal legislation to address the issues.
Chairman Collins asked if there were any other questions.
Assemblyman Carpenter inquired what the Sierra Club position was on livestock grazing in Nevada.
Mr. Johnson replied that the national organization had an initiative petition with mail ballots in the previous general election. There had been a group that presented a petition to have the policy of the Sierra Club be in opposition to grazing on public lands; it was defeated 2:1 nationally and the Toiyabe Chapter supported responsible grazing on public lands.
Assemblyman Marvel asked what their position was going to be on mine bonding.
Mr. Johnson responded that the present corporate surety did not protect the taxpayers for the future. He said they felt strongly about that; they supported mining as an economic and viable interest to the state but he said there were a number of other methods to protect the taxpayers.
Assemblyman Marvel wanted to know if they had identified other surety bondings.
Mr. Johnson said that they were identified in statute by insurance, and that there was a series of them.
Assemblyman Marvel wanted to know what they were recommending.
Mr. Johnson responded that they were not recommending anything, but they would like to remove corporate surety as a means to guarantee future reclamation.
Assemblyman Marvel asked why.
Chairman Collins interjected that they would hear about it in a bill but indicated that Mr. Johnson could respond.
Mr. Johnson replied that there would be a bill that dealt with it in the future; he said that the simple response included issues about accounting inadequacies and the inability to see what assets were from multinational corporations with off‑shore subsidiaries. He said that they used hedging and other uncertain and unpredictable means of accounting, tracking, and liability acknowledgements; he stated that using corporate assets as a guarantee for what the statute said, in the event of a corporate failure there would be assets to support reclamation. The interests of additional small mining corporations that had gone bankrupt within a larger number of facilities had put the taxpayers in the state at risk.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if they had specific examples.
Mr. Johnson used the example of the Aurora Project that was on U.S. Forest Service Land; it was not adequately bonded, the company went bankrupt and simply walked away.
Assemblyman Marvel inquired if they had a total list of Nevada mines.
Mr. Johnson responded that he did not have one with him but would have it when the bill was presented.
Chairman Collins said that they got to warm up for future legislation that had not yet been introduced but would be coming. He wanted to know if there were other questions and seeing none thanked Mr. Johnson. He said they had one more presenter before taking a recess and invited Russell Fields to give his presentation.
Russell Fields, President, Nevada Mining Association, began by stating that the Nevada Mining Association represented mining in Nevada (Exhibit F); he said he was a registered lobbyist. The Association’s membership included large mining operations, small mine operations, and individuals interested in Nevada mining; he said membership also included goods and services suppliers to the mining industry.
Mr. Fields provided information about the mission of the Nevada Mining Association and the three areas of focus: Government Affairs, Regulatory Affairs, and Public Outreach. He then briefly discussed their organization into committees, such as Environmental, Human Resources, Taxation, and Government Affairs; representatives from the mining operations with specific expertise staffed the committees (Exhibit F).
The roots of the Association were found in an organization from 1913 called the Nevada Mine Operators Association that dealt with mine safety issues and the purchase of materials at bulk rate. In 1953 the current form of the Association was established. He said they were a long-lived organization with a historical basis in the growth of the mining industry. They operated out of Reno with a staff of four, and he reported to a board of directors that met every other month.
Mr. Fields provided an overview of mining in Nevada and began with the mineral resources, from gypsum to gold and silver. He said that mining was Nevada’s first industry produced from the Comstock Lode from the 1860s to about 1900. He stated that for revenues, jobs, and economics, the most important commodity was gold production, representing 80 to 90 percent of the value of mineral production annually in Nevada. He informed the Committee that there were 19 major gold mines in Nevada and 9 different companies that owned and operated the mines, who were all members of the Association. The mines were primarily located in rural northern Nevada with significant local impacts on economies.
He discussed the amount of gold production with relation to United States and world production levels, as well as the number of people who worked within the mines and other support jobs providing goods and services to the industry. He reminded the Committee that the majority of jobs were located in rural areas near the mine sites.
He commented on the types of BDRs and bills they tracked that were of interest, since they affected the mining industry. He said that through his 20-year involvement with the Legislature, the majority of bills of interest to the mining community came before the Committee, and the Senate counterpart. He related that they would welcome the opportunity to help the Committee in any way to help with their deliberations. He said that included mine tours if it would be useful. Prior to the 120-day session they usually had that opportunity but they were usually pressed for time by now; however, they could arrange a quick trip to see mining operations. He then said he would answer any Committee questions.
Chairman Collins remarked that the number of employees that Mr. Fields had talked about was a lower number from just a couple of years previously and Mr. Fields said that was correct. Chairman Collins continued with the announcement that they were trying to plan a trip to eastern Nevada to set up a trip.
Assemblyman Marvel wanted to know what the average wage was for miners because he thought it was significant.
Mr. Fields responded that the last economic survey indicated that the average annual wage for 2001 was $62,000.
Assemblyman Marvel then inquired if that included benefits.
Mr. Fields said that it did include full benefits.
Assemblyman Marvel said that every time a job was lost, it had a significant impact on the economy of the state. He then asked Mr. Fields if he wanted to address surety.
Mr. Fields stated that it was a significant issue for the mining industry and that there would be ample opportunity to address it. He said that in 1989, when that body adopted requirements for mining lands, it included a financial assurance requirement that said mine operators had to post surety of some statutory form. He said the mining industry supported that and that the purpose of surety was to protect the public from cleaning up mine sites that had been forfeited. He said because of the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center the financial world had been turned upside down.
He briefly discussed the issue of medical malpractice and that the same issues regarding insurance affected the mining industry to secure commercial financial assurance, including commercial surety and insurance. He said he was concerned about removing tools like corporate guarantees because very little was available other than cash. He said that the industry and the Division of Environmental Protection, who administered the program, recognized several years previously that there were regulations needed to strengthen the corporate guarantee program that had been adopted. The program was strengthened by annual reviews of the financial status of the company and other similar requirements.
Mr. Fields said that it was complicated, but there was no more serious area for the mining industry at present and that the dollar amounts involved made the tax debates pale by comparison.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if the Nevada Mining Association had a position on the School of Mines and switching it to a school of sciences.
Mr. Fields responded that the Association had only expressed the desire for a cohesive school of mining education, which was important for the industry to be maintained. They did not have a position on where that ought to be, but that it should all be kept together with mining engineers, geologists, geoscientists, and metallurgists all studying and working together. He said they were interested in seeing where the group would be placed.
Assemblyman Marvel commented that others were as well.
Chairman Collins asked if there were other questions.
Assemblyman Carpenter said that with regard to reclamation of some mines where they were unable to do reclamation, he thought they had gotten together and taken care of some of them.
Mr. Fields answered that there were some examples, and expanded on one that had a corporate guarantee out in the Yerington area where the company failed but there was a corporate guarantee. The mining industry provided equipment to the Division of Environmental Protection to assist with reclamation activities. He said a parent company, ARCO, stepped forward to clean the site.
Chairman Collins thanked Mr. Fields and said they would be seeing him in the future and would continue with the last presentation after a recess and possibly vote on a couple of bills.
Chairman Collins recessed the meeting at 2:25 p.m.
Chairman Collins reconvened the meeting at 2:33 p.m.
Chairman Collins said that they did have a quorum and invited Joe Guild to make his presentation.
Joe Guild III, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, said it was an honor for him to be before the Committee and that he was the immediate past president of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association. He said that the organization was nearly 70 years old and that Assemblyman Marvel was also a past president. He included personal information about his family living in or owning land in Mason Valley, Lyon County, since 1862. He said he currently had a ranch there and was a registered lobbyist as well as a lawyer from Reno.
Mr. Guild said that Mike Montero, who was to co-present, was also a rancher from northern Humboldt County and a lawyer from Reno but was unable to attend the meeting and passed along Mr. Montero’s apologies.
Mr. Guild discussed the membership of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association with about 575 to 650 members and ranching families from the state; the fluctuation in members was due to market prices. He said they had a policy creation process similar to that of the Nevada Farm Bureau’s process discussed earlier, and that as the lobbyist for the Association he would take positions developed from that policy process. They were affiliated with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association that contained approximately 250,000 members, with a function, similar to the Nevada Mining Association’s, to serve the industry, provide outreach and education, create policy, lobby at the state and national levels, and participate in regulatory processes. He used the example of the Governor’s Sage Grouse Task Force meetings where they had a representative at all those meetings; he said that if it dealt with water, public lands, or wildlife, they would probably be involved.
He said that they had constituent service functions answering questions out of Elko, and a full-time executive director who also served as the executive director of the Nevada Beef Council. He provided brochures (Exhibit G) from the Nevada Beef Council for the Committee to review, and said he had also presented them with a cow lapel pin with a stylized American Flag. He said that they promoted beef and its consumption, as well as the maintenance, viability, and profitability of the ranching industry, for the present and future generations.
Mr. Guild said that his goal was to ensure he had something to pass along to his children, if they desired it, which was capable of providing them with a profit. He thought that was the goal of every ranching family in Nevada. He mentioned their Web site and that they operated, successfully, on a small budget. He served as the immediate past president and had once served as the president of the Rangeland Resources Commission, which would be providing a presentation at a later date. He said they would provide information on livestock ranching on public lands at the present time.
He began a statement about the ranches in Nevada, and then moved on to a discussion of the map in the Committee room and an example of Lincoln County and how it was a classic example of Nevada family ranching problems. He said that over 98 percent of Lincoln County was controlled or managed by the Federal Government, and the small white areas on the map were town sites and ranches. He said that one negative point was the decline in head of cattle on public ranges, but he preferred to focus on positive points.
Mr. Guild said that it was not likely that a ranch was a corporate venture but most likely a family venture or family corporation. He said that corporate ranching in Nevada was a myth as the ranches were long-time family operated ranches, with sweat, financial, and emotional equity involved. For financial equity, he used the examples of the cost for maintaining his irrigation system or the price of a baler to operate his ranch competitively. He said the most visible was the sweat and emotional equity because they were maintaining a lifestyle, heritage, and culture, as well as serving a protective function from urban sprawl.
He brought up the Wildlife Commission mentioned in a previous meeting and what sportsmen do for Nevada through their fees to support the wildlife agency. He rhetorically asked who maintained important habitat for wildlife, and said that 75 percent of wildlife, at one point or another, was enhanced, protected, or maintained by about 10 percent of their land. He asked them to remember that when they drove by a ranch, because the ranchers and farmers developed water resources in the state that provided habitat, food, and shelter to help wildlife population growth.
He said that ranchers brought economic stability to rural communities. He said Mr. Fields’ response to Assemblyman Marvel’s question on average mining wages was correct and that mining was the reason the state was originally established. Mr. Fields’ great-grandfather was affiliated with mining, so he was not discounting its influences; however, he felt that ranching and farming families and communities grew up and provided stability and an economic base to rural communities.
Mr. Guild said ranchers’ current activities were a 10,000-year-old tradition, that mankind had always raised livestock, and that was how we had begun the process of becoming a civilized species. He stated that without agriculture and the ability to domesticate and tame animals, mankind would not be what they were today. He said that 2 percent of the ranchers and farmers of the country fed the rest of the country and the world. He said that enabled people to sit and have discussions, have computers, and learn because they did not have to worry about finding dinner.
Mr. Guild said that he appreciated the opportunity and that there would be issues before the Committee with future discussions. He invited the Committee, at any time, to visit a ranch; he said that if anyone asked for that opportunity, he would make sure it occurred as soon as possible after the request. He thought the welcome would be unexpected, with interesting educational opportunities. He thanked them and said he would answer any questions.
Chairman Collins said that he had scheduled a presentation on a booklet from Resource Concepts Incorporated on the statistics of Nevada grazing and economic analysis of Nevada. It covered the decline in head of livestock over the past 21 years and funds lost. He asked if the Committee members had any questions. He said that they were planning a trip to or near Ely, or to Elko, and that it might be enjoyable to do a weekend ranch tour around the Carson City High School Rodeo.
Mr. Guild responded that anything along those lines they could do, just let him know. He added that he did not have anything against Walker Lake, but he thought it was important to remember that water in the Walker River system, or any Nevada system like the Humboldt River or stream passing a ranch, was owned by someone. He held an appropriated right, and while the people of Nevada owned the water, he had received permission to use the water, a property right. He did not think anyone wanted to see Walker Lake dry up or a fishery lost, but the rights recognized by the state for over 150 years needed to be protected while looking at solutions to protect other resources. He trusted the Committee, as a working group, to find a reasonable solution to the Walker Lake problem; he wanted to remind people as often as possible that he did own a part of that system.
Chairman Collins thanked him and asked for questions, and seeing none invited the next presenter Grace Potorti of the Nevada Conservation League to come forward. He said that after the presentation they would deal with Committee business and have a work session on bills as time allowed.
Grace Potorti, Executive Director, Nevada Conservation League, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak. She commented that she knew several members from activities with public lands, air space issues, and issues on toxics. She provided general information about the Nevada Conservation League (Exhibit H) which was established in 2000 to play a role in policy-making decisions; the Nevada Conservation League did not “have an issue and the issue is water” but instead had a broader focus.
She said that in partnership with other organizations, they connected a variety of interests for Nevada’s environmental community. They were a non-partisan and non-profit organization whose goal was to make environmental protection and restoration a top priority of government officials. To accomplish the goals of the Nevada Conservation League, they had held various activities like lobbyist training, a candidates’ forum on environmental issues, and had identified six areas of concern that they planned to address throughout the year. Concerns included:
· preservation of Walker Lake
· Yucca Mountain
· sustainable energy
· preservation of Lake Tahoe
· Nevada’s air quality
· healthy management of public lands
Educational services, Ms. Potorti said, included a weekly piece on natural resource issues within the Legislature; it did not take a position, but provided information about what issues were current and when they would be heard. She said they had had an excellent response to that program. Ms. Potorti said that future projects would include voter registration activities and legislation by the Secretary of State for on-day registration.
She finished by saying that she knew they worked hard and she appreciated the time and effort they put into the issues. She also provided Exhibit I on the Nevada Conservation League to the Committee but did not discuss it.
Chairman Collins asked if there were any questions, but there were none.
Kaitlin Backlund, Program Associate and Lobbyist, Nevada Conservation League, said that she was the person who wrote the weekly newsletters and if they had questions or concerns to contact her. She stated that she would try to make herself available to the Committee for their concerns about the issues they worked on. She added that one of the grassroots organizations that they worked with was Great Basin Mine Watch, with Ms. Whiteside representing them and making a brief presentation.
Christie Whiteside, Program Associate, Great Basin Mine Watch, thanked the Committee for allowing her to introduce Great Basin Mine Watch, a Nevada based conservation group. They were involved in protecting the land, people, air, wildlife, and water from the impacts of modern mining. She said they were not an anti-mining group, but instead a technically-based advocacy group whose work was scientifically defensible. The group encouraged responsible mining and hoped the mining industry had the technology and resources to mine responsibly, protect the environment, and protect the communities with which they were associated.
They acknowledged the economic importance of mining to rural communities and the contributions made to the state. With gold prices high and Nevada’s low-cost production, they thought that it was not unreasonable to require mining companies to provide financial assurances to protect taxpayers and associated communities. She said that they thought that should be a goal of the mining industry in Nevada and that it was possible to achieve.
She thanked the Committee for their time and for their efforts to address fairly resource issues important to all Nevadans. She said their efforts did not go unnoticed, that they were appreciated, and that it was understood that they worked hard. She thought that everyone could agree that they were fortunate to live in a beautiful state with a diverse population.
Chairman Collins asked for questions from the Committee.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked why they filed a lawsuit against new mines starting in Nevada.
Chairman Collins asked him to clarify to whom he was addressing the question, and then directed it to Ms. Whiteside.
Ms. Whiteside responded that it was inaccurate to say they filed lawsuits against every mine. She then commented that she assumed he was referring to the Gold Quarry lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management. She stated that they filed that lawsuit to ask them to return the water they removed from the ground and that it was something they had the technology and resources to accomplish.
Assemblyman Carpenter said that he thought they had filed one against the Phoenix Project.
Ms. Whiteside said that they had not formally filed any action against the Phoenix Project.
Assemblyman Carpenter said that they were in there.
Assemblyman Marvel asked what technical groups they worked with, such as for water usage.
Ms. Whiteside replied that they were technically-based and had hydrologists on staff, and they worked with the Center for Science and Public Participation who had a variety of consultants.
Assemblyman Marvel asked where they were located and Ms. Whiteside answered that they were in Butte, Montana.
Assemblyman Marvel wanted to know if they had ever visited the area and Ms. Whiteside said that they had visited.
Assemblyman Goicoechea wanted a clarification about whether when she said Gold Quarry if she meant Leeville, because a lawsuit had been filed against Leeville.
Ms. Whiteside she said that by Gold Quarry she meant Newmont’s operations to the south of the Carlin Trend.
Assemblyman Goicoechea commented that they were two different projects.
Ms. Whiteside responded that they were connected.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said that they were in two different watersheds. Ms. Whiteside responded that she would need to get more specifics and get back to them on that issue.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said that he represented that district and assured her that they were in two different watersheds.
Chairman Collins reminded them to go through the Chair and to repeat their name to keep names and testimony together. Asked if there were any other questions from the Committee. He thanked them and then concluded presentations for the meeting. He said that while Ms. Eissmann was preparing for the work session and that he wanted to make some Committee assignments.
He said that Committee members would be reviewing the minutes from previous meetings. He distributed materials to two Committee members, told them to guard them, review them, and then return them to the Chair.
Assemblyman Atkinson and Assemblyman Conklin said the folders they had listed the other’s name. Chairman Collins assigned them appropriately and noted that the Committee Secretary was pleased to see the folders with the correct Assemblymen. He told Assemblyman McCleary not to feel left out because he would have a future opportunity.
Chairman Collins said that they had heard several bills previously. He then said that if Julie Keller would meet with him, he would make some time for her, and he might give her some time that afternoon if they finished their business.
Assemblyman Conklin asked if he needed to bring a tape recorder to the meetings or what was he looking for.
Chairman Collins replied that they were minutes from previous meetings that the Committee Secretary recorded; they were proofreading them for accuracy and then they would report back to the Committee on them. He said that if they had any questions, to ask Erin, who was located in his office suite.
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst, said that she had amendments ready for A.B. 41 and A.B. 71, two of the wildlife bills from a Committee hearing the previous week.
Assembly Bill 41: Converts Division of Wildlife of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources into Department of Wildlife. (BDR 45-14)
Ms. Eissmann wanted to briefly discuss the amendments to A.B. 41 (Exhibit J). She said that she did not print the full-length bills but only printed the first 8 pages where the amendments were relevant and that Assemblyman Collins’ amendment did not change the remainder of the bill. She directed the Committee to page 6, and explained that changes to the original bill were in green; red and blue language was original language of the bill; changes proposed by the amendment were shown in green with strikeouts representing deletions, and underlined portions were additions. She also explained that the text boxes were to direct attention to changes.
On page 6, Section 14, the amendment proposed deleting the last sentence that placed the Department of Wildlife, which the Division of Wildlife would become if the bill passed, under the control of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. By the strikeout, the Department would not be under the control of the Commission.
On page 7, Section 16, subsection 6, the original language of the bill said the Department’s bi-annual budget would be consistent with the provisions of the title and chapter of NRS 353.210 and submitted to the Commission for its review and approval. Assemblyman Collins proposed changing the word “approval,” with the intent that the new word would not be as strong as “approval” but stronger than “comment” from the original statute. The possible replacement words were: consent, concurrence, or consult.
Ms. Eissmann said that she would forward the Committee’s intent to the Legal Division, who would then choose the specific word for replacement. She said those were the two changes proposed by the amendment.
Chairman Collins said he would entertain a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 41.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Collins said he would allow discussion.
Assemblyman Geddes first asked what the legal difference would be between consent and concurrence and the effect on intent.
Chairman Collins responded that those two words were stronger than comment but less forceful than approval. The provision of two words at this stage was to allow the Legal Division to select the suitable word as well as be consistent with other statutes of the NRS.
Assemblyman Geddes noted Mr. Crawforth’s absence, and then commented on the cost difference that might result from the change, using the Division of Minerals as an example where there was an increase in their budget after becoming a commission. He then provided the example of the Division of Agriculture becoming a department with a similar increase in budgetary expenses. He just wanted to be on the record that there were budget increases when a division became a department, mainly in administration, and he wanted it clear that there was no budget increase for this case, based on the previous history he mentioned.
Assemblyman Marvel wanted to know if it was Chairman Collins’ understanding that if the bill was passed out of their Committee would it then go to the Ways and Means Committee; Chairman Collins indicated that was not his understanding. Assemblyman Marvel said that he saw a budgetary problem and that Assemblyman Geddes was correct.
Chairman Collins responded that outside of the changes for paperwork and signage, he thought the budgets for the others increased because of a previous lack, and that in this division change to a department, they were primarily self‑funded and that only 3 percent was from the General Fund.
Assemblyman Marvel said that there was some General Fund money and thought that it would need to be re-referred.
Chairman Collins said that he would take it to the Chairman and find out.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if he would also check with the fiscal staff.
Chairman Collins said that they already had a “no” fiscal note to research. He said if there was a change in the budget it would come from the Governor’s budget proposal and not from the department’s ongoing budget.
Assemblyman Marvel thought that there would be because of the bill to change the Department of Agriculture.
Chairman Collins commented that Assemblyman Marvel had supported the Department of Agriculture and that it had been under funded and lacked support.
Assemblyman Marvel said that he thought Assemblyman Geddes was correct and that there would be a cost associated with the change.
Chairman Collins began to comment on the additional costs and Assemblyman Marvel interrupted to add for signage and stationery. Chairman Collins continued saying that the additional costs to the Department of Agriculture were from the addition of an enforcement division as well as other things. He then said that they were not a money committee and did not want to address that.
Assemblyman Marvel said that as a matter of courtesy it should be brought to the Chair and Chairman Collins said he would see the Chairman of Ways and Means if the bill passed.
Assemblyman Goicoechea commented that consult was also a possible replacement and that he thought that was an appropriate word to use. He mentioned that he had met with the Board, Mr. Bradley, and Mr. Riordan after the last meeting, and he thought they wanted oversight with the budget, not a yea or nay with it since they had faith in Mr. Crawforth. He said that he thought it came to the intent of the Committee.
Ms. Eissmann commented that consent and concurrence were the original words she had found when first asked to draft an amendment. Through working with other staff, she said that she found that with other bills Legal Division had chosen to use the word consult. She reminded them that it was the intent of the Committee that she would take this to Legal and then they would decide on the appropriate word to support the intent of the Committee. She said that it was possible that if they had used consult previously that they might choose that word again.
Assemblyman Carpenter informed the Committee that he could not vote for the motion because he felt the people of his area were in favor of the bill because the Department would be under the control of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. He thought it gave too much control to the Director and staff; he thought they wanted to go to the Commission and discuss problems there. He thought they were especially concerned about the approval of the budget lying with the Commission. He said that the sportsmen funded the department and felt the Commission was the appropriate group to address; he understood that it also had to go to the chief of the budget and to the Governor, which was proper, but the Commission should approve the budget. He again stated that he would not be able to vote for the amended version of the bill.
Chairman Collins commented that the Commission had supported the amendment, realizing that the Governor’s Office would not allow the Commission to hold up the state’s budget because of an approval or disapproval. This was in contrast to letting them have leeway, knowing that the Commission was appointed by the Governor’s Office. The Governor had expressed to him that all concerned could work with this, and that their budget would be concurred with by the Governor’s Office, but this gave the budget department leeway to not hold up its budget presentation to the Legislature based on the Commission’s particulars. He then asked for other comments or questions.
Assemblyman Geddes expressed a concern opposite of Assemblyman Carpenter; he wanted to ensure that an elected body or official had direct control over budgetary decisions. He thought that that responsibility for most state agencies and commissions, lay with the Governor’s Office, and that was the appropriate place. He did not want the Commission to have that decision outside. He said he supported the amendment and further commented on the second amendment saying that they should be able to review it. He then said that the use of comment was strong enough for him; he said consult would work for him as well, but if concurrence implied that the Commission had to agree with the budget and the Governor disagreed he thought that would take the right away. He recommended the use of consult for the second amendment.
Chairman Collins reviewed that the bill changed the Division of Wildlife to a department, the same as was done with mining and agriculture, and that he thought it was more effective. He thought that when the consolidation was done in 1993, they shorted the constituents because of including so much under one position. The idea to make the change was a longtime coming and this was the opportunity where there was support from both Houses and the Governor’s Office to allow a balance. This was also to allow the Governor to have final say on the budget with the opportunity for the Legislature to overturn. That was the basis for the bill.
Chairman Collins asked if there were any other comments before the vote was taken.
Assemblyman Goicoechea commented that the consensus in Eureka County was that if the Department was to be placed under the Commission, they wanted to see the Commission restructured to include a broader representation.
Chairman Collins said that the process the Governor used to choose the Commission allowed for a variety of representation and that the positions were spread throughout the state based on population; that issue could be addressed elsewhere.
Assemblyman Marvel stated that he was not prepared to vote that day because he had not had enough opportunity to review the amendments, so he would abstain.
Chairman Collins said that the amendment was presented the day of the hearing but that he understood.
Chairman Collins said he was prepared to entertain a vote.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER VOTED NAY. ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL ABSTAINED.
Assembly Bill 71: Authorizes Division of Wildlife of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to charge certain fees and exempts Division from certain requirements concerning printed matter. (BDR 45‑479)
Ms. Eissmann said that the second amendment was for A.B. 71 (Exhibit K), relating to advertising and printing from the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. She reminded the Committee that there was testimony and opposition to the printing aspects of the bill. She said that Section 2 dealt with advertising and she left that unchanged; the amendment for the Committee was in Section 3 and allowed the Division of Wildlife, and commented that if both bills passed it would read Department, to take its printing to a print shop other than the State Printing Division. With Section 3 deleted, the Division of Wildlife would still take printing needs to the Printing Division; this deletion necessitated additional deletions of language in Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 that had portions that pertained to Section 3.
She stated that with the amendment passed, the bill would consist of Sections 1, 2, and 8; everything else would be deleted from the bill.
Chairman Collins said he would entertain a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 71.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Collins said that concluded the work session; he then said he would do the Floor presentation of A.B 41 and assigned Assemblyman Claborn responsibility for Floor presentation of A.B. 71. He then invited Julie Keller to make a short presentation.
Julie Keller, Director, Wild Horse Preservation League, introduced herself and Bonnie Matton as the President of the Wild Horse Preservation League. She said she also represented the Strieter-Lite Wild Animal Highway Warning Reflector System (Exhibit L); she said they had a 3-mile test site in Mark Twain that was working 100 percent. The reflectors, she said, were scientifically proven to save lives, and had been successfully used nationwide since 1979.
She had a received a letter from Tom Stephens, the Director of Transportation, which said that he realized the success of the program and that 95 percent of the program was eligible for funding under the Hazard Elimination Fund from the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (Exhibit M). They were in competition with other crash site areas for funds. She said she disagreed with him because they were scientifically proven to work; they would not only save the state money but also make money because of a reduction in animal strikes.
Ms. Keller then discussed wild horses and their population levels. Chairman Collins commented that those numbers represented loose horses, not confined ones. She commented that the Bureau of Land Management held that only 14,000 to 15,000 horses were manageable on Nevada lands. Her point, she said, was that they were a natural resource and valued by Nevadans, Americans, and the world’s population. She then mentioned the wild horse calendar from the previous year that contained information that taught about the ecology of wild horses and their importance to the land.
She commented on tourism, and used the Wells Fargo and Chevrolet commercials as examples of wild horse importance to America and the world as a symbol of freedom. She felt that they should be afforded more protection under state and federal law; she commented on her presence during the discussion of A.B. 219 of the 71st Session which would have made them the second state animal. A goal of the Wild Horse Preservation League was to get a referendum on the ballot to do that. They also hoped to see wild horse license plates and the development of a wild horse coin.
Ms. Keller offered a brief discussion on livestock and fencing of public lands, saying it fenced out both the public and wildlife; she said she would be present to argue against fencing. She commented that wildlife had water rights; grazing on 45 million acres of the 48 million acres of public land. Last, she said 85 percent of revenues went to a special Bureau of Land Management fund (Exhibit M). Ms. Keller said that the Federal Register enacted an environmental impact statement that she thought needed to be reviewed by the Committee members before changing any laws. She commented that she thought the Nevada Committee for Full Statehood was detrimental to wildlife and public lands.
Chairman Collins said that they were out of time and commended her on the Strieter-Lite reflectors and said that he had a bill in drafting to fence a portion of Highway 159 in Las Vegas because of animal strikes and human injuries and deaths. He thought that maybe the reflectors might provide an alternative to his bill.
Chairman Collins then summarized that they had talked with people who liked sagebrush, about water, and that government needed to readdress the idea of cloud seeding programs, fires, access, recycling, minerals, and grazing. Nevadans were feeding the horses Ms. Keller discussed, and they needed to find a way to address it better, by bringing in food or shipping horses out to attain a balance. He made a personal comment about not visiting McDonald’s anymore because they did not purchase Nevada beef.
Chairman Collins asked if there was any other Committee business before adjourning. He said the next meeting would be the following Wednesday.
Chairman Collins adjourned the meeting at 3:29 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Erin Channell
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman
DATE: