MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Seventy-Second Session
April 23, 2003
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:31 p.m., on Wednesday, April 23, 2003. Vice Chairman Jerry Claborn 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.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
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:
Mr. Tom Collins, Chairman
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Erin Channell, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Don Henderson, Acting Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture
Lee Lawrence, Agriculturist IV, Pest Control Licensing and Regulation, Nevada Department of Agriculture
Jim Snyder, Nevada Onion and Garlic Advisory Board
Greg Ferraro, Walker River Irrigation District
Ken Spooner, General Manager, Walker River Irrigation District
Allen Newberry, Chief of Operations and Maintenance, Division of State Parks, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Vice Chairman Claborn:
[Called the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining Committee to order. Rolls was called.] Chairman Collins may not be here today. We have three bills to hear today and a video presentation. Before we get started, please turn off all noisemakers; anyone who wants to testify, please make sure that you have signed in. We’ll start with S.B. 172. I’ll take the supporters first, then opposition, and any neutrals at the end.
Senate Bill 172 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning control of pests and plant diseases. (BDR 49-571)
Don Henderson, Acting Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture:
[Introduced himself] I have with me Mr. Lawrence, who works in our Pest Control Operators Program. I can give you a brief overview of S.B. 172 and answer any questions. [Vice Chairman Claborn said that was fine.] S.B. 172 is a housekeeping bill that covers two important programs in the Department [of Agriculture]: nursery licenses and plant quarantines, and the licensing of pest control operators (Exhibit C). The purpose of the statutory amendments offered in S.B. 172 is to clarify and streamline provisions within these two important Department programs.
I’d like to highlight with you some of the more pertinent sections of S.B. 172 to familiarize you with the scope and content of this bill and then open it up for any questions you might have.
Section 1 of the bill involves amending NRS 555.085 [Nevada Revised Statutes] to establish civil penalties and fines for violations to quarantine regulations established by the Director. Because of heavy caseloads, the current administrative fines authorized in NRS 555.085 are ineffective because the District Attorneys involved do not take these cases up for prosecution (Exhibit C). The second problem with existing administrative fines is that most of the involved violators are located outside of the state. It is impossible to get these violators back to Nevada to deal with the administrative fine procedures or to get them to pay the imposed fines once the proceedings have been completed.
[Don Henderson] Based on this situation, the Department [of Agriculture] has worked with the Attorney General’s Office and the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office to develop the offered statutory language, which would establish civil penalties for quarantine violations. We have been assured that the recommended approach, using civil penalties, is preferable and can be more easily enforced. In addition, this civil penalty approach to violations to state quarantines also dovetails nicely with the criminal penalties authorized in NRS 555.090.
Sections 2 through 18 primarily provide definitions to better define and clarify the requirements of this statute. Section 2 provides clarification that a pest control business will automatically lose its Primary Principal License if the business loses its licensed Principal and if this position is not replaced within a 30-day period. This clarification is needed to make certain all pest control businesses operating in Nevada have a qualified Principal registered with the State at all times who can oversee and supervise the proper application of pesticides by that business.
Sections 12 and 13 amend the definition of nursery to include places where nursery stock is grown, propagated, healed, stored, or distributed directly to the consumer. There have been many businesses that sell nursery stock that were not aware of the requirement to obtain a license with the Department. This section clearly defines businesses that are required to be licensed. All licensed sellers of nursery stock have to comply with the laws and regulations enacted to ensure that only pest-free, healthy plants are sold to the public.
Section 22 relates to Section 13; this section amends and clarifies who must obtain a nursery license and comply with the rules and regulations on selling nursery stock. During the hearing of this bill [S.B. 172] on the Senate side, the Department coordinated closely with the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association and gained their concurrence with these provisions of the bill.
Section 25 established a penalty not to exceed $200 for a late renewal of a nursery license. The current late fee, under statute, is $10 and it does not represent an effective deterrent for late renewal of a license. In Section 34, the Department [of Agriculture] is adding a determining factor to standardize regulations for incidental pest control (Exhibit C). There is currently an exemption in the statutes to obtain a nursery control license to apply pesticides for hire if it’s an incidental part of the business, such as taking care of lawns and trees. There is no method, currently, for determining what is an “incidental” portion of business. This section adds the needed definition for the Department.
[Don Henderson] Finally, in Section 35, the Pest Control Operator License expires on December 31 of each year. Existing statutes allow renewal of the license by payment of fees prior to January 16 of each year. To eliminate this inconsistency, the proposed amendment requires renewal of the license by payment of fees prior to December 31 of each year.
On the Senate side, this bill was amended to address three concerns. The first involved replacing administrative fines with civil penalties in Section 1 of the bill, which I have already reviewed with you. The second portion of the amendment is found in Section 22 where garden clubs, charitable organizations, and state and local government agencies were exempted from the requirement of maintaining a commercial nursery license for their incidental sales they may be involved in. Finally, in Section 25 where the increased penalty for failing to license as a commercial nursery in a timely manner was capped at a maximum fine of $200.
With that, that’s a good summary of the bill and we’d be happy to answer any questions.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Mr. Henderson, how do you police this? Do you have enough people to go around and check all these nurseries?
Don Henderson:
We police them the best we can with the people we have. Our goal is, for a nursery, to visit each commercial nursery on an annual basis to inspect their plant materials and make sure their paperwork is in order. We’ve been able to achieve that every year at this point. But as the state grows, it becomes more and more difficult.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Do you find many violators?
Don Henderson:
It’s a minor portion of the industry, but it’s important. I have with me Mr. Lawrence, who oversees the Pest Control Operator Program, and he might have a better handle on that.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Is there any policing of themselves or whistle-blowing?
Don Henderson:
In response to that question, we have gone to both the nursery industry and the pest control operators and talked with them and worked closely with them. They have both agreed over the past couple of years to greatly increase their licensing fees to the Department [of Agriculture] with the desire that they want to run a bona fide and effective program. There’s a real interest on the part of the industry to make sure everyone is playing on the same field and that the people who aren’t following the rules get penalized for that. I think there is progress being made. We’re have a difficult time from a budgetary standpoint of keeping up with the growth, particularly in southern Nevada, but we’re doing the best we can.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I see in here that this doesn’t apply to catalog sales. Is there any control on them at all?
Don Henderson:
I would have to say, Assemblyman Carpenter, that is handled at the federal level. I’m not quite sure at what intensity or what the oversight is there. It is interstate trade, so that’s a federal responsibility. That’s why, often times, you’ll see these catalog companies that are serving several states don’t have a sales tax but a sales tax exemption. If the plant materials come in and they go into a commercial establishment then we most certainly try to look and inspect those plants. The Agriculture Enforcement Program, if plant materials are being shipped into the state, does its best to check those as they come in, make sure they have the right paperwork, and that they are not quarantined plants. We address it in that manner.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
As I read this, the old statute excludes farmers. In fact, if you’re an applicator and you go out for hire to neighbors, do you have to comply with all of Section 34, subsections 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c)?
Don Henderson:
I’m assuming you’re talking about the Pest Control Operators Program.
Lee Lawrence, Agriculturist IV, Pest Control Licensing and Regulation, Nevada Department of Agriculture:
[Introduced himself] Farmers are essentially exempt from the requirements for pest control licensing. We recognize the need of the farming community to be able to work with their neighbors to do things, more on the level with bartering. We’re not too concerned about that. However, if they are doing services for hire, for payment, for a pest control service, that would fall under our pest control licensing regulations, the way they stand now.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Section 34, subsection 1(b), says, “he is not regularly engaged in the business,” but that doesn’t preclude you from doing whatever business that came along.
Don Henderson:
I think it implies that it is not something that’s done on a regular basis, or that’s repeated frequently. An occasional assistance to a neighbor, I think, would be exempt. I can assure you that these regulations that you are reviewing have been gone over with a fine-tooth comb with the Attorney General’s Office through several administrative appeals.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
And it is existing statute.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
Any more questions for Mr. Henderson or Mr. Lawrence? We’ll open S.B. 484.
Senate Bill 484: Makes various changes concerning provisions relating to Garlic and Onion Growers’ Advisory Board and certain assessments levied upon growers of garlic or onions. (BDR 49-1274)
Don Henderson:
I’d like to refer to Mr. Snyder, who is here from the Nevada Onion and Garlic Board. He can provide an overview on S.B. 484. Before he comes up, the Department [of Agriculture] has worked very closely with the Onion and Garlic Board, and we are supportive of this bill. We have no beliefs that this bill would be an undue hardship on the Department. We could accommodate what they’re asking for.
Jim Snyder, Nevada Onion and Garlic Advisory Board:
[Introduced himself] The Nevada Onion and Garlic Board was established six years ago by this Legislature. Since that time, we have assessed our membership the maximum allowed amount on acreage to raise funds to do research to benefit onion and garlic production in the state. Four years ago the Legislature provided $40,000 in additional funding for us; we have accomplished some good research work with the funds collected and those provided by the State.
Today, we are not asking for additional funding. We are asking for passage of this bill [S.B. 484], which would do a couple of things. First, it would change some of the reporting dates to better fit the cropping cycle. Second, it would eliminate the option for growers to ask for a return of the assessment. In other words, it would effectively make the assessment mandatory. By doing so, it would strengthen our ability to have this research work done and strengthen the industry in the state. That’s all I have; if you have any questions I would be happy to try and answer them.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
You say commercial garlic and onions that would be assessed; I assume that includes all your seed stock.
Jim Snyder:
Yes, that’s right.
Assemblyman Marvel:
What’s the production of onion and garlic in the state of Nevada?
Jim Snyder:
I can’t give you a real solid number, but I believe it’s on the order of 3,000‑4,000 acres of onions and 1,000-2,000 acres of garlic.
Assemblyman Marvel:
What’s the gross yield, monetarily, do you think?
Jim Snyder:
I think it’s between $30 million and $50 million.
Assemblyman Marvel:
You have world-wide distribution, some of you.
Jim Snyder:
Yes, that’s right, particularly of the fresh onions and the dehydrated product, both onions and garlic.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Do you dehydrate in Yerington?
Jim Snyder:
No, there’s no dehydrating facility in Yerington. There is in Empire and Brady Hot Springs.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Of that production, how much of it would be onion or garlic seed? I think that’s a priority, isn’t it?
Jim Snyder:
Onion seed is relatively minor. I think it would be under 50 acres. A good share of the garlic is for seed. Some of it is also dehydrated, possibly half for seed and half for dehydration.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
Are there any more questions? Hearing none, does anyone else want to speak on S.B. 484? Seeing none, we’re closing that. Mr. Newberry, did you want to speak on S.B. 401? Or do you want to wait until after we show the Walker River video? We’ll show the video first.
[Exhibit D: Walker River Video, Provided by Ken Spooner of the Walker River Irrigation District. The video provided information about the Walker River System and the Walker River Irrigation District, which supports a variety of uses in eastern California and western Nevada. Topics covered were: geography, composition, and history of the Walker River System; water uses; recreational opportunities; wildlife habitat; foundation and financing of the Walker River Irrigation District; capital investments by participants; agricultural production of onion, garlic, and potatoes and their expanding market; contributions to economies; livestock economy; water storage in dams and reservoirs; Federal Water Decrees; interstate allocations and a bi-state compact; irrigation methods and technologies; and drought periods.]
Vice Chairman Claborn:
Thank you for the enlightening video.
Greg Ferraro, Walker River Irrigation District:
[Introduced himself and Mr. Spooner] We have a compelling story to tell and I think the video captured that. It’s an essential engine for our state, one that’s always faced with Mother Nature’s challenges. I know you’re familiar with what some of those might be. We’re here to answer any questions you might have about the District [Walker River Irrigation District] or questions that may have arisen from the video and how it relates to what we know is important about the balance of interests in the area.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I just wanted you to carry on from where the video stopped. It talked about the balance of the Indian Reservation and Walker Lake downstream, but clearly it focused on the Irrigation District upstream. I wanted to know if you could expand on what things you think will need to be done to ensure that Walker Lake stays around as a fishery; and as the economic boon of Mineral County. If you can elaborate a little on the Farm Bill and the hundreds of millions of dollars that are coming to Nevada through the Farm Bill and on where will that money go in preserving Walker Lake?
Ken Spooner, General Manager, Walker River Irrigation District:
[Introduced himself] Most of your question puts me in a box. I have confidentiality obligation with the current mediation going on. In general, I think what we want to get across with this tape is that we feel we have a very serious and consequential market share for this state and to our basin. The people that I work for, the farmers and ranchers there are very enlightened and progressive in not only looking to their own business but also to the problems of the basin. We’re very committed to whatever the eventual solutions will be for the benefit of Walker Lake and the other claims. It’s certainly not only Walker Lake’s issue. Those are done in a manner that is based in good science with thoughtful results and positive results for everything.
Specifics that I could get into now are probably limited, but to the point that the District (Walker River Irrigation District) is partnered with the Desert Research Institute in cloud seeding. We are in our third year with them; we will be ongoing with that. We have been funding units and we are also funding scientific research into the productivity of those units so that we can, with great certainty, know that the yields of snowpack with given storms are actually productive for those things. We are working in other scientific areas, but again, I have constraints as far as confidentiality.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I guess most of this will be covered by the constraints, but one of the points in the video seemed to be a bragging right in that the Irrigation District was privately owned and self-funded. I’m wondering if $200 million changes that.
Ken Spooner:
We are proud of the fact that we were self-funded, and we continue to be that today. That $200 million, and I would probably defer to Senator Reid as he has parented this bill through Congress, is not to my understanding at this point available. I don’t think that it would be available in the context that it would enrich the District.
Assemblyman Geddes:
You’ve mentioned good science and sound science several times in the video. Being a scientist, I’m tuned in to that. Do you think there’s been bad science that’s been going on out there, or do you think some decisions are being made emotionally and not based on science? I’m thinking back on the charts from DRI (Desert Research Institute) on the TDS (total dissolved solids) levels in Walker Lake and some of the tamarisk controls out at the end of the River.
Ken Spooner:
Certainly, I think there’s been emotion attached on both sides. That’s the human element and we need to get beyond that. Maybe the reference to good science is the fact of science, in and of itself, as opposed to supposition and theory. I did not mean to imply or infer that there was bad science out there. I just think that there’s a lack of science, in general.
Greg Ferraro:
I know this Committee takes up a lot of work, and if you have any questions after today or you are interested in knowing the District’s [Walker River Irrigation District] position on issues that may relate to their area of the state, please feel free to contact me and I’ll get you in touch with Mr. Spooner or members of the District. It’s quite important, and I know you’ve read a lot about what’s happening. Mr. Spooner is constrained because there is a lot of important discussion underway, some of which can’t be revealed.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
We appreciate that.
Assemblyman Conklin:
I’m going to hold my question and do some research on my own first.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
Are there any more questions for Mr. Ferraro or Mr. Spooner? Mr. Newberry, come forward and we’ll open S.B. 401.
Senate Bill 401: Revises provisions concerning disposition of money received from concessions on property within state park or property controlled or administered by Division of State Parks of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. (BDR 35-1262)
Allen Newberry, Chief of Operations and Maintenance, Division of State Parks, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
[Introduced himself] We’re here to support S.B. 401; it’s basically a cleanup bill for state parks. S.B. 401 revises provisions for NRS 407.065 [Nevada Revised Statutes] concerning the way we deposit money received from concessions and property leased by the Division (Exhibit E). S.B. 401 would allow the Division to deposit rental and concession lease charges in with the revenue generated from user fees. This request came about from a recent LCB (Legislative Counsel Bureau) audit that found that the Division has been depositing these fees under the same account as user fees as a standard practice.
[Allen Newberry] This was an oversight and the intent of separating these from other fees cannot be determined. This revision will provide the agency the authority to continue collecting and depositing this revenue as it has historically been done, which is what we do today. Are there any questions?
Assemblyman Marvel:
I was on the Audit Subcommittee, and this was one of the findings, wasn’t it, and this cleans that up?
Allen Newberry:
That’s correct, Assemblyman Marvel. Traditionally, it was just “a” through “f” and we left out “f,” so this cleans up the legal legislation.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I assume that these rental and lease payment agreements would include admission fees to state parks; is that correct, or is that not included?
Allen Newberry:
The bill already does include recreational use fees. What this allows us to do is deposit concession fees directly with user fees, which we had traditionally done for the last 30 years.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
You’re saying it allows you to do that now –
Allen Newberry:
We’ve been doing that traditionally, correct.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
Any more questions of Mr. Newberry? Hearing none, you’re excused Mr. Newberry. Before I bring it back to Committee, we’re not going to act on this today anyway. I’ve been instructed that the “front line” has some unfinished business. [Vice Chairman Claborn distributed sets of minutes for Assemblyman Goicoechea, Assemblyman Christensen, Assemblyman McCleary, and Assemblyman Geddes to review.]
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst:
I just wanted to point out that on your desks, and buried under all that paperwork, you have a couple of memos from me. You will be seeing these at each of the meetings we have between now and May 16. What I will do for you each day is give you a copy of the bill summary for the bills that we are hearing. As you know, these bill summaries are written when the bill comes out of its house of origin. These are the bill summaries that the staff in the other house wrote when these bills came out of the Senate. I will give you these each day so you get a synopsis of the bill we’re hearing. You can also see – I will have the vote on there as it came out of the Senate. I just wanted to draw your attention to that; if you’re interested , you can look for that on your desk each day.
Vice Chairman Claborn:
I know that will be very helpful to me, and I’m sure it will help everybody else. Is there any old business, new business, or comments to come before the Committee? With that, we’re adjourned. [Adjourned at 2:24 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Erin Channell
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Jerry D. Claborn, Vice Chairman
DATE: