MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Seventy-Second Session
May 7, 2003
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 12:17 p.m., on Wednesday, May 7, 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.
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. Tom Collins, Chairman
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn, Vice Chairman
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Marcus Conklin
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson (excused)
Mr. Bob McCleary (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Erin Channell, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Steve Grabski, Administrator, Division of Measurement Standards, Nevada Department of Agriculture
Ron Levine, Nevada Motor Transport Association
Peter Krueger, State Executive, Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association
Don Henderson, Acting Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture
Chairman Collins:
Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining Assembly Committee is called to order. [The secretary called roll. Assemblymen Atkinson and McCleary were excused. The Chairman announced other members would be arriving soon.] We are a subcommittee until we get one more member. We are going to start with the three resolutions.
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst:
Hopefully everyone has the packet that I delivered yesterday with the proposed amendments on these bills. We will look at S.C.R. 7 first.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 7 (1st Reprint): Directs Legislative Commission to appoint subcommittee to continue study of wilderness areas and wilderness study areas in this state. (BDR R-717)
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst:
You will recall that S.C.R. 7, S.J.R. 3, and S.J.R. 4 were discussed as a group at the last meeting. Some amendments were proposed that would make parts of the resolutions more technically accurate. Because the resolutions are all similar, the amendments to all three were essentially the same.
The first part of S.C.R. 7 is on page 1 of the mock-up (Exhibit C). The new language is in green. It is a new “whereas” clause.
“WHEREAS, A reasonable amount of wilderness provides for a diverse spectrum of recreation opportunities in Nevada, is consistent with tourism, and provides a place for Nevadans to escape the pressures of urban growth. . .”
[Linda Eissmann continued.] This was added at the request of some folks in southern Nevada who wanted a statement that would recognize the importance of wilderness, especially to urban residents of Nevada. On page 2, the “2 million acres” has been added and the words “a considerable amount” were stricken. That’s a technical correction to clean that up. Also the “8 percent” was changed to “8.6 percent.” The words, “is believed to impose,” were added.
The new “whereas” clause on page 1 was added to all three resolutions. On page 2, the “2 million acres” and the 8.6 percent were updated so they were consistent and more technically accurate. The words “is believed to impose” were added on page 2 with regard to the wilderness study areas, as the designation of those is believed to impose significant restrictions concerning the management and use of such land.
Senate Joint Resolution 3 (1st Reprint): Urges Congress to take certain actions concerning wilderness areas and wilderness study areas. (BDR R-716)
Ms. Eissmann:
S.J.R. 3 (Exhibit D) has an additional amendment on the last page. We added language that there should not be any other efforts to create additional wilderness areas or wilderness study areas [WSAs] without first releasing those areas that are determined unsuitable for wilderness designation. At the request of Clark County, we also inserted the words “state-wide or agency-wide.” Section 4 now reads, “Oppose any efforts to conduct another state-wide or agency-wide inventory of the federal public lands in Nevada for purposes of creating wilderness areas or wilderness study areas without first releasing areas determined to be unsuitable for wilderness designation.”
Senate Joint Resolution 4 (1st Reprint): Urges Nevada Congressional Delegation and Congress to take certain actions concerning wilderness areas and wilderness study areas. (BDR R-715)
Ms. Eissmann:
S.J.R. 4 (Exhibit E) has an additional amendment on page 3 that was requested regarding supporting the use of grazing and logging as integral tools. We inserted the words “or other vegetation management techniques.”
Chairman Collins:
That is correct as far as I can recall from the meeting and the additional discussions. [The Chairman noted Assemblymen Carpenter, Claborn, and Mortenson were present.] We now have a quorum, and we have two-thirds, or nine of our members, so we can vote the bills that require a two-thirds vote.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
On S.C.R. 7 the language says “is believed to impose.” Clearly it does impose more restrictions on those areas just because of the designation of a WSA. It becomes a de facto wilderness. I’m concerned about “is believed to impose”; it clearly does. I don’t know who offered that amendment, or if we really need it.
Chairman Collins:
It’s my belief the measurement or the definition of “significant restrictions” depends on the beholder and “believed to impose significant” allowed some flexibility in “significant.”
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I support that. On S.J.R. 3, page 3, paragraph 4, would the language “state-wide or agency-wide inventory” allow us to do a case-by-case or area-by-area assessment?
Chairman Collins:
Yes. That’s Clark County’s intent, isn’t it? [Ms. Eissmann agreed.]
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Of course, my preference is to release a number of WSAs that already have been deemed unsuitable before we take them on a case-by-case basis. If it can’t be statewide, it can’t be agency-wide, but if we’re going to take them one at a time, we really defeat the purpose of having the language that says “without releasing those areas already determined to be unsuitable.”
Chairman Collins:
I wouldn’t have a problem with taking that county proposal out. If you want to take that amendment out, I don’t have a problem.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Which one out?
Chairman Collins:
Just the “statewide,” Clark County’s amendment.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I would prefer, if we do that, to emphasize we have WSAs that have been deemed unsuitable. Let’s release those before we look at any more.
Chairman Collins:
One of the requests from the public was to delete Section 4 entirely. Rather than deleting that, I thought we’d agreed to first releasing the other areas. That was the discussion Monday with the Senator, and he was in agreement. The “state-wide” suggestion was a submitted written proposal that I’m not sure everyone had agreed to. If you want to delete that, we’d be glad to accept that motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO CHANGE THE AMENDMENT TO S.J.R. 3 BY DELETING THE LANGUAGE “STATE-WIDE OR AGENCY-WIDE” ON PAGE 3, PARAGRAPH 4.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Atkinson and Assemblyman McCleary were absent for the vote.)
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I have a comment on the amendment to all three resolutions that say “provides for a diverse spectrum of recreation opportunities in Nevada” [the page 1 insertion on each resolution]. I think that’s really in the eyes of the beholder, because the Jarbidge has been in wilderness designation longer than any area, and the use there is much less than in areas that are open where you can drive. Any motorized recreation is limited, which prevents people, such as the elderly, the disabled, or the handicapped, from visiting. I understand the next part that says “provides a place for Nevadans to escape the pressures of urban growth.” I think that’s right, but wilderness areas cut down on recreational opportunities other than hiking and activities like that. I could live with it, but I just want to make the statement that wilderness areas do not provide as much recreation as areas that are called multiple use areas.
Chairman Collins:
Right before that, on the amendment, there is reference to the 2 million acres, and 2 million acres is reasonable as far as I’m concerned.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
I concur with Mr. Carpenter; I agree totally with that. You want to provide recreational activities for those others. Let’s let everybody enjoy it.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I think the amendment is fine as is because the wilderness is a small portion of what’s out there. There are far more multiple use lands, so it is just one facet of being able to enjoy the outdoors. You can go into the wilderness area to backpack, fish, and hunt. The multiple use areas allow you to do everything else. I support the amendment the way it is, and I agree with you that the 2 million acres is a reasonable amount.
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.J.R. 3.
ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
[The Chairman clarified the amendment was to delete “state-wide or agency‑wide” language on line 20, page 3.]
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Atkinson and Assemblyman McCleary were absent for the vote.)
* * * * * * * *
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.J.R 4.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Atkinson and Assemblyman McCleary were absent for the vote.]
* * * * * * * *
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.C.R. 7.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. [Assemblyman Atkinson and Assemblyman McCleary were absent for the vote.]
Chairman Collins:
Let me tell the guests that, although the resolutions have passed out of Committee, they still go to the Floor. If there’s something else you think needs to be amended into any of those resolutions, if you can get a legislator to propose an amendment on the Floor, the Chair will not necessarily support or oppose that, but that opportunity exists in our legislative open process. I just want to make you aware of that. If there’s a question that comes up, we might have someone come speak on an issue. If there’s something you feel we left out or left in that you want to change, that opportunity avails you the opportunity in this process. I want to make sure that’s clear on all legislation we do. [The Chairman opened the hearing on S.B. 485.]
Senate Bill 485 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions governing weights and measures. (BDR 51-565)
Chairman Collins:
S.B. 485 requires a two-thirds vote. Everyone was provided a copy of the mock-up (Exhibit F) yesterday.
Ms. Eissmann:
S.B. 485 is the bill that formally establishes the Division of Measurement Standards within the State Department of Agriculture and modernizes some of the statutory language in standards to conform to national standards and also to provide consistency with other laws. Several amendments were suggested. Mr. Geddes had posed the question about consistency with the language. The Director of the Department of Agriculture was referred to and in other places he was referred to as the State Sealer of Weights and Measures, which I understand is one and the same. Mr. Geddes had proposed to change references to Director to the State Sealer so that the powers and duties of the State Sealer were consistently referenced throughout the bill.
Some amendments were also proposed. In the middle of page 5 of the mock‑up, the Department of Agriculture had proposed to delete lines 24-27, which had to do with the police powers. There also were some questions about the scales, getting the larger trucks to fit on a scale, and whether or not they should have to be disconnected and then reconnected. On page 13 of the mock-up in Section 49, there is a new piece proposed by the Department of Agriculture in consultation with the Nevada Motor Transport Association and some others who had spoken on the bill. This amendment says the older, shorter scales that are not capable of single draft weighing of long vehicles can apply for a variance.
The other substantive amendment is at the top of page 5. There was a question about the ability of the State Sealer to enter a property without a search warrant. By taking out the lines that are stricken, this now more closely mimics the language that is in current statute, but a statute that is listed for repeal. So the language that is listed on this page is more similar to what’s in current statute. These were bits and pieces of different amendments that came to me that I incorporated into this one bill.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Didn’t the Motor Transport Association also have some concerns about the ability to stop commercial vehicles? I think Mr. Capurro made some statements along those lines.
Chairman Collins:
That’s on line 6.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
On page 5, line 19 says “stop any commercial vehicle” and inspect after presentation of his credentials. I think his concern was about whether the vehicles would stop.
Linda Eissmann:
You are correct. I remember that. However, removing that language was not given to me as an amendment, and someone explained to me that, by taking out the police powers, that was addressed. The Department of Agriculture is here, and perhaps they can answer that question more directly.
Chairman Collins:
I wanted to ask the Department of Agriculture, the Motor Transport, and the petroleum representatives to come forward. My first question is: Have you seen the amendments, and are you in agreement with them? I believe, also, Mr. Goicoechea, the existing statute is broader and allows any vehicle instead of being limited to just commercial vehicles.
Steve Grabski, Administrator, Division of Measurement Standards, Nevada Department of Agriculture:
[Introduced himself.] I agree with the amendment as it’s written. As far as the stopping of a vehicle, we had some discussion on this, and we decided, especially with security issues as they are now, it would be quite improper for the Department of Agriculture, without any lights, badges, or anything else, to pull a vehicle over. This was the main concern of the Motor Transport Association. Because the State Sealer has the ability to use any branch of the Department, we would be able to use the agriculture enforcement unit personnel, who are POST-certified. If we actually needed to pull a vehicle over, we would use that branch of our department.
Ron Levine, Nevada Motor Transport Association:
[Introduced himself.] We went over it with the Department of Agriculture representatives, and we are in agreement with the amendments.
Peter Krueger, State Executive, Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association:
[Introduced himself.] Me, too, for the record.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
I still have concerns regarding lines 7, 9 and 10 at the top of page 5 where we struck the provision that says that the Sealer of Weights and Measures must present his credentials. If we strike the provisions, then he does not have to obtain consent before entering the premises. That seems to be contrary to the way things normally are run everywhere else in the country. You don’t invade somebody’s private property unless you have a search warrant.
Chairman Collins:
The sentence reads, “Enter any commercial premises during normal business hours,” – and deleting “except that if the premises are not open to the public.” The State Sealer of Weights and Measures must present his credentials.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
The way I interpret that is he can now force his way into a business if the business happens to be closed during business hours. But even if it’s open, he can go into the business just using his credentials and do whatever he wants to do in that business without a search warrant.
Chairman Collins:
How is he going to enter if it’s closed?
Assemblyman Mortenson:
That’s what worries me. He may enter even if it’s closed.
Chairman Collins:
I think, looking at other language, nobody has the authority to enter a business that’s closed without permission or a search warrant. Breaking and entering is not legal, even by government employees, especially in the Weights and Measures case. You’re taking this by itself, rather than looking at judicial law.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
Why did we bother to strike it then?
Chairman Collins:
So he couldn’t break and enter.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
It’s the bottom part, the part that strikes the language that he needs a search warrant.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I believe, like Mr. Mortenson, that the way that it was is the way that it should be. If you want to come in, you obtain consent, and if they won’t give you consent, then you have to get a search warrant. That’s the way things work in this country.
I’m also concerned about Section 15(1)(c) where it says, “Seize, for use as evidence, without formal warrant.” I think we’re moving away from how things should be conducted in this country if we start entering without getting the proper warrants.
Chairman Collins:
Would not judicial law in other areas already supersede this?
Assemblyman Geddes:
I think the language in that section is fine as it is amended. The right to do these things is a privilege offered by the state. The Department and the Division are given the duty to protect the consumer. If a grocer gives the wrong weight on chicken, the consumer can’t leave, get a warrant, come back, and be able to get the chicken. He has to grab that package of chicken that has the wrong weight on it in order to have any evidence. This is part of the duties that we give the State Sealer to protect the consumer. I think the section is fine as it is.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
In every other situation, they need to have a “suspicion of.” If they have a “suspicion of,” they attain the warrant ahead of time.
Chairman Collins:
Mr. Mortenson, if you were the State Sealer of Weights and Measures or an officer in that department and you saw somebody with a crooked scale dropping a lead weight in the scale as he weighed the chicken, would you be able to stop that action immediately and impound or seize, or would you have to get a warrant to come back and find that lead weight that the grocer was dropping on the scale? The point is, if you see that happen, it’s not going to be a one-time occasion. For evidence for a conviction, would you get a warrant, or would you stop the action immediately?
Assemblyman Mortenson:
If this is something that happens, it will probably be a consistent happening. In most cases, you would try to obtain a warrant, go back and when he does it again, slap him with it.
Chairman Collins:
Mr. Carpenter, what would you do?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I think, under that circumstance, you could pick up the scale. But, if the guy said, “You leave my scale there,” then, I think, you have to get a warrant. It’s the basic premise of what this country is built on. You don’t go walking into businesses and seize whatever they have unless you have good cause. If you can get in there without a hassle, that’s fine, but if you can’t, then you need to go through the procedure that we’ve set up.
Chairman Collins:
Mr. Carpenter, if a gas pump in your station was pumping inaccurately, could they not tape it up, seal it, stop you from using it? Or, do they have to get a warrant to do that? After you answer, I want someone from the Department of Agriculture to explain the authority of those officers.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I think they can do it as long as I don’t say, “No, you can’t do that. You don’t have any right to do that.” We’ve heard about other situations where people get too much authority and then try to push themselves on people. Probably these guys wouldn’t do it, but this law could be in effect for many years. We have to do things according to the Constitution, and I don’t think you can do these things unless you have a warrant.
Chairman Collins:
I believe the current law allows the State Sealer to enter a business premise during normal business hours, instead of at any time, which is what this bill proposes. It allows him to “issue stop-use, hold, and removal” orders for any weights and measures commercially used and issue stop-sale, hold, and removal orders for any packaged commodities or bulk sale commodities” [Section 15(1)(b)]. Finally in subsection (c) they can seize it for use as evidence. If the Department of Agriculture would like to explain that, aren’t those your powers and what these businesses consent to in order to be in business using those weights and measures?
Don Henderson, Acting Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture:
[Introduced himself.] There is one issue at line 7 in Section 15(1)(a) I would like to touch on. You are absolutely right; I agree with you. We’re regulating commerce, and we need to have the authority to do spot inspections. We can’t expect to just schedule a meeting with a business or deal with an individual or a business that limits us from coming in at any time. That’s what this is designed to do. This is just a normal practice in state government when you’re regulating and licensing organizations, to be able to do spot inspections. That’s all that is being asked here. This language is very similar to what we have today. We discussed this at our last hearing. The reason this is inserted as new language is that it’s just been stricken from other portions of existing statutes. Relative to the constitutionality issues, if somebody feels we did not treat them within their constitutional rights, they always have the ability to take us to court and let a judge settle that. That’s my immediate reaction to that.
Chairman Collins:
Ms. Eissmann is looking up the current statutes. If you look at the repealed sections, “Seizure and condemnation of incorrect weights; destruction; repair; unlawful acts” [NRS 581.090], there’s a whole list of things being repealed. This is just the language being changed.
Don Henderson:
That information is found at NRS 581.070.
Chairman Collins:
Yes, “Powers and duties of State Sealer of Weights and Measures.”
Peter Krueger:
As a member of the regulated community, we support this language because we are passing laws. Ninety-nine percent of the laws we are passing, especially in this Committee, are to go after the bad actor. Unfortunately, the legitimate businessperson has to submit to the licensure and to these kinds of provisions for the 1 or 2 percent who cheat.
We have a problem in this state and other states with “off-spec” fuel. It’s fuel that is commonly referred to as “trans mix.” It’s fuel that is bought for much less and not subject to tax. Our members are some of the first who call the Department to report this, because we use that phrase, “level the playing field.” It’s not fair for a competitor to buy an off-spec fuel and be able to offer it to the public at a price that is far below what a legitimate operator could purchase it for by paying the taxes and the legitimate price.
[Peter Krueger continued.] This allows the Department of Agriculture to seize that load of fuel. This happens. There’s a situation where a member contacted me this very week regarding an operator in Reno who is suspected of selling substandard fuel. The pump is labeled correctly, 85 octane rating, which is unusual for out here in the western part of the state. Normally, you would see 87 rating as the lowest octane. You get into Elko and Ely, and you’ll see 85 octane rating. It’s an altitude matter; an 85 octane rating out here doesn’t work very well. There’s some question as to whether the fuel is on spec. I simply made a phone call to Weights and Measures and asked them to check it out.
We’re very comfortable with this as a necessity to protect and safeguard the consumer.
Chairman Collins:
I would add that current law, NRS 581.070, Section 2, states:
The State Sealer . . . for the purpose mentioned . . . to enter and go into or upon, without formal warrant, any stand, place, building or premises, or stop any vendor, peddler, junk dealer, driver of any delivery vehicle, or any person, and require him . . . to proceed to the nearest location where the state sealer of weights and measures may perform tests.
Also, in the repealed section of this bill, is NRS 581.090, “Seizure and condemnation of incorrect weights,” where “the State Sealer shall condemn and seize, and may destroy, incorrect weights, measures or weighing or measuring devices which, in his best judgment, are not susceptible of satisfactory repair.” Current law allows seizure and it allows entering any premises without a warrant. This language makes that more acceptable or more enforceable, and it also restricts it to during business hours when the doors are unlocked. This bill, as proposed, is actually reducing the current law, which allows more than you might consider unconstitutional. I bring that to your attention. We are further restricting the existing law.
Assemblyman Marvel:
The honest businessperson doesn’t care. If you are legitimate, you just open your door to the State Sealer. The guy who’s doing the chicanery is the one to get.
Chairman Collins:
I agree with you partially, Mr. Carpenter. Our freedoms are certainly restricted and, when we sign agreements to do business in commercial ways, we restrict our freedoms more. [Assemblyman Mortenson agreed.] I will advise you that it takes two-thirds vote to pass this.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I believe that any of the fees that are established need to be specifically done by the State Board of Agriculture. I forget exactly where it is, but in two or three places it says that the Director can do it, and I think it needs to be done by the State Board of Agriculture.
Don Henderson:
State statutes in NRS Chapter 561 for the Department require that any regulations developed by the Department, or the Director must be approved by the Board of Agriculture. That’s a specific duty of the Board of Agriculture. All of our fees under this program and our other programs are established by regulation.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Which statute is that?
Don Henderson:
It is in NRS 561. [He couldn’t find the specific citation.]
Chairman Collins:
It’s in Chapter 561 that all regulations by the Department of Agriculture are approved by the Board of Agriculture.
Don Henderson:
It’s under the duties of the Board of Agriculture at the beginning of the chapter.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Does it specifically say fees or just regulations?
Don Henderson:
It says regulations.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I think they should establish the fees, because that’s what they’re there for.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Do you have to have public hearings, too, to change regulations?
Don Henderson:
We most certainly do.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Doesn’t the Legislative Counsel Bureau review?
Don Henderson:
Once they are promulgated, they are gone through and approved by the Board of Agriculture.
Assemblyman Marvel:
So there are all kinds of protections there.
Chairman Collins:
The Legislative Counsel Bureau reviews them as well? [Received confirmation.] The legislative commission will look at them and oversee them after the regulations are adopted before they are put into place, and the regulations are what dictate fees. No fees can be changed without a change of regulation, which goes through a public process, which is then reviewed by the legislative commission before it can be enacted.
Don Henderson:
One other procedure that we typically use is to contact our industry before we bring up any proposed fee increases or changes.
Chairman Collins:
That’s all spelled out in that Administrative Procedures Act.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
In Section 41, subsection 2, it says, “The State Sealer of Weights and Measures shall: Adopt regulations establishing a schedule of civil penalties.” Maybe the State Board would have to okay them, but I’ll ask the Legislative Counsel Bureau about that.
Another problem I have with the bill is in the Repeal Section. They are deleting definitions of measurements in NRS 581.140 through NRS 581.290. It has a definition of acre, cord of firewood, and all kinds of things that people rely upon all the time. They rely upon these measurements being in the statute where they know where to find them. I think the units of measure should remain in the statutes. They may put them in the regulations, but most people don’t have access to regulations like they do the statutes. I would like to see the NRS Chapters 581.140 through 581.290 remain in the statutes.
Steve Grabski:
When we wrote the bill draft for this, we intentionally removed the unit section. It was removed because the National Institute on Standards and Technology, which is the federal arm of Weights and Measures, has, within their own handbooks and within many publications, tables and charts of all the lawful and acceptable measurement units, whether it’s a hogshead, a barrel, or whatever. When we look at the existing language on units, one problem is with the definition of a barrel. In existing statute, it’s 31.5 gallons. In the federal definition, it’s anywhere from 31 to 42 gallons, depending on the product. As an example, most liquids, such as beer and wine, would be 31.5 gallons. However, petroleum is a 42-gallon barrel. If you start dealing with dry goods, such as apples, the barrel is 105 dry quarts. A barrel for flour is 196 pounds. A barrel for pork is 200 pounds. If you have a bulk barrel, it’s 5 cubic feet.
Chairman Collins:
Are you saying our statute is a little obsolete and not conforming to current practice?
Steve Grabski:
It’s not expansive enough. It is almost archaic.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I see both sides. I agree with Mr. Carpenter. In trying to look up a hogshead, I have several math books, science and reference books, and it’s not easy to find a hogshead. Having a good definition is helpful. I would like to see them updated, though, so we don’t have out-of-date measurements. It might be good to put in regulations, or it might be good to make it a requirement of those people to be certified to have a copy of Handbook 44. I don’t know if that’s something that is available or if the Division or Department could prepare a chart that goes out each year with the certificates that lists all the measures that need to be adhered to. It is difficult to find these, and it is helpful to have them as a reference. It would be good to have them current.
Don Henderson:
I think Mr. Grabski was trying to demonstrate that these measures vary depending upon the commodity being measured. To try to reflect all the differences for the consumer becomes onerous for the Department. This information is readily available. In this age of technology and the Web, probably the authority that deals with this on a daily basis and keeps these standards current is the national organization. We’d be more than willing to put a link on our Web site to these authorities. For the Department to have to distinguish the difference between a barrel of wheat and a barrel of apples is onerous. These standards are not in commercial use or are not important in the commercial use, which is what we are trying to regulate. We’re trying to codify what is important in Nevada to regulate our industries, to stay on top of them, and to keep them current. That is our intent.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I think the statute is the place for this. I think a lot of this hasn’t changed for a long time. If it’s not right, then you should amend it. The statute references all kinds of measurements. If I want to sell somebody oats, I know how many pounds are in the bushel. I have used it a lot of times. Sometimes you forget what’s what. You can go to the statute, and it’s there. I don’t think it hurts to keep them in, because it’s a reference that people have been used to for many years.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 485.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER VOTED NAY. (Assemblyman Atkinson and Assemblyman McCleary were absent for the vote.)
[Chairman Collins opened the hearing on S.B. 486. Exhibit H was submitted.]
Senate Bill 486 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes regarding livestock and other animals. (BDR 50-570)
Ms. Eissmann:
S.B. 486 abolishes the State Board of Sheep Commissioners and transfers those powers to the State Board of Agriculture. There was some concern on page 6 of the mock-up (Exhibit G). This was a very long bill, and this was the only amendment proposed, so rather than printing the entire bill, I printed up to page 6, and then I also printed the last couple of pages that show the repealed sections, because there was an addition to that. Mr. Carpenter expressed concern about language regarding the Board of Agriculture being able to set and adopt regulations, and there was some generic language that talked about any federal rules and regulations pertaining to the sheep industry.
Apparently there was some discussion behind the scenes, and this was the amendment that had been forwarded to me by Dr. Thain, D.V.M., State Veterinarian, which would be to simply delete what you see as Section 14, which is actually to delete that statute. I indicated that it would be deleted. If the Committee adopts this amendment, when this is reprinted, that section would be taken out, and the sections would be renumbered. That is why I then printed the last two pages, which list the repealed sections, and I added that section to the list of repealed sections.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 486.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Collins:
The only other issue I’m aware of is the feral animal, livestock, and horse issue. Does anyone on the Committee have a concern? Or, have you been contacted by a constituent who says he has a concern? [There were none voiced.]
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Atkinson and Assemblyman McCleary were absent for the vote.)
Chairman Collins:
The meeting is adjourned [at 1:12 p.m.].
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sharee Gebhardt
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman
DATE: