ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MINUTES

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources,

Agriculture, and Mining

Seventy-Second Session

April 28, 2003

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:34 p.m., on Monday, April 28, 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

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Linda J. Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

Erin Channell, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation

David Schumann, Nevada Committee for Full Statehood

Stephanie Licht, Legislative Consultant, Nevada Wool Growers Association

Joe Dahl, Resident, Fallon

Wayne R. Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

J. Stephen Weaver, Chief of Planning and Development, Division of State Parks, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Richard Mirgon, State Emergency Response Commission

Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association

Assemblyman Claborn thanked Chairman Collins for putting together last Friday’s tour of Elko and Ely, Nevada, which included tours of the Newmont Gold Mine, the Kennecott Copper Mine, and a wind generator project near Ely. He was impressed that over 40 people welcomed the legislative tour in Ely, Nevada.

Chairman Collins added that the opportunity to go on the tour was thanks to Speaker Perkins. Chairman Collins opened the hearing on S.J.R. 1.

Senate Joint Resolution 1 (1st Reprint): Urges Secretary of the Interior to amend certain regulations concerning allocation of water rights for watering livestock on public lands. (BDR R-671)

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada District, representing Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lincoln, Pershing, and White Pine Counties, and portions of Nye County, provided two handouts for the Committee, which included his written testimony (Exhibit C), and a document entitled, “Background Paper 03‑4, Stockwater Permits and Rangeland Reform ’94: An Overview of Nevada’s Traditional System for the Issuance of Stockwater Permits and the Influence of Federal Regulations and Subsequent Court Decisions on Existing Nevada Law,” by Linda J. Eissmann, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, dated February 2003 (Exhibit D).

Senator Rhoads said that the issue of rangeland reform had been around since 1994, when Bill Clinton was President, and Bruce Babbitt was Secretary of the Interior, and they passed “Rangeland Reform ‘94.”

Meetings were held in the following cities:

· Denver, Colorado,

· Reno, Nevada,

· Portland, Oregon

· Billings, Montana

They drew crowds of 1,200 to 1,500 people each. Many components of rangeland reform were perceived negatively, and about 95 percent of the comments made at the meetings were against rangeland reform. They passed it anyway. Stockwater rights were an important part of the Rangeland Reform 1994 initiative.

S.J.R. 1 urged the Secretary of the Interior to delete the provision that would effectively eliminate the option, under Nevada law, for a rancher to hold the rights to water livestock solely in his own name.

Senator Rhoads said that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was currently holding a round of public hearings on the agency’s rangeland regulations, so S.J.R. 1 was especially relevant at this time. About three weeks prior, there had been a hearing in Reno.

The whole issue of who held water rights for livestock grazing on public lands climaxed in 1994 when the BLM included the following sentence in its Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 4120.3-9):

To the extent allowed by the law of the state within which the land is located, any such water right shall be acquired, perfected, maintained, and administered in the name of the United States.

The phrase “in the name of the United States” was what upset the residents of Nevada. The effect of this sentence was to require that all stockwater rights be held either exclusively by the BLM, if state law allowed it, or jointly by the agency and the range user, if state law allowed that approach. In either case, the regulation effectively precluded a range user from obtaining a stockwater right solely in his name.

On May 12, 2003, the Committee would be hearing S.B. 76, which was the Legislature’s second attempt to address the stockwater situation by state law. Senator Rhoads said he would be glad to discuss that bill when it was heard by the Committee.

The resolution before the Committee today was designed to approach the situation from the other direction and have the offensive sentence taken out of the federal regulations. If the sentence were removed from the federal regulations, it would at least be possible for a rancher who paid for the development of water resources with his own money to receive a water right solely in his own name.

However, approval of S.J.R. 1 and removal of the sentence from the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) regulations would not solve the whole problem that would be debated when the Committee heard S.B. 76, but it would go a long way toward that goal. Senator Rhoads urged the Committee’s support of S.J.R. 1 on those grounds.

Senator Rhoads added that debate and struggle over the stockwater permit issue had been ongoing since 1994. The issue had been argued and lost before the Nevada Supreme Court, but the Senator thought that a solution had been arrived at in the form of S.B. 76 that would be constitutional.

Chairman Collins said that he would take as much time as necessary to make sure that everyone on the Committee understood the background, as well as the current debate, on the stockwater permit issue.

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, stated that he wished to speak on the record in favor of S.J.R. 1. He said that two roadblocks stood in the way of private water development on federal lands. This resolution addressed one of those roadblocks, which was ownership of water in the name of the federal government.

The other roadblock that needed to be addressed dealt with the ability of a private person to own range improvements on federal lands. Both of those issues were being considered now under the Department of the Interior and BLM process of reevaluating current grazing regulations. This resolution, if it were to pass, would send a clear message to the Department of the Interior on the importance of moving forward in the direction of S.B. 76.

David Schumann, Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, stated that he came to testify in support of S.J.R. 1. On line 13, page 2, the resolution mentioned 43 CFR 4120.3-9 (Code of Federal Regulations), which he said was typical of the way the federal government had been administering the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Exhibit E).

Mr. Schumann said he brought along a few copies of Title 43 of the U.S. Code, which was the actual statutory law written by the U.S. Congress, and the underlying law behind Title 43 CFR regulations, which were written by the agencies. He turned to Title 43, Section 1701(g)(6), and read from the regulation:

Nothing in this act shall be construed as limiting or restricting the power and authority of the United States, or as a limitation upon any state criminal statute or upon the police power of the respective States, or as derogating the authority of a local police officer in the performance of his duties, or as depriving any State or political subdivision thereof of any right it may have to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction on the national resource lands; or as amending, limiting, or infringing the existing laws providing grants of lands to the States.

Mr. Schumann noted that “public lands” were referred to as “national resource lands” because almost all the land in Nevada that the federal government administered was subject to adjudicated grazing allotments.

Chairman Collins clarified that the Committee was debating a resolution that asked them to strike a line from a federal regulation, and asked if Mr. Schumann would speak to that.

Mr. Schumann said they were in favor of that, but he wanted to change the phrase “public lands” to “national resource lands” to make it correspond to the language of the law.

Chairman Collins asked if Mr. Schumann was proposing an amendment and if he had a written copy of it for consideration by the Committee.

Mr. Schumann said his amendment proposed that the resolution should strike all references to “public lands” and substitute the words “national resource lands.” He said they were no longer public lands because judges had ruled that public lands were lands to which no other claims existed. Adjudicated grazing allotments staked claims to most of the lands in Nevada that were formerly “public lands.” Hence, they were, technically, no longer public lands.

Mr. Schumann asked the Committee to please pass this resolution. He said he would type the amendment and submit it as soon as possible. He stressed that the language in the resolution should be consistent with the underlying law, and other words, consistent with language in the U.S. Code, which was derived directly from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

Assemblyman Claborn asked if the resolution passed, if it would allow a rancher with water rights to fence the water holes and not let wild game drink water there.

Mr. Schumann said he thought that if a rancher had a fee interest in the land, then, according to the judge in the Wayne Hage case, the rancher could regulate usage for the beneficial use of his livestock.

Assemblyman Claborn said they heard testimony on an earlier bill that, if a permitted rancher fenced his water hole to prevent access by wildlife, the rancher would need to build a trough that would allow wildlife to drink there.

Mr. Schumann said he thought it would be interesting to research which section of federal law or state law would require a rancher, at his own expense, to water wildlife. He did not believe that.

Assemblyman Goicoechea said that, unless it was a vested right, there was a statute in place that allowed wildlife a portion of permitted stockwater. There was no way a permitted rancher could deny water to wildlife.

Mr. Schumann said he deferred to that.

Stephanie Licht, Legislative Consultant, Nevada Wool Growers Association, said that the organization supported S.J.R. 1. She said that she had had the opportunity to work for many Nevada ranchers, and she knew how difficult it was when they did not have a water development. She lived on winter ranges where they had to haul water to livestock. She said that was an intensive process. They would appreciate the Committee’s favorable consideration of S.J.R. 1.

Joe Dahl, a resident of Fallon, Nevada, stated that he had been following the proposed legislation for years. When S.J.R. 1 was first introduced, it was a companion to S.B. 76, and the wording was quite different. He wanted to congratulate Senator Rhoads for the overhaul of the language, which had restored the original intention of S.B. 96 of the 68th Legislative Session, which failed. There had been much work done on the bill since then. This version of S.J.R. 1 very accurately described the effort and the goal of the original bill.

Chairman Collins said that he would like to vote on S.J.R. 1 today. To be clear about what they would vote on, the Chairman asked the Committee to turn to page 3 of Exhibit D, the Stockwater Permits and Rangeland Reform ’94 document. He said that the sentence that S.J.R. 1 proposed to delete, located at the top of page 3 and directly referenced language from 43 CFR 4120.3-9:

To the extent allowed by the law of the state within which the land is located, any such water right shall be acquired, perfected, maintained, and administered in the name of the United States.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 1.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblyman Goicoechea said that the issue was that they were trying to pass a state law that would not allow what was codified in federal regulations, and that the state of Nevada should have the capability to pass a law that did not allow what that sentence asserted.

Chairman Collins said that the state of Nevada had different water laws than some other states, but currently there were water rights to private citizens in Nevada, as well as to federal agencies, and that the Rangeland Reform Act of 1994 confused the issue, so the Legislature was trying to find ways to bring Nevada laws into the 21^st Century.

Assemblyman Conklin wanted to know if they were considering changing the “public lands” phrase to “national resource lands.”

Chairman Collins replied that “public lands” was how they were described in the federal regulations. He said, if they changed the language, the resolution might not apply.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was absent for the vote.)

Chairman Collins said later in the meeting that he would make the Floor statement for S.J.R. 1.

Senate Bill 144 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to Division of State Parks of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. (BDR 35-493)

Chairman Collins opened the hearing on S.B. 144 after directing secretary to note that other members are now present including Assemblyman Mortenson.

Wayne R. Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said he came to generate support for S.B. 144. Mr. Perock said it was a two-part bill. The first part would charge an administrative fee to recipients of federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grants. The second part of the bill would expand partnerships between political subdivisions and the Division of State Parks.

Mr. Perock introduced Steve Weaver, who would provide details on the Land and Water Conservation Fund portion of S.B. 144.

J. Stephen Weaver, Chief of Planning and Development, Division of State Parks, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said that he would speak to Section 2 and Section 3 of the bill. He stated that over $500,000 in federal funds had been allocated to the state of Nevada, from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 2000. In 2002, that amount had grown to almost $1.7 million; half went to the political subdivisions, and the Division of State Parks for various capital improvement projects retained the other half.

Fortunately, Mr. Weaver said, it seemed that the program would continue to be funded in the near future. The administration had budgeted for the program in fiscal year 2004, and it had widespread support in the United States Congress, and in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Unfortunately, they had no budget and no staffing for the increased workload within the Division of State Parks, which was charged with managing the program. He said they needed some means to administer the program, which had been largely managed on donated time for the last three years. He said they could not expect that to continue indefinitely.

Senate Bill 144 would authorize a fee to be paid by grant recipients, including the Division of State Parks, for administration of the program. All grant recipients would need to pay a fee. Mr. Weaver said he estimated that the fee would be about 7 percent of the federal grant amount in 2003, but it would vary from year to year, depending on the amount of the federal allocation. The administrative costs were expected to remain relatively constant, with inflationary adjustments from year to year.

Senate Bill 144 also expressly authorized the Division of State Parks to utilize its own matching funds, regardless of the source, to pay its share of the fees. The grant fees would be spread equally among all grant recipients.

Mr. Perock then reported that the second part of S.B. 144 would allow the administrator, currently himself, to enter into agreements with political subdivisions for them to develop and operate park facilities on state park property. NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) Chapter 407 allowed the administrator to develop, operate, and maintain park facilities on the grounds of political subdivisions in federal government, when those areas had natural and cultural resources of regional significance, but it did not allow the reverse. This bill would expand partnerships with political subdivisions, especially where a large percentage of the park’s visitors were coming from that political subdivision. It would also allow them to develop, should this be part of their Master Plans, outdoor recreational facilities that the Division of State Parks did not usually administer. Mr. Perock stated, “We provide campgrounds, trails, and beach facilities, but we do not get into urban-type recreation which might be a ball field or soccer field.”

Vice Chairman Claborn, temporarily substituting for Mr. Collins, asks members of the Committee if they had any questions.

Assemblyman Carpenter said that, in Mr. Perock’s handout (Exhibit F), he had mentioned that the fees would not exceed 10 percent of the total cost of the total awards granted, but he did not see any language that would cap the percentage at 10 percent.

Mr. Weaver said that the 10 percent was intended to be a cap. The actual percentage he anticipated this year was 7 percent, and since it was a 50‑50 program, 7 percent would actually be 3½ percent, one-third of the cap. He said it would typically remain in that range. It was only if the federal allocation was substantially reduced, well below $500,000, that they would approach the 10 percent cap. If that situation became reality, they would seriously consider eliminating the program and the associated administrative position.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked for an example of a political subdivision as referred to on page 3.

Mr. Perock said he was referring to park and recreation departments within political subdivisions. For example, if the majority of the visitors to Douglas County were visiting Mormon Station in Genoa, and they needed facilities, the Division of State Parks could work out an agreement where they would partner to support that facility or property.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if he was talking about a county or city. Mr. Perock said both, or it could be a General Improvement District. Mr. Carpenter asked if he was talking about a private subdivision. Mr. Perock said he was not.

Assemblyman Mortenson said he agreed with Assemblyman Carpenter in his understanding of the cap. He understood that the intent was to keep administrative costs below 10 percent and thought there should be an explicit cap of 10 percent.

Mr. Weaver said that his interpretation, which was the original intention as he had written the original bill, was that the 10 percent was intended to be a cap. However, because it was a 50-50 grant program, capping the administrative fee at 10 percent would actually cap the total administrative percentage at 20 percent of the total project amount, because 20 percent was the federal 10 percent added to the local 10 percent. That was the reason he did not think the program would be viable once the 10 percent fee level was reached.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if he would have any objection to a 10 percent cap amendment. Mr. Weaver replied that he would not have any objection to that.

Mr. Mortenson summarized the status of the discussion for Chairman Collins, who had just returned to the Committee Room. Mr. Mortenson said that the Division of Parks representatives said that they intended a 10 percent cap to the grant fee, but it did not appear in the bill. The Division of Parks would have no objection to an amendment if the Committee wanted to add a 10 percent cap.

Chairman Collins said he did not plan to call a vote on this issue today. He said that Committee research staff would clarify the necessity of capping the fee percentage and that several other items needed more research before the Committee voted on amendments.

Senate Bill 201 (1st Reprint): Revises limitations on amount of fees that State Emergency Response Commission may impose for certain services of Commission or activities relating to extremely hazardous materials. (BDR 40-1047)

Chairman Collins opened the hearing on S.B. 201.

Richard Mirgon, Cochairman, State Emergency Response Commission, stated that S.B. 201 was the Senate version of A.B. 486. The only difference in the two bills was that A.B. 486, which had passed out of the Committee, had a cap of $7,500, and S.B. 201 had a cap of $15,000. He said that A.B. 486 had been through the Ways and Means Committee, and the only question that they asked the bill sponsors was, “Which bill would you rather have?” Mr. Mirgon had said they would rather have S.B. 201 because of its higher limits, so that they did not have to return to the Legislature to change the fee.

Chairman Collins asked if the Committee wanted to send this bill to the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Marvel said that S.B. 201 was the preferred bill, but he did not think it needed to go through the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, since they had just heard A.B. 486.

Mr. Mirgon said they would even discuss a compromise, if necessary, but $7,500 was better than a lower amount. When he applied the Consumer Price Index, it amounted to $7,100.

Chairman Collins asked the Committee to compare the two bills.

Assemblyman Conklin said that he remembered the Committee discussing raising the amount, because the original bill had $7,500 in it. He said he was comfortable with the higher limit, but he was not sure how to get there.

Chairman Collins said that both bills were sponsored by Committees, one by the Assembly committee and one by the Senate committee, so there was no specific priority.

Assemblyman Carpenter wanted to know what the argument was for changing from $5,000 to $15,000. He said that the Legislature should keep in mind that they should request what was really needed and examine the justifications for an increase in the fee amount.

Chairman Collins asked if two examples might be the explosion of the aerosol factory and the explosion in Las Vegas of fireworks and hazardous materials (HAZMAT) out on Boulder Highway. He wondered if those events would have any effect on the amounts requested.

Mr. Mirgon said not the fireworks explosion, but it would have an effect on the other explosion. The intent of the fee was to discourage industries from storing excessive amounts of chemicals. If industries continued to store excessive amounts of chemicals, they would be liable for paying the fee, which would be used as grants to pay for necessary HAZMAT equipment for local fire departments and HAZMAT teams so they would be better prepared to respond to HAZMAT incidents.

Clearly, the $5,000 amount was set about 12 to 13 years ago, when SERC (State Emergency Response Commission) was first established. The cost of equipment and maintenance had increased since then. Prior to that, the $5,000 was set in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), and S.B. 201 would allow adjustments to the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). Mr. Mirgon said they did not intend to assess the full $15,000. The intent was for SERC to hold the public hearings along with industry, and then to establish a fair and equitable fee structure. The reason they wanted the higher amount was so that they did not have to keep coming back to the Legislature to raise the cap if the industry concurred with the fee amount.

Chairman Collins said that they had just passed similar legislation in the Government Affairs Committee.

Assemblyman Goicoechea asked how many industries were close to the $5,000 maximum.

Mr. Mirgon answered that most industries were below $5,000, and some industries, such as the pool companies, had exchanged their hazardous chemicals for nontoxic chemicals. He said the number of industries that were close to the $5,000 maximum made up a very short list.

Assemblyman Goicoechea asked if any of those companies would bump up against the $7,500 or $15,000 maximums.

Mr. Mirgon said none of them would be close to the $15,000 maximum and thought there would be one or two that would be close to $7,500.

Assemblyman Conklin asked if the limit was $5,000, for example, that once a company had passed the $5,000 limit, the SERC (State Emergency Response Commission) had no ability to increase the charge, so the company could continue to violate the limit without risking additional fees. He asked Mr. Mirgon if that was correct.

Mr. Mirgon agreed that was the case.

Assemblyman Conklin said that they were trying to set a number high enough that paying it would be an actual deterrent to those few high-level violators.

Mr. Mirgon agreed that could be the effect, but it was not the intent. He said he hoped that by working with those industries, they would stop the practice of stocking excess hazardous chemicals.

Assemblyman Conklin insisted that, as it stood now, few violators eclipsed that amount, but there was no incentive for them to change because the SERC could not assess higher fees.

Mr. Mirgon said that was correct. Once they hit the cap, one pound over the limit cost the same as 100 pounds over the limit.

Assemblyman Goicoechea clarified that it was still, technically, not a violation because businesses had a legitimate purpose for purchasing those materials. It could be seen as an additional tax on those industries because they might require 100 tons of those materials to do business.

Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers’ Association, Carson City, said he wanted to fill in the background for the discussion. He said that their biggest single risk in Nevada, as far as hazmats were concerned, was not from the substances that were produced in Nevada and not from the substances that were stored in Nevada. The biggest single risk from hazmats was from the substances that were transported through the state, by railroad, truck and in pipelines. Yet, because of federal statutes, they had absolutely no ability to collect fees for substances that were transported through the state. The SERC (State Emergency Response Commission) was committed to providing safety equipment and protective equipment for firefighters and the necessary tools to deal with HAZMAT incidents. There was a requirement that first responders must be adequately equipped. Because transportation was the main issue, they traveled across Nevada’s main transportation corridors distributing money for tools and equipment for emergency responders.

Mr. Bacon said they charged an assessment on businesses that produced and stored hazmats because it was the only legal way to secure a funding source. Because hazmats and chemicals were mainly located on the highways, they had to equip and prepare paid staff and volunteer firefighters to deal with hazardous substances.

He emphasized that “literally everything you could imagine” traveled across Nevada highways.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked which industries were paying the most, or had the most hazmats in storage.

Mr. Bacon said that if you looked at the business owners that paid the tariff, for example, the BMI (Basic Management Incorporated) Complex and the chlorine plant in Pioneer were producing a great deal of chlorine. Their daily inventory depended on how fast they shipped it out, but the acceptable storage level for chlorine was low because it was so deadly. Hence, they would be above the maximum almost every day. On the other hand, about 70 percent of everything produced in the United States, including clean water, was processed using chlorine in some way. It was an essential ingredient.

Mr. Bacon said that other businesses that were close to the maximum were Scienco, Coastal Chemical at Battle Mountain, a couple of water treatment plants, and a couple of mines with roasters, not mines with other types of processing. At one time, a grand total of eight companies were at, or exceeded, the maximum. He said that number had probably only changed by one or two.

Mr. Bacon reminded the Committee that it was not a matter of where the risk was or where the violations were: It was the only fee structure under federal law that would allow them to collect money and distribute it to local emergency organizations. Mr. Bacon said they supported the bill and had a gentlemen’s agreement that they would not approach the $15,000 cap in the SERC (State Emergency Response Commission) hearings.

Assemblyman Carpenter said that his opinion was that they were assessing their local industries for something that the transportation people should be taking care of. Doubling the amount would make the figure quite high.

Mr. Bacon replied that his members were comfortable with a fee that did not go above $7,500, except if the SERC acted to approve it. They would not fight a $15,000 cap, however. It was not an issue.

Mr. Mirgon said they received federal funds annually for training and planning, which came from the Federal Highway Fund. It was a kind of partnership: One bought equipment and the other paid for training and planning. Both sides were paying, and whether it was equitable or not was not an issue.

Being a 30-year volunteer firefighter from Eureka, Assemblyman Goicoechea said he was very appreciative that they had access to SERC funds. He was concerned, however, that with an increase from $5,000 to $15,000, it could impose a fee of up to $10,000 per year on an industry that might not have had a dangerous record.

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 201.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED. MR. CARPENTER AND MR. GOICOECHEA VOTED NAY. (Ms. Ohrenschall was absent.)

Chairman Collins thanked the entire committee for their hard work and dedication to meeting the deadlines.

Chairman Collins reiterated that, in his opinion, one of the Committee’s biggest challenges would be over the stockwater bill, S.B. 76. He said they would be hearing a great deal about the issue and encouraged the Committee to read the presentation prepared by Linda Eissmann (Exhibit D), which would brief them on the unique nature of Nevada water laws compared to surrounding states.

Senate Joint Resolution 2: Urges Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Agriculture and Congress to take certain actions concerning expenditures of money for restoration of and water developments on public lands in Nevada. (BDR R-675)

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 2.

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was absent.)

Chairman Collins assigned the bill to Assemblyman Carpenter to present on the Floor of the Assembly.

Senate Bill 172 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning control of pests and plant diseases. (BDR 49-571)

ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 172.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was absent.)

Chairman Collins assigned the bill to Assemblyman Conklin to present on the Floor of the Assembly.

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)

Assemblyman Mortenson said he had a problem with the bill. He said, if it passed, state parks would be in the business of generating money and would forget about caring for the state parks. He said he realized that the administrative branch of state government did not give state parks enough money, but he still did not think they should change their main priority from taking care of the parks to generating money.

Chairman Collins said he thought that they already were generating revenue and just wanted it codified in the statutes.

Assemblyman Mortenson said that S.B. 401 would ensure that the money went directly to the state parks, and not into the General Fund. “That’s what scares me,” he said.

Chairman Collins said there were folks who did not persevere in lobbying the Governor or Chief Budget Officer long enough to secure an adequate budget for state parks. Perhaps this legislation would help them.

Assemblyman Mortenson said that when he read the audit that was performed on state parks, he learned that there were funds available, but they were not collecting them. Hundreds of thousands of dollars from multiple entities were being ignored by state parks. He said he thought they would probably collect it “with a vengeance” these days, if the legislation passed. He said they should have collected it when it went to the General Fund, too, but they did not.

Assemblyman Marvel said that after that report came out, the state parks were energized, and they collected money for Sand Harbor, Lake Tahoe. He agreed with Assemblyman Mortenson that state parks were always short of money, and they were the ones who were always the first to be cut. He said that he would be in favor of passing this bill to ensure the parks were funded.

Assemblyman Goicoechea said that this issue of an annual permit was raised in Ely last weekend, and it would not necessarily have to be set in statute, but could be addressed in regulations. An annual permit would allow access to state parks for a full year and would encourage visitation of the parks.

Chairman Collins said that, currently, an annual pass could be purchased to a single state park, rather than having a statewide permit. He said that was addressed two or three sessions ago.

Assemblyman Marvel said that, years ago, there was a seniors’ pass.

Chairman Collins said they needed to know which bill to use to change back to having an annual permit for all state parks in Nevada.

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst, said she would look into that. Since she worked for the Division of State Parks for 12 years, she was aware that they used to have a statewide annual pass to all state parks, but the fee changed over the years. Last time it was between $75 and $100, she thought. They changed the fee to apply the pass to a single park because they were losing money. She thought it was set by regulation and did not need to be set in statute.

Chairman Collins asked if the possibility of one fee for a single park and a greater fee for statewide access, or some optional choices, could be discussed. The Chairman said they needed to discuss S.B. 401 more before voting.

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)

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 484.

ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was absent.)

Chairman Collins assigned Mr. McCleary to present the bill on the Floor, and called a short recess (2:36 p.m.).

Chairman Collins reconvened the meeting at 2:44 p.m. and reopened the hearing on S.B. 401.

Chairman Collins said he would like to discuss with the Committee two possible amendments to S.B. 401.

The first amendment would address Section 1, lines 2 and 3, where they would add language that said, ”Shall not change existing state park name regardless of whatever kind of joint ventures with local government might take place.” He asked if there was any discussion on that amendment.

Assemblyman Claborn asked if there would be any way to change the name.

Chairman Collins said that names of existing parks could only be changed by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature. New parks would not be affected.

Assemblyman Goicoechea suggested it might fit better under Section 1, line 6.

Chairman Collins said that the Legal Department would insert it wherever it would be appropriate legally.

Chairman Collins said that the second proposed amendment, on page 2, would allow a change in the current regulations of state parks, such that annual passes could be sold to allow access to either a single park, or to any park in the state. The intention would be to encourage people to stay longer and spend more money in the state of Nevada. If they could go to several parks, they might plan their vacations to spend more time in Nevada. The overall intention was to increase visitation to Nevada State Parks, and to allow regulations to be written for different kinds of annual passes.

Assemblyman Goicoechea asked if annual passes were not already available to Lahontan State Park. He asked Ms. Eissmann what the fee was.

Ms. Eissmann said she did not remember that specific fee, but she would find out. She said that Lake Tahoe was the most expensive annual pass, around $75 per year, so Lahontan was probably less expensive. The fees differed at each park and were set by regulation.

Assemblyman Goicoechea said that the annual park pass should be equivalent to at least the highest in the system. He thought that a multi-park annual pass would tend to spread the wealth.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if Lake Tahoe were the most expensive, what the cost would be for a one-time visit at Lake Tahoe.

Ms. Eissmann said that the day-use fee at Sand Harbor was $5 to $7. There were additional fees for boat launching and camping.

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 401.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblyman Geddes added that the day use fee was $6 for Lake Tahoe, and $12 with boat launching. An annual pass was $75, and, with a boat, the annual pass was $150, the most expensive on the fee schedule.

Assemblyman Geddes added that Wild Horse charged $3 for day use, $11 for day use with boat launching privileges, $30 for an annual pass, and $75 for an annual pass with boat launching privileges.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Christensen, Mr. McCleary, and Ms. Ohrenschall were absent for the vote.)

Senate Bill 144 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to Division of State Parks of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. (BDR 35-493)

Chairman Collins said earlier in the meeting that the Committee had discussed amending this bill, which proposed to charge a fee, on a percentage basis, to recipients of federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grants. He said that they had discussed capping the fee at 10 percent.

ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON MOVED TO AMEND TO PLACE A 10 PERCENT CAP ON ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND DO PASS S.B. 144.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Eissmann asked the Committee to look at the bottom of page 1 of the bill, where it said Section 2, “The administrator, subject to the approval of the director, may charge and collect from each grant recipient a fee….” Ms. Eissmann recommended that the amendment simply insert the language “Not to exceed 10 percent,” at that point in the sentence.

Chairman Collins asked Assemblyman Mortenson if that was his amendment, and he said it was.

Assemblyman Conklin asked Ms. Eissmann to look at Section 3, subsection 1(b), where it stated that the money going into the fund did not revert to the General Fund at the end of any fiscal year. Since several bills had come out with that clause, he wondered what implications it would have for the budgeting process in future years.

With most departments that worked all year, when they did not spend all the money, it went back into the General Fund, and at the start of the next year they started over with a new budget. If the money was left in a separate account, then the following year, the department budgeted for more money, but there was no way to account for the leftover funds, or even to know how much was left. He wondered how enterprising the bureaucrats might be with such a clause in the bill. He said he was not necessarily against the bill, but he wanted to know what the effects would be. He felt caution was necessary because government was not a free enterprise business that would be accountable.

Chairman Collins said that his opinion was that when an account became significant, it would be robbed, but he referred the concern to Mr. Marvel or to Ms. Eissmann.

Assemblyman Marvel said that the money would be set up as a reserve account, and when crafting the budget, they would evaluate the reserve account. If it was excessive, they would carry the funds forward into the department’s operating budget. It would never have to go into the General Fund.

Assemblyman Conklin asked Mr. Marvel if he approved of the clause.

Assemblyman Marvel said yes, he did approve of the clause.

Ms. Eissmann said that she was not speaking for the Nevada Department of State Parks, but that her understanding was that the fee came out of the federal grant, and since federal monies were granted for a specific purpose, it would go to a separate account for that reason. It was not a fee that derived from the state’s General Fund; it was derived from a grant so would need to be kept separate from the General Fund.

Assemblyman Conklin asked if that money was restricted in any way by being derived from federal funds, and could state parks use those fees for whatever they wanted or not.

Ms. Eissmann asked Mr. Conklin to look at the top of page 2, where it stated that the administrative fee would be collected for the specific purpose of administering a federal grant. Ms. Eissmann’s interpretation of that was that those fee monies could only be used for administering the federal grants program.

Assemblyman Conklin said, if that was the case, then what State Parks could use those fee monies for had been defined and specified.

Ms. Eissmann said yes, she believed that it was defined.

Assemblyman Conklin thanked Ms. Eissmann for the clarification.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Christensen and Ms. Ohrenschall were absent.)

Chairman Collins asked Mr. Mortenson to present S.B. 144 on the Floor.

The Chairman again encouraged the Committee to study the stockwater issues before the May 12, 2003, hearing date. S.B. 76 would address water issues that affected 87 percent of Nevada’s land.

Assemblyman Marvel said that there was a great deal of legal research done in 1976, and he thought that the intent this time was to see if the laws would stand up to the test of a Supreme Court case.

Chairman Collins said that the state needed to decide if they would spend more years and more money in litigation or if it would compromise with the federal government. Compromise could cause the state to lose too much. Another possibility would be to return to the 3-way system in use before the Rangeland Reform Act.

Chairman Collins adjourned the meeting at 3:02 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Erin Channell

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman

DATE: