►
From YouTube: 3/17/2021 - Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
D
A
And
I
am
here
all
right
members
before
we
begin
a
quick
reminder
to.
Please
meet
your
microphones
when
you're,
not
speaking
to
minimize
background
noise
I'll
go
through
a
few
quick
housekeeping
items.
As
usual,
members
of
the
public
can
participate
in
our
meetings
in
a
variety
of
ways.
Information
on
how
to
do
so
can
be
found
on
every
meeting
agenda
for
our
committee,
as
well
as
on
the
help
page
of
the
legislative
website,
you
can
find
a
link
to
the
help
page
in
a
header
at
the
top
of
every
web
page
over
there.
A
Participants
must
register
to
participate
and
can
submit
opinion
polls
or
sign
up
to
provide
testimony
via
phone
written
comments
can
also
be
emailed
to
our
committee
secretary
before
during
or
up
to
48
hours
after
the
meeting
committee.
Exhibits
and
amendments
must
be
submitted
electronically
in
pdf
form
to
our
committee
manager
no
later
than
4
pm.
The
business
day
prior
to
the
meeting
amendments
must
include
the
bill
number,
a
statement
of
intent
and
contact
information.
A
We
ask
that
testimony
and
public
comments
be
kept
to
two
minutes
so
that
all
speakers
can
be
accommodated
and
we
can
get
through
our
agenda
in
a
timely
manner
and
with
that
we
will
have
some
motions
later
on.
So
just
a
quick
reminder
to
members,
please
also
add
your
name
when
you're
making
or
seconding
a
motion
that
helps
me
recognize
and
make
sure
that
we
have
the
record
clear.
A
So
with
that
we
are
going
to,
I
think,
start
with
our
bill
presentations
again,
I
just
like
to
note.
We
do
have
a
quorum
and
I
will
try
and
take
note
when
assembling
carlton
arrives,
so
we
can
mark
her
as
present
with
that
we'll
we'll
start
with
our
bill
hearings
for
the
day
and
I'd
like
to
start
by
opening
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
146,
which
revises
provisions
governing
relating
to
water.
E
Thank
you,
chair
watts
and
members
of
the
assembly
committee
on
natural
resources
for
the
record,
I'm
sarah
peters,
representing
assembly
district
24
in
washoe
county.
It's
my
pleasure
to
present
a
assembly
bill
146
which
revises
provisions
related
to
water
pollution,
especially
water
pollution,
resulting
from
diffuse
sources.
E
Before
I
begin,
I
would
like
to
note
that,
due
to
various
instructive,
constructive
stakeholder
discussions,
I'm
proposing
an
amendment
which
should
be
available
on
nellis
now.
I
also
send
both
amendments
to
both
bills,
I'm
presenting
today
in
an
email.
Earlier,
with
the
chair's
permission,
I
will
provide
brief
background
information
and
a
summary
of
the
bill
as
introduced
before
I
discuss
the
proposed
amendment.
E
As
you
know,
nevada
is
the
most
arid
state
in
the
nation,
as
such,
water
is
our
state's
most
precious
and
limited
resource,
and
protecting
its
quality
is
of
profound
importance.
We
all
depend
on
water,
for
everything,
from
drinking
water,
to
irrigation,
for
agriculture,
economic
development,
recreational
use
and
to
sustain
the
unique
and
marvelous
wildlife
of
our
state.
E
E
However,
the
leading
cause
of
water
quality
impairments
in
nevada
is
not
from
these
single
source
pollutants,
but
rather
pollution
from
diffuse
sources,
which
is
also
called
non-point
source
pollution.
This
type
of
water
pollution
is
generally
caused
by
runoff,
precipitation,
drainage
or
atmospheric
deposition,
or
the
falling
out
of
contaminants
from
the
air.
Often
snow,
mill
or
rainfall
carries
various
pollutants
like
chemicals,
bacteria,
fertilizers
and
sediment
through
the
ground
into
groundwater
into
our
groundwater,
rivers
and
lakes.
E
These
pollutants
can
stem
from
agricultural
production
through
excessive
use
of
herbicides,
pesticides
and
fertilizers
to
acid
drainage.
From
abandoned
mining
operations,
there
can
also
be
runoff
in
urban
areas
from
improperly
managed
construction
sites,
faulty
septic
systems,
landscaping,
fertilizers
and
improper
disposal
of
pet
waste
and
toxic
chemicals.
E
Diffuse
source
pollution
is
not
only
the
main
source
of
water
pollution
in
nevada,
but
it
is
the
leading
remaining
cause
of
water
quality
problems
across
the
nation
assembly.
Bill
146
enhances
the
authority
of
the
state
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources
to
identify
and
prevent
pollution
into
our
state
waters
by
expanding
authority
over
all
diffuse
sources
and
infiltration
of
pollutants
to
our
groundwater.
E
Finally,
ab146
codifies
the
practices
of
consulting
with
tribal
governments
during
regulatory
and
permitting
considerations
concerning
water
pollution.
Direct.
The
committee
to
the
proposed
amendment,
as
previously
mentioned,
the
proposed
consensual
amendment
before
you
today
is
a
result
of
many
constructive
discussions
with
the
responsible
agencies
and
impacted
stakeholders.
I'm
committed
to
continuing
these
discussions
to
further
flesh
out
and
refine
the
proposed
amendment
ab146.
E
E
As
such,
the
amendment
removes
the
language
in
section,
2,
subsections,
1
and
2
that
require
the
state
to
establish
a
new
program
to
reduce
control,
sorry
to
reduce
control
and
mitigate
water
pollution
from
diffuse
sources.
Instead,
the
amendment
requires
the
state
to
increase
the
mitigation
of
pollution
from
diffuse
sources
by
carrying
out
efforts
outlined
in
subsection
2
of
section
2..
The
amendment
further
deletes
section
3
and
exempts
septic
systems
from
the
provisions
of
section
4,
subsection
1
d
to
ensure
the
legislative
intent
is
captured,
while
establishing
a
baseline
for
regulatory
development
and
agency
decision
making.
E
The
proposed
amendment
further
defines
disproportionate
impacts
in
historically
oppressed
or
marginalized
communities,
as
found
in
section
4,
subsection,
3b
and
section
8
subsection
1b.
Similarly,
the
proposed
amendment
establishes
a
review
requirement
in
section
7
of
the
bill
require
requiring
I'm
sorry
regarding
what
qualifies
as
resulting
in
the
degradation
of
biological,
cultural
or
wildlife
resources.
E
Lastly,
the
amendment
would
remove
the
requirement
to
assign
drinking
water
quality
standards
to
all
waters
of
the
state,
as
found
in
section
10,
subsection
1..
It
would
also
add
revisions
to
nevada,
reside,
revised
statutes,
445
8.305,
to
describe
the
legislative
intent
to
increase
water
quality
through
state
programs
to
address
deteriorated
water
quality
in
streams
that
are
not
recognized
as
having
a
beneficial
use
of
drinking
water.
E
With
that,
I
will
take
any
questions
the
committee
may
have.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
assemblymember
peters,
for
bringing
this
forward,
there's
a
it's
a
very
in-depth
bill,
and
so
I'm
still
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around
it
and
the
amendment.
I
really
appreciate
you
getting
that
to
us
as
well.
My
question,
I
believe,
has
to
do
with
section
5.2
and
keep
in
mind.
I
am
not
a
water
engineer,
and
so
I'm
still
learning
all
this
fun,
this
fun
stuff.
B
When
you
utilize,
though
the
phrase
of
any
affected
community
for
the
digital
format,
does
that
mean
that
it
would
be
available
to
general
areas
of
the
public,
or
does
that
mean
that
it
would
be
sent
out?
I
guess
I'm,
I'm
really
looking
for
a
little
bit
more
of
definition
for
that
phrase
that
is
utilized
on
section
2
or
section
5.2.
B
E
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman,
sarah
peters,
for
the
record.
Well,
let's
see
so
a
digital
format
that
is
generally
accessible
in
the
area
and
to
the
affected
communities.
So
when
we
think
about
where,
where
some
of
these
standards
are
set,
it's
not
always
in
an
urban
area
where
people
have
access
to
broadband
or
other
digital
formats.
E
However,
that's
not
that
may
be
some
of
the
only
way
people
have
access
to
news
in
certain
areas
where
they
don't
have
regular
newspapers
or
sources,
and
at
this
point
we
have
access
to
our.
You
know
our
pocket,
computers
and
digital
devices,
and
I
know
that
the
division
currently
uses
things
like
facebook
and
other
other
places
to
post
information
that
is
more
accessible
to
the
to
the
general
public
in
some
cases
than
a
newspaper
would
be
so.
E
This
is
just
kind
of
authorizing
language
to
well
and
requiring
language
that
they
attempt
both
efforts
so
that
them
so
that
the
public
is
as
involved
as
they
can
be
in
these
processes.
B
B
Thank
you
so
with
the
amended
language
with
the
removal
in
section
10
of
that
requirement,
and
instead
adding
that
into
a
different
area,
may
you
kind
of
walk
us
through
a
little
bit
of
the
reasoning
behind
that,
if
possible,
because
that
was
something
that
actually,
I
was
kind
of
interested
in
a
little
bit
more.
If
you
kind
of
walk
us
through
a
little
bit
more
of
that
decision,.
E
Of
course,
again,
sarah
peters-
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
This
is
a
piece
that
I
I
am
long-term
committed
to,
that
all
waters
in
the
state
of
nevada
have
a
beneficial
use
of
drinking
water
or
that
we
are
creating
accessibility
to
drinking
water
from
all
sources
at
the
least
cost
possible
to
all
communities.
E
So
this
was
this
was
a
conversation
starter,
I
think,
to
have
with
with
our
regulatory
bodies
and
the
authorities
who
are
engaging
in
treating
water
across
the
state.
One
of
the
things
that
we
see.
E
We
have
to
deal
with
everything
that
goes
in,
and
the
burden
of
cleaning
that
up
often
ends
up
on
the
beneficial
user
right
not
often
always-
and
this
the
I
I
think,
as
decision
makers
and
regulators
in
the
state,
our
obligation
is
to
ensure
that
our
decisions
do
not
result
in
the
unintended
consequence
of
increased
cost
to
access
to
something
that
is
essential
for
life.
So
that's
why
this
was
in
the
bill.
In
the
first
place.
E
We
have
since
removed
that
because
the
as
you
will
hear
in
testimony,
the
cost
of
treating
water
is
a
huge
burden
and
the
technology
to
treat
the
types
of
pollutants
that
we
see
in
our
water
bodies
has
not
kept
up
with
the
demand
for
treatment,
and
so
this
conversation
is
not
just
about
who
deserves
clean
water.
It
is
about
how
do
we
get
there
as
a
state?
E
How
do
we
invest
in
technologies
that
can
get
us
to
the
point
of
of
establishing
those
drinking
waters,
availability
that
drinking
water
availability
across
the
state
and
those
are
much
broader
conversations
than
what
we
could
establish
in
this
regulatory
session
or
in
this
sorry
legislative
session?
Thank.
A
F
Thank
you
matt,
mr
chair.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
ask
a
question
and
thank
you
just
an
observation
to
start
with
that
so
you're
removing
section
10,
so
you're
not
going
to
look
at
assigning
drinking
quality
on
all
waters
in
our
state.
F
Because
I
had
significant
concern
about
the
stream
where
I
ran
up
every
day
bought
my
canyon
and
that
drinking
water,
we
we
don't
drink
that
because
giardia
is
in
there,
because
the
the
deer
and
the
sheep
bring
the
quote-unquote
fever
through
there
and
having
that
all
waters
is,
is
a
reach.
So
I
appreciate
you
removing
that
particular
stand
because
of
issues
like
that.
A
question
on
the
bill
itself.
F
I
don't
think
you've
removed
that
I've
looked
through
your
and
thank
you
for
getting
the
conceptual
amendment
on
before
us
in
time
to
look
at
it,
but
on
the
bill
as
it's
written,
not
on
your
amendment
page
on
section,
eight
number
b,
the
new
line,
the
language,
that's
in
the
bill
talks
about
otherwise
providing
the
paragraph
that
the
discharge
or
the
injection
of
fluids
through
a
well
where
it's
a
permanent
assault,
does
not
disproportionately
impact
historically
oppressed
or
marginalized
communities.
F
In
our
area,
where
we
irrigate
and
where
we
have
an
irrigation
district,
we
do-
and
I
think
believe
in
southern
nevada
and
perhaps
the
mining
industry
they
use
water,
then
re-inject
it
in
to
back
down
into
the
aquifer.
And
so
would
this
impact
do
they
would
they
have
to
treat
that
before
they
re-inject?
That
is
that
how
I'm
reading
this.
E
It's
sarah
peters
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question
and
no
not
exactly
so
this.
This
piece
of
of
the
legislation
is
related
to
that
the
confluence
of
groundwater
and
surface
water
or
the
confluence
of
aquifers
between
uses
the
injection
source
and
the
beneficial
use
source.
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
we
have
seen
is
a
down
gradient,
which
is
down
the
flow
of
water
in
an
aquifer
I'm
trying
to
to
offer
non-technical
language
for
the
folks
who
may
not
be
familiar
with
groundwater
basin.
E
So
I
apologize
if
it
sounds
elementary,
but
so
we
see
that
in
most,
in
some
cases
we
there
are
communities
that
would
not
would
meet
this
historically
oppressed,
marginalized
community
definition
that
see
the
impact
of
those
injection
contaminants
in
their
groundwater
for
drinking
or
in
the
surface
water
when
they
go
to
put
it
to
beneficial
use.
E
This
would
codify
that
that
impact
is
unacceptable
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
that
who
that
the
case,
the
per
the
entity,
injecting
those
fluids,
would
be
required
to
mitigate
that
that
contaminant
loading
into
the
aquifer
that
is
resulting
in
the
contamination
of
downstream
uses.
This
follows
a
standard
in
the
state
and
I
think
maybe
alan
would
be
able
to
talk
about
this
of.
E
The
right
to
use
of
your
water
rights
right
and
that
the
impact
of
other
of
of
anthropogenic
things
to
your
use
is
is
like
a
trespass
issue.
There's
legal
there's,
a
legal
like
standard
for
that.
So
it's
not
it's
not
really
changing
much.
It's
just
making
it
an
authority
of
the
state
to
identify
and
say
that
this
is
not
an
okay
way
to
inject
water
and
we
need
to
control
it
from
the
source.
F
Thank
you
for
the
explanation,
just
to
be
clear.
I
have
surface
water
rights,
I
have
groundwater
rights
and
I
I'm
on
a
domestic
well,
so
I
get
the
the
whole
issue
and
I
also
understand
what
irrigation
districts
are
doing
and
and
aquifers,
and
I
just
have
some
concerns
regarding
that
paragraph
and
and
the
potential
ramifications,
and
so
if
I
have
a
follow-up
question,
mr
chair.
A
Yes,
and
just
just
for
the
everyone's
information
we'll
have
you
follow
up,
and
once
your
line
of
questioning
ends
I'll
turn
things
over
to
mr
amburn
to
see,
if
there's
any
additional
verification
that
you
would
like
to
provide.
F
E
Yeah
absolutely
therapeutics
for
the
record.
It
is
undefined
in
nevada
statute.
We
looked
into
that
and
I
actually
asked
an
organization
to
pull
language
from
other
states
where
they
have
defined
things
like
this,
and
you
would
be
surprised
by
which
states
have
have
defined
actively
defined
these
these
kinds
of
communities
in
their
in
their
statutes.
E
I
again
worked
with
legal
staff
on
what
it
would
look
like
to
define
those
those
particular
particular
phrase
in
statutes
and-
and
I'm
actually
gonna
ask
if
mr
amburn
can
can
discuss
a
little
bit
more
about
whether
that's
necessary
or
not.
G
Take
it
away.
Thank
you,
chair
watch
alan
ambron
for
the
record.
I
will
address
each
of
those
points
in
turn,
as
women
titus,
so
the
first
one
dealing
with
your
initial
question
just
as
to
the
scope
of
paragraphy
of
subsection,
one
of
section
eight.
So
what
section
eight
is
talking
about
is
that
a
permit
that
is
issued
it
has
to
comply
with
certain
standards.
G
So
if
you
look
at
that
new
paragraph,
a
that
existing
law,
such
a
permit
has
to
comply
with
various
limitations
and
standards
in
the
discharge
or
the
injection
of
fluids,
and
so
a
paragraph
b
is
basically
providing
additional
standards,
but
instead
of
having
them
be
broad
and
far-reaching
standards,
it's
limiting
the
scope
of
the
standards
in
paragraph
b.
So
that
way,
we're
talking
about
that.
The
discharge
of
the
injection
of
the
fluids
through
that
well
does
not
disproportionately
impact
historically
oppressed
or
marginalized
communities.
So
that
is
the
scope
of
the
applicability
of
paragraph
b.
G
If
it
deals
with
something
outside
of
that
scope,
then
paragraph
b
would
not
apply.
Additionally,
paragraph
b
provides
that
the
provisions
of
this
paragraph
do
not
apply
to
the
extent
that
the
requirement
would
conflict
with
federal
law.
So
if
there
was
a
federal
provision
that
would
trump
this
provision,
then
that
federal
provision,
of
course
would
apply.
So
if,
for
example,
you
on
your
property
had
a
well
and
you
were
wanting
to
discharge
or
inject
a
flu
through
that.
Well
as
long
as
you
know,
that's
not
impacting
a
marginalized.
G
What
was
the
word
disproportionately
impact,
historically
oppressed
or
marginalized
communities,
then
this
paragraph
would
not
apply
to
that
activity
that
you
would
be
conducting
as
to
defining
that
term
as
the
assembly
woman,
peters
put
it.
That
term
is
not
defined
in
statute,
so
this
would
be
a
new
definition
if
the
committee
or
the
assembly,
woman
or
stakeholders
decided
to
define
that
term.
If
it
is
undefined,
then
the
court
would
of
course
go
through
the
process
of
statutory
interpretation.
G
G
It
seems
a
bit
vague
on
its
face
and
the
court
determines
that
it
is
vague.
Then
the
court
would
look
at
legislative
history.
They
would
look
at
other
exterior
sources
to
try
to
figure
out
what
are
the
parameters
of
this
term,
so
it
might
even
look
to
the
historical
aspects
of
the
state
and
try
to
figure
out
what
type
of
communities
would
fall
under
this
type
of
category.
E
I
would
like
to
add,
if
I
may,
that
the
app
the
application
of
this
in
practice
is
very
difficult
to
prove
that
a
contaminant
has
come
from
a
single
source.
It
is.
It
takes
an
effort
to
do
that,
so
it
would.
This,
I
think,
would
be
limited
to
cases
in
which
a
community
was
really
desperate
to
to
figure
out
what
was
going
on
with
their
water
supply,
and
we've
had
experiences
like
that.
I
mean
you
can
think
about
the
fallon
arsenic
contamination,
not
arsenic.
It
was
I'm
sorry.
E
I'm
thinking
about
the
the
lawsuit
around
the
chemical
contamination
of
the
aquaphor
in
fallon
is
that
there
was
a
movie
about
it,
but
that
I
mean
that
happens
regularly,
right
and
and
disproportionately
impacts
our
rural
communities
in
nevada,
sorry-
and
that
was
sarah
peters-
for
the
record.
F
Just
for
clarification,
are
you
referring
to
the
the
leukemia
outbreak
in
fallon
and
the
suspected
contaminants,
which
they
never
actually
showed
or
proved
just
for
clarification?
I
I
understand
what
you
said.
There
was
contamination
in
our
water.
We
certainly
know
from
the
mining
the
traditional
mining
out
of
dayton
and
and
the
carson
river
itself
with
the
mercury
and
other
chemicals,
whether
it's
from
natural
contamination
or
definitely
from
mining
in
those
days.
So
it
does
happen.
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
say.
F
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
did
understand
the
legislative
intent
that
we
clarified
this
language
and
because
it
is,
as
our
council
said,
it
is
new
language,
and
so
when
we
open
this
up
to
things
of
that
nature,
I
think
it's
important
that
we
get
the
legislative,
legislative
intent
on
the
record.
So
thank
you
for
the
questions,
chair
watson.
Thank
you.
Assemblywoman
peters,.
E
Thank
you
and,
and
simply
willing
to
theaters,
for
the
record
nevada
is
behind
in
defining
these.
There
are
states
that
have
had
definitions
for
communities
such
as
this
and
in
their
statutes,
since
the
1970s.
A
Thank
you
for
that
assembly
woman
and
we
look
forward
to
seeing
the
the
definition
outlined
in
the
conceptual
amendment
as
that.
As
your
work
on
that
continues,
I
believe
I
also
had
a
question
from
assemblywoman
cohen
vice
chair
cohen,.
B
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
assemblywoman
for
the
presentation,
so
I
wanted
to
go
back
to
septic
systems
in
section
four.
Why
are
we
exempting
them?
Because
what
yeah.
E
Assembly,
woman,
sarah
peters,
for
the
record,
they
are
an
issue
and
they
have
they
become
a
huge
issue
in
certain
areas.
However,
this
what
the
purpose
of
this
particular
piece
of
legislation
was
not
directed
towards
that
relationship
of
septic
septic
systems
and
drinking
water
systems.
There
is
legal,
like
standards
for
trespass
in
those
cases
also,
and
those
are
being
actively
litigated
in
some
areas
and
and
I
in
working
with
the
agency,
was
uncomfortable
with
trying
to
define
those
here
with
so
many
issues
occurring
around
those
areas
in
different
jurisdictions.
F
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
was
happy
that
my
colleague
brought
up
section
eight,
because
that
was
some
of
the
concerns
that
I
had
and
about
mining
and
the
discharge
and
what
they
do
is
they
bring
it
up
and
put
it
right
back
into
the
aquifer
as
clean
as
it
was
when
it
come
out
and
I'm
hoping
we
get
people
out
to
take
a
look
at
the
systems.
They
have.
It's
it.
C
But
yet
there's
a
large
subdivision
of
partials
out
there
like,
like
you,
know
mobile
homes
and
and
they
have
all
these
septic
tanks,
so
say:
there's
a
thousand
homes
out
in
an
area
and
and
they're
all
into
you
know
septic
systems,
but
eventually
it
leaches
back
in
it
goes
into
the
water
and
then
maybe
go
into
a
creek
or
river.
E
Assemblywoman
peters
for
the
record,
because
we
exempt
actively
exempt
them
from
section
four,
which
is
the
regulatory
development.
G
Thank
you
chair.
What's
alan
ambron
for
the
record,
so
just
walking
through
the
bill
currently
without
the
exemption
in
section
four,
there
could
be
an
argument
made
that
that
could
potentially
apply
to
sex
systems,
but
septic
systems
are
proposed
to
be
exempted
in
the
conceptual
amendment
from
section
4.,
there
might
be
other
places
in
the
bill
that
could
potentially
apply
to
septic
systems.
C
A
Thank
you,
mr
ellison.
Are
there
any
other
questions
from
members
on
this
bill.
A
Right,
seeing
none
thank
you
for
the
presentation
with
that.
We
will
move
on
to
testimony
we'll
start
with
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
146.
As
a
reminder,
in
order
to
provide
testimony,
you
must
register
in
advance
on
the
legislative
website
where
you'll
be
provided
with
call-in
information,
we're
asking
that
testifiers
limit
their
comments
to
two
minutes
and
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
our
broadcast
and
production
services
to
see
if
we
have
anyone
in
the
queue
exam
testimony
in
support
of
assembly,
bill
146.
I
J
J
The
state
has
a
responsibility
to
protect
the
quality
of
nevada's
water,
to
ensure
that
all
nevadans
have
clean
water
to
drink
now
and
in
the
future.
According
to
the
nevada
division
of
environmental
protection,
non-point
source
pollution
is
the
leading
cause
of
water
quality
impairments
in
our
state.
Yet
the
state
currently
does
not
have
all
the
tools
it
needs
to
address
the
source
of
pollution,
ab143
146.
Sorry
attempts
to
give
our
state
agencies
all
the
tools
they
need
to
protect
and
improve
water
quality
by
regulating
diffused
sources
of
pollution
and
by
holding
polluters
accountable.
J
Ab146
would
also
require
the
state
environmental
commission
to
consider
disproportionate
impacts
on
historically
oppressed
or
marginalized
communities
when
adopting
water
quality
regulations.
This
would
ensure
that
water
quality
benefits
and
improvements
are
shared
by
all
nevadans
and
that
no
community
is
unfairly
subjected
to
higher
pollution
levels
or
lower
water
quality.
J
People
in
communities
across
nevada
benefit
from
having
clean
water
to
drink
surplus
water
accounts
for
about
60
percent
of
the
state's
water
supply.
Reducing
pollution
from
non-point
sources
will
improve
water
quality
across
the
state,
resulting
in
cleaner
drinking
water,
lower
water
treatment
costs
and
safer
water
for
outdoor
recreation
activities.
J
I
K
N-E-E-N-A-L-A-X-A-L-T
speaking
on
behalf
of
jeff
fontaine
and
the
central
nevada,
regional
water
authority
and
the
humboldt
river
water
authority-
and
we
appreciate
assemblywoman
peters
working
with
all
the
stakeholders
and
she
making
some
changes
to
her
original
legislation
on
8146
and
believe
that
her
conceptual
amendment
gets
us
closer
to
meeting
the
goal
of
effectively
addressing
non-point
source
diffuse
pollution.
K
However,
without
more
detailed
language
on
how
maximum
daily
load
standards
would
be
developed
and
implemented,
they
are
exposed
to
ab146.
It
is
important
for
water
users
in
cnrwa
and
hrbwa,
so
that
central
nevada,
regional
water
authority
and
humboldt
river
basin
water
authority,
nine
members,
nine
member
counties
to
understand
the
proposed
changes
and
possible
impacts.
K
I
L
Yes,
my
name
is
wade
paulson,
I
am
the
general
manager
of
lincoln
county
water
district.
My
name
is
spelled
w-a-d-e
p-o-u-l-s-e-n
I'd
like
to
thank
the
chair
in
this
committee
for
allowing
us
to
provide
comments
in
opposition
to
ab146
linc
county
water
district
is
opposed
to
av-146
as
currently
written,
but
we
support
the
idea
of
addressing
diffuse,
as
the
current
conceptual
amendment
gets
us
closer
to
supporting.
L
We
support
the
language
and
idea
to
exempt
agriculture
and
septic
systems
from
regulation
of
diffuse
that
we
consider
to
be
currently
unmeasurable
and
crippling
financially
to
those
that
choose
to
make
their
living
off
the
land.
Agriculture
is
important
to
lincoln
county
economically
and
we
look
forward
to
increasing
agricultural
growth
within
our
county
again
lincoln
county
water
district
can
support
any
program
or
policy
that
becomes
a
voluntary
program
through
incentives,
but
opposes
any
language
that
will
become
all-encompassing
regulation.
I
L
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
stephen
parrish
n
s-t-e-v-e-n-p-a
good
afternoon,
chairman
watts,
members
of
the
committee,
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
this
afternoon.
I'm
the
general
manager
and
the
chief
engineer
of
the
clark
county
regional
flood
control
district
located
in
southern
nevada.
We
reviewed
ab146
and
wrote
a
letter
to
assemblywoman
peters,
expressing
opposition
to
sections
2,
3,
10
and
11
of
this
bill.
Subsequently,
we've
been
in
communication
with
assemblywoman,
peters
and
she's,
presented
with
proposed
revisions
to
the
bill
that,
if
included
in
a
formal
amendment,
would
resolve
our
concerns.
L
Although
we
remain
in
opposition
to
this
legislation,
legislation
pending
the
amendment,
we
believe
we
will
be
able
to
revise
our
position
from
opposed
to
neutral
upon
review
of
the
amendment
once
submitted.
That
concludes
my
testimony
and
thank
you
for
your
service,
your
time
and
the
opportunity
to
speak
this
afternoon
on
this
proposed
legislation.
I
D
D
D
These
sources
come
from
bank
erosion
ag
and
urban
runoff,
climate
change
and
other
issues.
The
concern
we
have
with
the
bill
is
how
it
will
be
used.
An
example
has
to
do
with
section
10
1
on
page
8.,
the
current
beneficial
use
designation
for
the
upper
carson
river
is
cold
water
fishery
years
ago.
We
looked
at
ways
to
try
to
achieve
this
beneficial
use
for
cold
water
fishery,
but
found
it
very
difficult.
D
D
D
Unlike
the
truckee
river,
we
have
very
limited
upstream
storage
in
the
carson
river
that
could
augment
river
flows.
We
looked
at
the
possibility
of
purchasing
some
ag
rights
to
be
dedicated
for
in-stream
flows.
However,
we
found
out
that
there
was
nothing
to
get
enough
water
to
maintain
adequate
flows
and
dry
years
would
require
drying
up
all
the
agriculture
in
carson
valley.
A
So
if
you
can,
please
begin
to
wrap
up
your
testimony.
D
I
J
J
However,
following
our
conversation
with
the
bill
sponsor
our
understanding
is
that
ab-146
is
not
intended
to
create
a
new
program
with
additional
mandated
regulations
that
would
impact
local
governments,
but
rather
give
ndep
broader
discretion
to
look
at
ways
to
improve
water
quality
across
the
state
and
to
spur
innovation
in
the
field.
We
appreciate
the
bill,
sponsor's
vision
for
improved
water
quality
and
her
willingness
to
continue
to
work
with
us
to
refine
the
language
in
the
amendment.
We
really
look
forward
to
those
discussions,
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
provide
testimony
this
afternoon.
I
M
Today
we
are
concerned
about
the
broad
nature
as
written
and
how
this
bill
would
potentially
interact
with
the
many
state
and
federal
water
programs,
including
the
safe
water
drinking
act,
the
clean
water
act
and
the
nevada,
water,
nevada,
water
pollution
control
law.
We
feel
this
bill
fails
to
recognize
nevada's
long-standing
requirement
concerning
anti-degradation
of
groundwater,
and
we
are
concerned
about
how
this
proposed
legislation
would
fit
in
context
of
other
ndep
programs
such
as
mining.
For
these
reasons,
we
are
in
opposition.
Thank
you.
I
N
H-A-R-R-I-S-O-N
representing
clark
county,
although
we
are
appearing
today
in
opposition
due
to
the
current
version
of
the
bill,
we
would
like
to
thank
assemblywoman
peters
for
the
work
she's
done
with
our
southern
nevada
dischargers,
who
will
be
testifying
in
neutral.
As
those
concerns
have
been
mitigated.
N
However,
we
will-
or
we
would
like
to
echo
the
comments
of
mr
steve
parish
from
the
regional
flood
control
district
and
echo
his
comments
as
an
ms4
permittee
in
southern
nevada.
We
still
do
have
some
technical
issues
with
the
current
version
of
the
bill,
but
hope
to
continue
to
work
through
regional
flood
control
and
with
assembly
and
peers
to
mitigate
those
those
concerns
and
eventually.
A
I
I
I
I
A
I
I
M
For
the
record,
my
name
is
doug
busselman
d-o-u-g
b-u-s-s-e-l-m,
I'm
the
executive
vice
president
of
nevada
farm
bureau.
We
are
testifying
today
in
neutral
on
ab-146,
with
the
understanding
that
we
are
basing
this
position
on
the
conceptual
amendments
that
assemblywoman
peters
has
proposed.
We
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
peters
for
her
willingness
for
us
to
participate
in
an
exchange
of
ideas
and
arriving
where
we
believe
that
we
now
are
on
ab146.
M
Prior
to
her
sharing
her
conceptual
amendment.
We
would
not
have
been
able
to
testify
neutral
nevada.
Farm
bureau
has
strong
policy
in
favor
of
dealing
with
diffuse
or,
in
our
terms,
non-point
source
impairments
of
water
quality,
with
voluntary
incentive-based,
best
management
practices
being
what
should
be
used.
M
M
A
Thank
you,
mr
bustleman,
for
your
comments.
We'll
continue
with
callers
in
the
queue.
I
do
want
to
note
that
the
division
of
environmental
protection
is
joining
us
by
zoom,
but
we'll
start
with
anybody
else
on
the
phones
that
wishes
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position
on
ab146.
I
O
O
So
any
potential
regulation
on
diffuse
sources
associated
with
ag
and
the
recharge
that
that
provides
would
be
of
concern,
and
we
we
look
forward
to
working
working
through
those
issues
and
just
to
pile
on
doug's
comments
if
it
was
voluntary
incentive
programs.
We
would
be
in
support
of
that.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
N
D-A-N-I-E-L-F-I-S-C-H-E-R,
I'm
the
deputy
general
manager
of
the
clark
county,
water
reclamation,
district,
chair
watts
and
assembly
natural
resources
committee
members.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
on
ab-146
the
clark
county
water
reclamation
district
collects
and
treats
100
million
gallons
of
wastewater
per
day
and
returns
most
of
the
resulting
reclaimed
water
to
lake
mead
by
way
of
the
las
vegas
wash
in
doing
so,
we
prevent
300
tons
of
pollutants
per
day
from
reaching
the
environment
in
collaboration
with
the
other
three
major
dischargers
wastewater
treatment
agencies
in
southern
nevada.
N
A
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
We'll
move
on
to
the
next
person
wishing
to
provide
neutral
testimony
on
av-146.
I
J
Thank
you
so
much
good
afternoon,
chairman
watts
and
members
of
the
committee.
I
am
jennifer
ott
j-e-n-n-I-f-e-r-o-t-t,
director
of
the
nevada
department
of
agriculture
and
I'm
calling
today
to
testify
in
neutral
on
ab-146.
J
J
Although
the
department's
role
is
relatively
minor
compared
to
the
division
of
environmental
protection,
who
you'll
still
hear
from,
I
appreciate
the
assembly
woman's
comments
on
introduction
regarding
non-point
source
pollution
and
her
work
on
the
conceptual
amendment
will
continue
to
be
available
to
assist
with
any
language
that
will
affect
our
responsibilities
and
the
areas
we
regulate.
Thank
you
chairman.
That
concludes
my
comments.
A
I
N
Chairman
watts,
this
is
alan
biaggi,
with
the
nevada
mining
association.
I
had
signed
up
in
the
opposition,
but
was
not
called.
May
I
provide
my
testimony
at
this
time.
A
N
A-L-L-E-N-B-I-A-G-G-I
and
I
represent
the
nevada
mining
association
to
begin.
The
association
would
like
to
thank
assemblywoman
peters
for
her
commitment
to
preserving
nevada's
surface
and
groundwater.
We
share
those
values
and
the
industry
works
very
hard
to
protect
our
precious
water
resources.
While
we
are
not
in
support
of
the
bill
at
this
time.
We
greatly
appreciate
the
conceptual
amendments
assemblywoman
peters
has
put
forward.
N
Existing
pollution
controls
must
remain
strong
and
we
must
ensure
provisions
of
ab-146
do
not
unnecessarily
complicate
those
efforts
or
work
in
opposition
to
the
federal
clean
water
act,
the
safe
drinking
water
act
or
nevada's,
very
strong
out
of
water
pollution
control
law.
We
are
committed
to
working
with
assembly,
one
peters,
to
better
understand
the
provisions
of
146,
illuminate
eliminate
duplication
and
identify
ways
to
ensure
nevada's,
surface
and
groundwaters
are
protected.
Thank
you.
I
I
N
Yes,
my
name
is
steve
walker,
s-t-d-e-w-a-l-k-e-r,
I'm
in
the
same
position
as
mr
biafi.
I
tried
to
testify
against
the
bill
and
with
co
excuse
me
was
cut
off.
I'm
representing
eureka
county
on
the
bill.
Yuca
county
has
also
been
working
with
assembly,
moment
peters
and
were
pleased
with
the
results
of
the
conceptual
amendment
we
would
stay.
We
would
look
for
the
formal
amendment
before
we
would
move
to
neutral,
but
we
think
we're
heading
in
the
right
direction.
N
We'd
also
like
to
support
we'd
like
to
of
course
say
what's
going
on
with
the
mts
provisions
with
this
state
right
now
seem
to
be
working
and
echoing
mr
biaggi's
statement.
I
think
that
the
build
is
duplicate
of
a
lot
of
those
efforts
and
we
support
the
ongoing
efforts
and
maybe
if
they
would
be
enhanced,
we
would
not
need
the
bill.
Thank
you.
A
H
Thank
you
very
much
chairman
watts,
good
afternoon
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
jennifer
carr,
deputy
administrator
of
the
nevada
division
of
environmental
protection
or
ndep,
and
I'm
testifying
as
neutral
on
ab146
ab146
directs
changes
to
several
event.
Eps
water
quality
programs
ndp
identified
concerns
with
the
original
bill,
and
we
appreciate
the
assembly
woman's
work
on
her
conceptual
amendment.
To
resolve
many
of
our
concerns.
However,
we
do
still
have
some
remaining
concerns
and
questions.
A
primary
concern
is
to
protect
nevada's
federal
funding
for
our
non-point
source
program.
H
The
funding
is
leveraged
at
over
two
times:
the
million
dollars
we
receive
annually
from
the
us
epa
and
goes
on
to
important
stream
protection
and
restoration
projects.
This
federal
funding
is
contingent
upon
a
non-regulatory
program.
The
conceptual
amendment
to
remove
requirements
to
establish
a
new
program
alleviates
some
of
this
concern.
However,
if
the
bill
retains
establishment
of
numeric
limits
or
shifts
to
a
total
maximum
daily
load
type
program,
it
could
still
result
in
permit
limits
or
regulatory
controls
resulting
in
the
unintended
consequence
of
being
interpreted
as
a
regulatory
program.
H
Disqualifying
nevada
from
using
some
of
these
federal
funds
ndp
also
had
concerns
relating
to
managing
domestic
wastewater,
such
as
septic
systems
or
municipal
treatment
plants
that
are
inherently
a
quote-unquote
contaminated
fluid.
The
conceptual
amendment
proposes
to
exempt
septic
systems
from
the
new
provisions,
but
this
may
swing
too
far
in
the
other
direction.
H
H
Finally,
ndp
is
encouraged
by
conceptual
amendments
to
add
new
detail
to
the
concepts
of
protecting
disproportionate
impacts
and
historically
oppressed
and
marginalized
communities.
Ndep
seeks
more
specifics
on
these
terms
to
set
clear
expectations
for
program
implementation
and
to
assess
resources
needed
if
they
continue
to
be
included.
H
H
Ndep
is
available
to
work
through
amendment
language,
the
expansion
of
water
quality
protection
concepts
in
this
bill
are
interwoven
with
several
areas
of
existing
laws.
You've
heard
this
afternoon
and
they
create
complexities
which
ndkp
can
help
explain.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
We
will
submit
a
more
detailed
testimony
in
writing
for
consideration.
Thank
you.
A
E
Thank
you,
chair
watts,
assembly,
woman,
sarah
peters,
for
the
record.
I
just
want
to
direct
the
committee's
attention
to
the
variety
of
jurisdictions
that
testified
today.
All
of
those
jurisdictions
are
involved
in
water
treatment
and
management
in
state
of
nevada.
This
is
a
very
complex
area
and
it
touches
everybody
that
is
part
of
the
importance
of
being
able
to
talk
about
and
look
towards
solutions
for
these
kinds
of
dynamic
issues
that
that
that
our
state
has
to
deal
with.
E
Additionally,
everyone
who
testified
in
opposition
has
highlighted
the
cost
of
treating
to
drinking
water
standards
and
that
it's
prohibitive,
let
that
sink
in
it
is.
It
is
also
important
to
identify
that
all
of
those
who
have
spoken
today
have
the
same
goals
to
keep
nevada
waters
clean
and
accessible
to
nevadans
for
all
uses
in
perpetuity.
E
Additionally,
I
would
like
to
thank
the
stakeholders,
who've
reached
out
and
offered
comments
and
worked
with
me
through
the
last
couple
of
weeks,
as
we
tried
to
get
somewhere
amicable
in
this
bow.
I
also
want
to
extend
a
great
thanks
to
the
staff,
mr
amburn
and
mr
steinsbeck,
who
have
helped
me
immensely
in
developing
the
conceptual
amendments
and
and
the
testimony
for
this
this
committee.
E
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation
of
this
bill
and
for
your
work.
I
believe
that
it
comes
through
in
the
testimony
that
was
provided
and
we
look
forward
to
seeing
the
results
of
those
continued
conversations
and
and
potential
development
of
additional
amendment
language.
Moving
forward
with
that,
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
146,
and
I
would
actually
like
to
move
our
agenda
around
briefly
and
go
to
our
work
sessions
now
that
we
have
all
members
present.
So
with
that
we
will
move
to
our
work
session.
A
We
have
two
bills
up
for
work
session.
Today.
First,
we
have
assembly
bill
89,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
wildlife,
and
I
will,
as
as
usual,
with
work
sessions.
We
are
not
reopening
the
hearing
on
the
bill,
but
we
do
have
some
folks
that
may
be
able
to
clarify
any
questions
that
arise
with
that.
Mr
stenisbeck,
will
you
please
walk
us
through
the
work
session
for
assembly
bill
89.
P
P
The
bill
authorized
support
of
wildlife
commissioners
of
the
department
of
wildlife
to
establish
a
program
which
authorizes
any
person
to
transfer
his
or
her
big
game
tag
to
a
qualify
organization
for
use
by
a
person
who
is
16
years
or
younger
and
who
is
otherwise
eligible
to
hunt
or
who
has
a
disability
or
life-threatening
medical
condition
and
kyle
davis.
On
behalf
of
the
coalition
for
nevada
wildlife
proposed
an
amendment
which
makes
the
following
changes.
P
It
provides
that
a
qualifier
organization
is
a
non-profit
organization
that
demonstrates
in
its
applicable
application,
among
other
things,
that
it
first
provides
opportunities
to
engage
in
various
experiences
to
a
person
who
has
disability
life
through
medical
condition
or,
secondly,
provides
opportunities
to
engage
in
various
experiences
to
a
person
who
is
16
years
or
younger.
And
lastly,
the
amendment
also
provides
that
extended
circumstances
does
include
death
and
behind
the
build
pitch
you'll
find
mr
davis
propulsivement.
A
E
C
N
A
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
That
motion
carries
unanimously
and
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to
assemblywoman
titus.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Thank
you
with
that.
We'll
move
on
to
the
second
item
on
our
work
session
for
today,
and
that
is
assembly
bill
103,
which
revises
provisions
governing
the
preservation
of
certain
prehistoric
sites.
P
Thank
you
chair
for
the
record
john
cena's,
back
sunrise,
103
was
certain
committee
also
march
8th,
and
the
bill
provides
provisions
linked
to
permits
to
excavate
on
private
lands
that
are
known
to
contain
prehistoric
and
umbrella
sites.
Specifically,
this
bill
provides
that
such
a
permit
is
not
required
to
engage
in
certain
lawful
activities.
P
A
Thank
you,
mr
stennis
back
I'd,
also
just
like
to
before
we
go
into
any
additional
questions
or
discussion.
Note
that
we
did
receive
after
the
hearing
a
couple
of
letters
and
some
proposals
from
the
division
of
museums
in
history.
Again
they
did
not
participate
in
the
hearing
or
reach
out.
We
did
not
get
these
documents
until
yesterday
and
the
main
issue
was
a
lack
of
clarity
around
the
use
of
the
word
known
in
the
proposed
additional
language.
A
So
I
know
we
have
miss
mcdade
williams
here,
as
well
as
assemblywoman
martinez,
the
the
sponsor
of
the
bill,
and
so
I'd
just
like
to
ask
again
if
you
can
clarify
your
intent,
which
is
that
the
use
of
the
word
known
in
the
new
language
in
the
bill
is
referencing.
The
existing
statute,
in
with
seen
in
section
1,
subsection
1
and
is
not
intended
to
create
any
new
standard
outside
of
currently
existing
law.
A
A
Seeing
none,
I
would
accept
an
motion
to
do
pass
removed.
Q
J
O
N
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
all
for
that.
Now
we
will
move
back
to
the
last
major
item
on
our
agenda
for
today,
which
is
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
148.
A
E
Thank
you,
chair
watts,
and
members
of
this
assembly
committee
on
natural
resources.
I
am
putting
you
through
a
lot
today
with
both
water
and
mining
on
the
agenda.
So
thanks
for
hanging
in
there
with
me
for
the
record,
I
am
sarah
peters
representing
assembly
district
24
in
washoe
county.
It's
my
pleasure
to
present
assembly
bill
148,
which
revises
provisions
governing
permits
to
engage
in
an
exploration
project
or
mining
operation.
E
E
However,
the
bill
authorizes
the
issuance
of
such
a
per
permit
if
the
applicant
pays
the
full
amount
of
the
defaulted
obligation
and
demonstrates
that
the
conditions
which
led
to
the
default
have
been
remedied
and
no
longer
exist.
E
Before
I
go
into
the
amendment,
I
want
to
acknowledge
that
I
sent
out
the
wrong
amendment
to
some
folks.
Some
of
the
stakeholders
was
my
fault,
so
they
received
an
inaccurate
amendment.
I
did
send
out
the
amendment
you
all
received
with
some
remedy
discussion
about
the
difference
between
the
two,
but
I
think
that
that
will
be
reflected
in
the
testimony
that
you'll
hear
today
on
this
bill.
E
As
previously
mentioned,
you
should
all
have
access
to
the
proposed
amendment
on
nellis,
among
other
things
and
amen.
The
amendment
seeks
to
clarify
provisions
to
further
strengthen
the
protections
provided
in
the
bill.
The
proposed
amendment
to
science
person
defines
person
with
a
controlling
interest
to
mean
a
person
who
controls
sorry
owns
or
controls
a
majority
of
the
voting
stock
or
holds
any
other
controlling
interest
directly
or
indirectly
in
the
corporation
or
other
business
entity.
That
gives
the
person
the
power
to
direct
management
or
determine
policy
or
is
a
partner,
principal
officer
director
or
trustee.
E
Again,
I
want
to
point
out
that
I've
been
working
extensively
with
stakeholders
on
this
bill,
working
with
ndep
on
ensuring
that
we
are,
we
are
defining
accurately
and
giving
enough
information
to
ndp
for
them
to
feel
comfortable
and
in
the
application
of
this
piece
of
legislation
and
working
with
the
mining
industry
and
exploration
folks
on
their
comfort
level
of
who
is
dis,
defined
as
a
potential
bad
actor
or
not.
E
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
there
are
other
states
that
have
adopted
this
type
of
legislation
and
the
point
of
the
prohibition
against
being
issued
a
permit,
if
you
are
not
in
good
standing
with
other
permits,
is
related
to
reciprocity
for
our
state
with
other
states
that
have
similar
legislation,
and
with
that
I'm
open
to
any
questions.
The
committee
may
have.
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
for
bringing
this
forward.
I,
as
everyone
knows
I
in
my
backyard,
actually
it's
in
my
front
yard.
We
have
the
anaconda
pit
and
when
those
folks
left,
they
walked
away
and
left
this
hole
and
we've
been
spending
decades
trying
to
figure
out
who
owns
it
and
who's
going
to
fix
it.
So
conceptually
I
am
all
about
going
after
bad
actors.
F
My
question
on
the
bill
is:
who
will
maintain?
Is
there
already
some
sort
of
database
on
who
has
defaulted?
Who's
walked
away.
How
will
they
find
it?
Will
the
department
have
to
run
background
checks
on
folks,
and
where
is
this
information
available
number
one
number
two:
how
long
does
it
take
to
get
something
will
delay
an
application
by
a
year
by
two
years
by
three
years.
Number
two
question
number
three
question
is
once
they
find
it
then
they'll
retract
their.
If
they
had
issued
it,
it
will
hold
up
issuance
of
the
of
the
permits.
E
Excellent
questions:
assemblywoman
peters,
for
the
record,
in
working
with
legal
staff
and
ndep.
Today
we
discussed
that,
after
the
option
of
an
affidavit
that
goes
with
a
permit
from
the
corporation
saying
that
they
are
in
good
standing
with
other
permits
and
that
they
have
not
defaulted
on
these
reclamation
obligations
in
other
states
and
other
jurisdictions.
E
The
state
of
nevada
does
have
a
rather
robust
database.
I
don't
know
database,
you
can
ask
ndp
about
that,
but
they
do
have
a
a
record
of
those
reclamation,
bonding
efforts
and
the
obligation
to
do
that
reclamation
on
all
mines
in
the
state
of
nevada.
So
we
have
that
information
for
the
state,
but
that
federal
peace
would,
I
think,
be
most
applicable
through
an
affidavit
process
with
some
kind
of
penalty
if
they
lie.
F
Right
I
appreciate
that
yeah,
absolutely
yeah,
you
don't
want
the
game
industry,
they
don't
give
you
a
permit
if
you're
a
bad
actor
in
gaming.
So
I
understand
that
I
just
wasn't
sure
how
all
that
was
going
to
work.
I
like
the
idea
of
an
affidavit
at
the
time,
application
that
you're
just
asking
hey
and
then
obviously
hey
if
you,
if
you
lied
on
this,
then
there's
consequence.
So
I
appreciate
that.
E
A
Thank
you,
I
believe
vice
chair
cohen,
has
a
question.
B
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
for
the
presentation.
I
have
a
question
about
forfeiting
the
surety
and-
and
maybe
this
is
my
lack
of
understanding
about
how
sureties
really
work,
but
if,
if
someone,
if,
if
a
company
forfeits
the
surety,
isn't
that
making
our
our
state
whole
and
if
so,
why
are
we
asking
them
to
to
continue.
B
E
Yes,
absolutely
thank
you
for
the
question.
Sarah
peters
for
the
record.
We've
actually
been
going
back
and
forth
with
ndp
on
this
issue
as
well,
and
I
I
want
to
offer
two
ideas
that
that
we've
been
discussing.
The
first
is
that
there
there
are
cases
in
which
a
a
project
becomes
non-solvent
right,
where
they
are
no
longer
making
enough
money
to
sustain
themselves
and
thereby
they
forfeit
the
surety,
because
they
can't
pay
for
the
reclamation
themselves
right
and
that's
part
of
why
we
have
those
bonds
in
place
in
the
first
place.
E
The
second
is
just
walking
away,
and
there
are.
That
would
be
the
case
of
a
bad
actor.
Additionally,
the
obligation
of
of
proving
that.
Thus
the.
E
I'm
gonna
look
for
the
specific
language,
so
I
give
you
what
what
it
says.
The
demonstration
to
the
division,
that
any
conditions
which
led
to
the
default
have
been
remedied
can
be
addressed
in
that
scenario
as
well.
So
if
the
default
company
that
that
just
did
couldn't
afford
to
do,
the
reclamation
of
their
project
was
able
to
prove
that
they
are
solvent
or
that
the
folks
who
have
moved
into
a
different
company
can
prove
that
the
company
that
they
work
with
now
is
solvent.
Then
I
think
they
meet
that
obligation.
E
The
second
one,
the
the
truth
walks
away
right
that
that's
a
different
scenario
that
they
would
have
to
demonstrate
to
the
different
conditions
under
which
they
walked
away
from
their
reclamation
obligation
that
the
pa,
the
state
ended
up
paying
for
through
that
surety
has
has
been
remedied,
and
I
think
that
that's
a
that's,
an
excessive
obligation
that
would
result
in
really
identifying
who
those
players
are.
A
Seeing
none,
I
do
have
a
brief
question:
do
you
know,
has
there
been
any
discussion
of
a
scenario
where
a
bad
actor
could
be
defined
by
their
health
and
safety
practices?
I
know
that
you
know
a
lot
of
that
falls
to
osha
essentially,
but
could
you
just
speak
to
that.
E
Yes,
thank
you,
sarah
peters,
for
the
record,
so
most
of
that
actually
falls
to
m
shaw
in
the
state
of
nevada,
which
has
had
more
significant
obligations
than
osha
does
and
more
specific
to
the
mining
industry.
I
did
not
put
into
this
that
provision
and
I'm
I'm
willing
to
entertain
it,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
germaness,
so
I
would
have
to
go
through
legal
for
that
one
and
it's
not
a
discussion
that
I've
had
with
stakeholders
on
this
issue
as
well.
I
think
you
know
yeah.
E
A
I
not
trying
to
add
potentially
problematic
elements
to
the
bill,
really
just
a
question
out
of
curiosity,
I
know
that
some
of
the
other
states
are
really
focused
on
obligations
for
cleanup
costs,
but
I
was
just
thinking
about
other
other
obligations
that
good
actors
in
a
sector
have,
and
one
of
those
is
to
their
to
protect
the
health
and
safety
of
their
employees.
So
thank
you
for
the
candid
answer
on
that.
I
believe
we
do
have
a
question
from
assemblyman
ellison.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
apologize,
I
I
did
type
in
and
must
win
to
the
wrong
area
again,
but
I
do
have
one
to
the
placenta.
C
You
know
in
in
my
area,
which
is
a
lot
of
minds
and
they're
big
gold
mines
and
they
pay
in
to
the
redoing
of
the
pits
and
stuff
the
ones
that
you're
talking
about.
How
old
is
these?
Because
if
you
got
anything
in
the
last
50
years
or
is
there
newer
ones
that
I
don't
know
about
like
the
smaller
ones
that
robin
was
talking
about
or
miss
titus?
So
I
just
haven't
seen
any
things
walked
away
from
in
my
areas
for
many
years.
Could
you
explain
that.
E
Lovely
woman
peters
for
the
record-
this
isn't
directed
at
any
individual
project
or
issue
that
is
identified
today.
There
are
historic
cases
and
recent
historic
cases
in
mostly
other
states,
in
which
case
this
has
become
a
problem
for
those
communities
who
are
left
behind.
With
the
burden
of
that
reclamation,
state
of
nevada
has
been
pretty
active
in
ensuring
that
reclamation
and
environmental
stewardship
is
a
huge
component
of
the
mining
industry
and
their
obligation
to
the
state.
E
But
this
is
an
additional
prohibition
on
the
industry.
Players
who
may
choose
to
attempt
to
abuse
loopholes
in
our
programs
and
gain
monetary
values
for
stakeholders
that
are
are
not
in
the
best
interests
of
our
communities.
C
Yeah,
thank
you
and-
and
I
know
that
the
minds
are
probably
the
the
best
stewards
there
ever
was
the
the
county
now
and
as
far
as
I've
been
around
they've
been
really
good.
They
pay
into
the
system,
but
you're
going
to
go
back
and
and
try
to
find
the
ones
that
haven't
and
make
them
be
responsible
is.
Is
that
correct.
E
E
That
would
be
up
to
ndep
if
they
would
like
to
create
a
list
of
players
who
have
forfeited
their
sureties
in
the
past,
but
that
is
that
was
not
the
purpose
of
the.
A
Committee
all
right
seeing
none.
We
will
begin
we'll
open
up
testimony
on
assembly,
bill
148,
we'll
start
with
testimony
and
support,
and
I
will
turn
it
back
over
to
broadcast
production
services
to
see
if
we
have
anybody
in
the
queue
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill
148.
I
I
D
Hello,
this
is
this
is
john
hatter
members
of
the
committee
last
name,
hatter
h-a-d-d-e-r.
D
D
Modern
mining
is
generally
a
very
destructive
activity
to
the
environment,
which
means
that
the
permitting
process
needs
to
be
done
carefully
and
judiciously.
One
of
the
most
important
aspects
of
the
permitting
process
is
the
plan
for
reclamation
area,
so
that
one
day
it
can
be
returned
to
a
post-mining
use.
There
are
good
examples
of
reclamation
nevada
and
there
have
been
mines
that
have
been
abandoned
or
poorly
run,
leaving
behind
a
mess
for
the
public
to
pay
for
and
try
to
clean
up.
D
Ab148
complements
our
existing
regulations
to
decrease
the
number
of
minds
that
will
be
poorly
run
and
identify
identifying
what
are
called
bad
actors.
Great
bass
and
resource
watch
supports
the
amended
language
that
the
company
needs
to
be
in
good
standing
in
both
reclamation
and
other
mining
regulations
in
order
to
cite
a
new
mining
operation
or
permit
the
expansion
of
an
existing
operation.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
this
opportunity
to
prevent
comment.
A
I
J
Similar
legislation
recently
passed
in
colorado
and
montana
has
had
this
in
place
since
1989,
which
they
again
updated.
The
law
in
2001.,
the
most
well-known
application
of
this
law
was
in
response
to
a
company
called
pegasus
gold
who,
in
1998,
was
bankrupt,
leaving
montana
settled,
with
over
35
million
cleanup
costs
for
abandoned
pollution.
J
Mining
contamination
have
long-term
impacts
to
the
health
of
nevadans,
particularly
women's
reproductive
health,
and
we
cannot
hold
mining
bad
actors
accountable.
It
is
public
funding
that
is
required
to
clean
them
up.
This
is
a
common-sense
policy
which
will
only
impact
bad
actors
who
disregard
their
legal
obligations,
and
we
urge
your
support.
I
Caller,
with
the
last
three
digits
783,
please
press
star
six
to
unmute.
You
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes
and
may
begin.
O
Thank
you,
hello,
chairman
watts,
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
brian.
Before
I
am
b
r,
I
a
n
last
name
b,
e,
f,
f,
evan,
frank,
o
r
t
is
in
tom.
I
am
the
director
of
the
sierra
club
in
nevada,
and
I
speak
today
on
behalf
of
the
club's
40
000
members
and
supporters
statewide
in
favor
of
ab148.
O
This
common
sense
bill
would
protect
nevada's
taxpayers
from
absorbing
unnecessary
cleanup
costs
incurred
by
known
defaulters.
It
would
help
protect
communities
near
mines
from
pollution
on
their
unnecessarily
left
by
irresponsible
mining
officers.
Finally,
ab148
would
increase
public
accountability
for
the
industry
and
incentivize
mining
officers
to
respect
environmental
laws
and
regulations.
O
I
would
also
like
to
support
and
amplify
the
statements
from
plan
just
previously
on
the
success
that
a
similar
bad
actor
bill
has
had
in
montana,
with
the
pegasus
company
and
encourage
all
of
you
to
vote
yes
on
ab148.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
the
record
susan
fisher,
s-u-s-a-n
f-I-s-h-e-r
with
mcdonald,
carano
speaking
on
in
favor
of
ab148
on
behalf
of
american
battery
technology
company,
which
is
working
in
tandem
with
lithium
america.
We
support
ab148
with
the
amendment
as
presented
today
and
appreciate
assemblywoman
peters
for
scrambling
to
get
us
the
correct
amendment
earlier
this
afternoon.
K
The
state
and
indepth
does
a
great
job
of
protecting
our
state
and
the
very
few
bad
actors
out
there
cast
a
poll
over
the
entire
industry.
For
that
reason,
american
battery
technology
company
supports
ab148
with
the
proposed
amendment
they
have
in
front
of
you
today
and
with
your
indulgence,
mr
chair,
I
would
like
to
also
state
that
the
board
and
membership
of
the
nevada
mineral
exploration
coalition
has
not
yet
had
a
chance
to
review
the
amendment
that
we
receive
today.
K
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
testimony,
ms
fisher
we'll
go
on
to
the
next
caller
in
support,
and
please
make
note
of
the
the
neutral
testimony
that
miss
fisher
referenced
in
at
the
end
of
her
remarks.
With
that
we'll
go
on
to
additional
testimony
in
support.
I
J
C-H-R-I-F-T-I-C-A-B-R-E-R-A,
I'm
the
policy
and
advocacy
director
for
the
nevada
conservation
league,
I'd
like
to
echo
the
comments
made
by
previous
speakers
from
great
basin
rebirth
watch
plan
and
the
sierra
club
ab148
will
protect
nevada's
environment
and
taxpayers
from
future
degradation
and
expensive
reclamation
by
holding
bad
actors
accountable,
and
we
urge
your
support.
Thank
you.
I
I
N
N
I
K
K
N-I-K-K-I-B-A-I-L-E-Y
hyphen
lundal
l-u-n-d-a-h-l,
and
I'm
here
today
representing
the
nevada
mining
association.
Thank
you
for
allowing
us
to
testify
on
ab148
and
thank
you
assemblywoman
peters,
for
working
with
us
on
the
bill
language.
The
association
at
this
time
is
in
opposition
to
the
bill.
We
have
not
had
time
to
properly
vet.
The
amendment
nevada
has
one
of
the
premier
mining
regulatory
programs
in
the
united
states
and
in
the
world.
It
is
not
in
the
best
interest
of
the
industry
to
allow
individuals
or
companies
with
poor
environmental
records
to
operate
in
the
state.
K
More
importantly,
having
these
kinds
of
individuals
operate
in
nevada
is
not
in
the
interest
of
human
health
or
our
unique
environment.
A
concern
we
had
with
the
language
was
who
is
subject
to
the
bill's
provision
and
the
role
they
had
in
corporate
or
operational
structure
of
a
mine
in
violation
of
environmental
reclamation
and
bonding
requirements.
K
We
feel
we
need
to
have
much
more
discussion
on
definition
of
person
with
controlling
interest.
This
definition
is
critical
to
fair
and
meaningful
legislation.
We
still
have
some
concerns
regarding
the
scope
of
violations
and
the
jurisdictions
where
they
occur.
We
will
continue
to
work
with
assemblyman
peters
on
those
issues,
with
an
eye
towards
achieving
language
that
is
equitable
and
achieves
the
goal
of
ensuring
regulatory
compliance
of
all
operators
in
nevada.
Thank
you.
I
A
Q
We
appreciate
the
intent
of
the
bill
to
prevent
issuance
of
a
mind
reclamation
permit
to
any
person
who
has
defaulted
on
reclamation
obligations.
We
have
identified
the
inflammation
implementation
concerns
with
the
bill
was
introduced,
and
we
are
still
reviewing
amendments
from
the
bill
sponsor
to
see.
If
our
concerns
have
been
addressed,
it
is
very
important
to
make
sure
we
have
specifically
defined
who
would
be
subject
to
the
prohibition
on
issuance
of
a
permit.
The
bills
introduced
refers
to
principal
officers.
Q
Q
Portions
of
the
bill
allow
ndep
to
issue
a
permit
if
the
reclamation
obligations
defaulted
on
are
remedied
by
the
person.
This
goes
to
assemblywoman
cohen's
question
earlier,
since
ndep
does
not
issue
a
reclamation
permit,
until
financial
assurance
for
reclamation
is
secured,
we
have
a
hard
time
envisioning
a
scenario
under
which
the
person
could
remedy
a
default.
Q
If
an
operator
does
not
reclaim
the
export
exploration
or
mine
project,
either
the
bond
company
would
perform
reclamation,
work
or
ndep
would
forfeit
the
bond
and
perform
the
work.
So
we
are
not
sure
how
the
person
who
defaulted
could
remedy
the
default
as
introduced.
Ndp
has
not
identified
a
fiscal
impact
with
the
understanding
that
ndep
could
rely
on
affidavits
rather
than
performing
background
searches.
We
are
available
for
further
discussions
to
clarify
built
language
and
I
am
available,
along
with
our
mining
bureau
chief
amy
keys,
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
A
E
E
A
A
We
do
ask
that
all
commenters
limit
their
remarks
to
two
minutes,
and
this
is
to
comment
on
other
matters
not
related
to
the
items
on
our
agenda
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
broadcast
production
services
once
more
to
see
if
we
have
anybody
in
the
queue
wishing
to
provide
public
comment.
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
broadcast
production
services
for
helping
ensure
that
members
of
the
public
could
participate
in
our
meeting
today.
Thank
you
to
everyone
who
called
in
and
participated
to
all
the
members
for
your
time,
attention
and
questions
with
that.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
on
monday,
the
22nd
of
march
at
4
p.m,
and
with
that
this
meeting
is
adjourned.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr.