MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Natural Resources
Seventy-second Session
April 7, 2003
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 1:52 p.m., on Monday, April 7, 2003, in Room 2144 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness, Vice Chairman
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Maggie Carlton
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst
R. René Yeckley, Committee Counsel
Gina Rasner, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Verne Rosse, Deputy Administrator, Corrective Actions, Federal Facilities and Waste Management Programs, Division of Environmental Protection, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Roger L. Scholl, Ph.D.
Walter Hinchman
Peter D. Krueger, Lobbyist, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Andrew C. Goodrich, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Health Department
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
Don Henderson, Acting Director, State Department of Agriculture
Steve Grabski, Administrator, State Sealer of Weights and Measures, Measures, State Department of Agriculture
David S. Thain, D.V.M., State Veterinarian, Administrator, Division of Animal Industry, State Department of Agriculture
Doug D. Busselman, Lobbyist, Nevada Farm Bureau
Joseph Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association
Sherry O’Mahoney
Julia A. Keller, Lobbyist
Hugh Ricci, P.E., State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Mike L. Baughman, Lobbyist, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority
Chairman Rhoads:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 58.
SENATE BILL 58: Makes various changes relating to hazardous materials. (BDR 40-943)
Verne Rosse, Deputy Administrator, Corrective Actions, Federal Facilities and Waste Management Programs, Division of Environmental Protection, State Department of Conservation and Resources:
The division supports S.B. 58. I will read several suggested changes (Exhibit C).
Roger L. Scholl, Ph.D.:
I am the laboratory director of Alpha Analytical, Incorporated, the largest commercial environmental laboratory in Nevada. We strongly support S.B. 58 and the suggested changes submitted by the Division of Environmental Protection. The bill will make Nevada’s environmental laboratory certification program consistent with other states, and level the playing field for commercial labs. Approximately 30 laboratories would be affected by the bill, and they will support the estimated expense of $65,062 cited in the fiscal note. Senate Bill 58 would increase the integrity and legal defensibility of the test results for samples that are analyzed to maintain protection of the environment and public health.
Walter Hinchman:
I am the quality control officer for Alpha Analytical, Incorporated. We strongly support this legislation. One of the most important parts of this bill is it will make all the data generated in support of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act defensible in a court of law. It would protect the individual who is having the analysis done as well as the environment.
Senator McGinness:
Are the 30 laboratories affected by this bill currently not certified?
Dr. Scholl:
All of the laboratories hold one of the two certifications currently required under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, and the federal Clean Water Act.
Peter D. Krueger, Lobbyist, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association
A proposed amendment has been distributed that we believe will close a loophole to allow the Division of Environmental Protection authority over marinas (Exhibit D).
Chairman Rhoads:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 58 and open the hearing on S.B. 419.
SENATE BILL 419: Makes various changes to provisions governing Pollution Control Account administered by Department of Motor Vehicles. (BDR 40-1266)
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles:
I will read prepared testimony in support of S.B. 419 (Exhibit E).
Senator Rhoads:
How much money is the increase in the cost of an emission certificate expected to raise?
Mr. Benzler:
The counties will receive approximately $1.3 million each year, and the same amount will go to the pollution control account.
Senator Carlton:
Page 1, line 11, of the bill states for each set of 25 forms certifying emission control compliance the cost is increased from $125 to $175, and for each form issued to a fleet station the cost is increased from $5 to $7.
Mr. Benzler:
The $175 is the cost for an authorized inspection station. The $7 fee is the amount for each individual certificate.
Senator Carlton:
Is this increase solely for fleets or for every car that gets inspected?
Mr. Benzler:
Every car that gets inspected will be impacted by the $2 increase. The $175 for 25 forms works out to a cost of $7 per certificate. One is for a bulk purchase and one is for the fleet owner who purchases the certificate on an individual basis.
Mr. Krueger:
The association supports S.B. 419.
Andrew C. Goodrich, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Health Department:
I will read prepared testimony in favor of S.B. 419 (Exhibit F).
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County:
I would like to echo the comments of all the parties in favor of S.B. 419. The bill removes the current unpredictable method of allocating funds paid into the Pollution Control Account.
Senator Rhoads:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 419 and open the hearing on S.B. 485.
SENATE BILL 485: Makes various changes to provisions governing weights and measures. (BDR 51-565)
Don Henderson, Acting Director, State Department of Agriculture:
I will read prepared testimony in support of S.B. 485 (Exhibit G).
Steve Grabski, Administrator, State Sealer of Weights and Measures, State Department of Agriculture:
At the request of Mr. Henderson, I will read prepared testimony describing the changes in S.B. 485, and two amendments offered by the State Department of Agriculture (Exhibit H).
Senator Carlton:
Does the department apply limits when setting fees?
Mr. Grabski:
The original legislation gave the director of the State Department of Agriculture the authority to set fees for the inspection of these devices, and there were no limits.
Mr. Henderson:
This bill does not contain any changes in fees. Mr. Grabski has characterized the existing statute. The State Board of Agriculture is basically represented by industry. Thus far it has worked well and we have not had controversy from the industry. Before we increase fees, we go to the industry to explain our costs and reach a consensus.
Senator Carlton:
I have concerns about deleting some of the language concerning milk and other dairy products. I remember packages for retail sale and markings of containers some time ago. We referred to it as the “coffee can switch.” The can looked as if it contained 16 ounces but really contained 13 ounces.
Mr. Grabski:
During the 71st Legislative Session there was controversy about Model Dairy “Kid’s Milk” because it had the same shaped carton but it contained a few ounces less than a normal half gallon. Through that legislation we came up with an occurrence whereby the State Dairy Commission and the Bureau of Weights and Measures would agree to sizes available for packaging milk. New language in this bill requires proper labeling to be enforced. If the package is correctly labeled, there should be no reason to not be able to sell the product. Other states have adopted this language. Most of the language in this bill comes from a handbook published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Their uniform laws are used by a majority of states. If there is a concern, or if the State Dairy Commission would like to discuss it, we could establish that milk would be an exception to the packaging label through the Nevada Administrative Code.
Senator Carlton:
Most of the public is focused on looking for a certain label. We get in the habit of grabbing a familiar item from the shelf and not checking the quantity. I have concerns about people not receiving what they think they are getting in a package.
Senator Rhoads:
We will close the hearing S.B. 485 and open the hearing on S.B. 486.
SENATE BILL 486: Makes various changes regarding livestock and other animals. (BDR 50-570)
David S. Thain, D.V.M., State Veterinarian, Administrator, Division of Animal Industry, State Department of Agriculture:
I am here in support of S.B. 486. The bill consolidated concepts the department wanted to bring forward. The bill moves the authority from the State Board of Sheep Commissioners to the State Department of Agriculture. The State Board of Sheep Commissioners was formed in 1907. During the 1940s, there were more than 2 million sheep in open range in Nevada. Numbers have dropped to approximately 40 thousand sheep. The industry has requested this action be taken. Senate Bill 486 addresses the concerns of the industry by adding a board member to the State Board of Agriculture to represent the sheep industry. The bill will also transfer the authority for the State Predatory Animal and Rodent Committee from the State Board of Sheep Commissioners to the State Department of Agriculture. In the event the sheep industry rebounds and the industry desires a commission, they will be able to do so.
As we managed our Virginia Range herd and handled feral pigs on the Virgin River and Paradise Valley, we discovered our law does not have a good category to cover estray livestock that have truly become wild. Assembly Bill 486 requests an additional definition in statute relating to feral livestock, and allow a shortened advertising requirement when these animals are gathered for sale or destruction. I have provided a suggested amendment (Exhibit I).
The section relating to animal disease eliminates the term “livestock” and replaces it with “animal.” Currently there have been numerous arguments with people concerning pet birds, ferrets, and anything that does not fit the category of livestock. This will eliminate some problems about our indemnity ceiling when we destroy animals for livestock diseases. Current law requires a maximum payment to owners for their indemnity of $75 for grade livestock and $200 for purebred livestock. The dairy we recently depopulated in California was appraised at $1900 per milk cow. Some of the birds we have been depopulating in Clark County, because of Exotic Newcastle Disease, we purchased for over $300. We purchased several cockatiels for $200. This had been done under federal authority. By eliminating State requirements we would work under a cooperative agreement with the federal government. We would do the work and the federal government would reimburse us.
The last section of the bill is to remove the Nevada Beef Council from State government. The council is a part of the federal beef check-off program currently being monitored for responsibility by the federal government. The industry requested this legislation because it thinks the council would be more efficient if it was run only under the federal program.
Senator Rhoads:
Is most of the area where feral horses run private property?
Dr. Thain:
The majority of the Virginia Range feral horses are on private land. On the east side between Fernley and Silver Springs, there is a checkerboard pattern with Bureau of Land Management (BLM), State, and private land.
Senator Rhoads:
If the range were sold and the new owners did not want horses, could they remove them all?
Dr. Thain:
The new owners could go through the removal process, which is in statute. They would be allowed to gather the horses and notify the department to pick them up.
Doug D. Busselman, Lobbyist, Nevada Farm Bureau:
I will read proposed amendments submitted by the Nevada Farm Bureau to S.B. 486 (Exhibit J).
Mr. Henderson:
The State Department of Agriculture opposes the amendment presented by the Nevada Farm Bureau. We understand the concern of the bureau. The proposed amendment is based upon their policy. However, the department is running a sensitive and tenuous program with very little funding. The State Department of Agriculture is fearful of doing substantial horse gathers without the help of the BLM. They donated their crew for the helicopter horse gather we carried out. Because of potential controversy, the bureau has made it clear if the department gets into a situation where we sold estray horses, they would pull their support from our program. The fear is if we were to come upon a large number of horses that we could not place through adoption, our costs would be increased. If we were unable to react to the private landowners’ requests, we could be put in a lawsuit situation. We view this proposal as being detrimental to our program.
Joseph Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association:
Senate Bill 486 has the full support of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association.
Mr. Busselman:
The question about funding is an open one. Under the proposal we are making, if available funding is not sufficient, there are alternatives. One of the concerns we have with management’s approach to these horses is the lack of funding provided an excuse to do nothing. We do not believe in that option. The bureau hopes funding would be provided or secured through private sector means. When ranchers or farmers do not have money, they still have to manage. From our prospective, government should be held to the same standard.
Mr. Henderson:
The State Department of Agriculture works with private land owners who are interested in removing horses from their property. For those who are involved with livestock production activities, we offer traps and advice. It is a standing policy for the department to work with the landowners.
Sherry O’Mahoney:
I am representing the Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association, a volunteer nonprofit organization. We recommend at the end of each fiscal year remaining monies in the Virginia Range Estray Horse Management Fund be rolled over to the following year. We also suggest the designation “feral” be changed to “nondomestic free-roaming,” which better describes the wild horses. Please consider these suggestions when deciding S.B. 486.
Julie A. Keller, Lobbyist:
I represent the Wild Horse Preservation League, and I will read prepared testimony in opposition of S.B. 486 (Exhibit K).
Chairman Rhoads:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 486 and open the hearing on S.B. 76.
SENATE BILL 76: Revises provisions governing acquisition of water rights for purposes of watering livestock. (BDR 48-670)
R. René Yeckley, Committee Counsel:
I will summarize the proposed amendment, version three, which was prepared at the request of Chairman Rhoads (Exhibit L).
Chairman Rhoads:
If the federal government files a lawsuit against section 2 of the bill, does the rest of the bill remain?
Ms. Yeckley:
If the court were to strike the joint filing provision in section 2 of S.B. 76, the action would trigger section 3 of the bill.
Hugh Ricci, P.E., State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
I am not sure how the transfer of title clause will work when dealing with water rights. When a grazing permit is transferred or a ranch is sold, it is not clear if the water right is transferred.
R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
As I understand the bill, section 2 is going to be effective first, and if a court of competent jurisdiction strikes it down, the latter provisions of the bill will become effective. If I read number 5, on page 3, of Exhibit L correctly, the Division of State Lands could never own a livestock watering right. The Division of State Lands owns no livestock and would not fall under either category. The division will not be acquiring any lands specifically for watering livestock. If land were acquired for a State park or wildlife and grazing was part of the operation of the property, the division would like to have joint ownership with the livestock operator.
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
During my tenure we have not filed new water rights for livestock. I have tried to encourage the use of suitable State land for livestock grazing when it meets management goals. I certainly can conceive of a circumstance in which we might need to acquire water rights in order to allow land to be used for grazing. For example, we might acquire a ranch that has been traditionally used for grazing. We might acquire a part of a ranch and the rancher chooses to keep all of the water rights. The only way we could allow grazing to continue would be to establish new water rights. I want to make it clear if the amendments in Exhibit L are adopted, the State would not be able to acquire new water rights for livestock grazing purposes.
Mr. Ricci:
In the event an individual obtains a water right, and does not transfer the right with a particular piece of land, there is no way of obtaining the water right until abandonment is shown.
Ms. Keller:
I appreciate your inclusion of my comments in the proposed amendment. I question versions 1 and 2 of S.B. 76. The term “public range” is used throughout, and is in direct conflict with the term “public lands” used by the federal government. It would make the definition of public lands unclear. Does this mean all lands become available for grazing? Does this predispose all lands? Would this affect wildlife? Is there a limit on the acquisition of these lands? Please take my questions into account when considering the passage of S.B. 76.
Chairman Rhoads:
I view this bill as an access for wildlife and wild horses. I believe additional water will be developed for the use of the wildlife and horses.
Mike L. Baughman, Lobbyist, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority:
On page 11, item 2, of Exhibit L should say “invalidates all or parts of sections 1 and 2.” Section 1 is new language subject to court testing, and was not a part of the original S.B. 76.
Senator McGinness:
This is one of those bills that no matter which way we go we are certain to upset some individuals. I know it has been proposed we do not do anything and allow this to go to court. My estimation is that is too much of a risk. I think the proposal as presented in Exhibit L has possibilities.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 76.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Rhoads:
We will open the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 1.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1: Urges Secretary of the Interior to amend certain regulations concerning allocation of water rights for watering livestock on public lands. (BDR R-671)
This is a resolution to our congressional delegation to urge a change in regulations and eliminate the fact the United States would forever have stock water on public lands.
Fred Welden, Committee Policy Analyst:
At the last hearing concerning this resolution, it was pointed out that some of the language was inconsistent with S.B. 76. The proposed amendments for this resolution (Exhibit M) make the language consistent with S.B. 76.
Chairman Rhoads:
I have spoken with the solicitor general of the United States about this resolution. A message has been entered into the record at a BLM hearing to suggest the secretary of the interior create new regulations to change the law.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND ADOPT S.J.R. 1.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Rhoads:
There being no further business today for the Committee on Natural Resources, I will adjourn this meeting at 3:10 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cynthia Cook,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
DATE: