►
From YouTube: 3/22/2021 - 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
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
happy
world
water
day
and
second
day
or
third
day
of
spring
I'd
like
to
call
the
this
meeting
of
the
assembly
committee
on
natural
resources
to
order.
Madam
secretary,
would
you
please
call
the
rule.
C
A
And
I
am
here,
thank
you,
please
mark
assemblywoman,
carlton
and
assemblyman
ellison
present
as
they
arrive.
I
will
be
sure
to
keep
an
eye
out
for
them.
They
are
busy
in
another
committee
at
the
moment,
but
we'll
be
here
as
soon
as
they
can
with
that
we
have
a
quorum
before
we
get
started
I'll
go
through
a
few
housekeeping
items
as
usual
members,
if
you
can
please
keep
your
microphones
needed
when
you're,
not
speaking,
that,
helps
us
keep
down
background
noise
for
members
of
the
public.
A
There
are
a
range
of
ways
that
you
can
participate
in
our
meetings.
Information
on
how
you
can
participate
can
be
found
on
every
meeting
agenda
for
our
committee,
as
well
as
the
help
page
at
the
nevada
legislature's
website.
You
can
find
a
link
to
the
help
page
in
a
header
at
the
top
of
every
page.
At
that
website,
people
must
register
in
advance
to
participate
and
you
can
submit
opinion
polls
or
call
in
via
phone.
A
You
can
also
send
written
comments
to
our
committee
manager's
email
address
before
during
or
up
to
48
hours
after
the
meeting
and
again
that
can
be
found
on
our
website
or
on
a
committee
agenda.
Exhibits
and
amendments
must
be
submitted
electronically
in
pdf
form
to
our
committee
manager
no
later
than
4
pm
on
the
business
day.
Prior
to
the
meeting.
Amendments
must
include
the
bill
number,
a
statement
of
intent
and
contact
information.
A
All
exhibits
can
be
found
on
the
nevada
legislature's
website,
where
you
can
also
sign
up
for
our
personalized
legislative
tracking
service,
and
we
ask
that
all
public
comments
and
testimony
be
limited
to
two
minutes
so
that
we
can
accommodate
speakers
and
get
through
our
agenda
in
a
timely
manner.
With
that.
A
A
E
D
A
We
also
have
a
work
session
on
our
agenda
today,
but
I
will
hold
off
on
that
until
the
rest
of
our
members
are
able
to
join
us
briefly.
Just
so,
you
know
we
have
two
bills
on
the
agenda
today,
as
well
as
that
work
session.
A
We're
gonna
see
how
how
time
is
going
and
determine
if
we
can
hear
ajr5
as
well.
I
know
that
there's
going
to
be
a
decent
amount
of
conversation
on
ab240,
so
I
just
wanted
to
give
everybody
a
heads
up
of
what
we're
kind
of
thinking
moving
forward
and
as
we
are
continuing
to
wait
on
our
other
members,
I
think
at
this
point
I
will
turn
the
gavel
over
to
vice
chair
cohen,
and
then
we
can
begin
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
240
after
that.
F
Thank
you
chair.
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
ab240,
which
revises
provisions
governing
mining
and
with
that
chair,
please
go
ahead
with
your
presentation.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Madame
vice
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
I
am
howard
watts
representing
assembly
district
15
in
clark
county,
and
I
am
glad
to
present
assembly
bill
240
for
your
consideration
today.
While
this
bill
is
a
bit
lengthy,
the
intent
is
fairly
simple.
Assembly
bill
240
looks
to
streamline
state
government
by
consolidating
five
entered
agencies
that
have
some
role
in
the
environmental
oversight
of
mining
to
two
agencies.
A
We've
got
msha
the
mining
safety
and
health
administration,
which
is
focused
on
health
and
safety
issues.
Taxation
handles
revenue
issues,
the
division
of
environmental
protection
and
the
state
environmental
commission,
handle
regulations
and
enforcement
for
a
range
of
environmental
issues,
including
reclamation
and
air
and
water
quality.
A
Meanwhile,
the
mining
oversight
and
accountability
commission
was
designed
to
try
and
consolidate
all
of
the
information
from
these
other
agencies
into
one
place
to
provide
a
holistic
view
on
the
industry's
compliance,
as
well
as
a
forum
where
the
public
could
raise
issues
under
ab240.
The
state
would
house
all
of
the
permitting
and
environmental
regulations
for
minerals
in
one
place.
So
members
of
the
public
know
where
to
go.
It
would
also
separate
out
the
advocacy
and
economic
development
responsibilities
for
many
regulatory
responsibilities.
A
Before
I
move
forward,
I
want
to
be
clear
about
what
this
bill
is
not
intended
to
do.
It
is
not
seeking
to
disparage
or
halt
the
mining
industry
in
any
way.
It's
not
intended
to
increase
or
decrease
existing
regulations
or
to
imply
that
any
previous
decisions
that
have
been
made
in
regulation
or
permitting
were
somehow
improper.
A
I
believe
that,
instead,
what
this
proposal
can
do
is
provide
some
efficiencies
and
reassure
the
public
that
nevada
has
the
gold
standard
in
mining
regulation
and
for
the
members
of
the
committee
and
the
public.
That
is
an
intended
pun
with
that.
I'd
like
to
briefly
go
over
each
of
the
entities
that
are
being
addressed
in
this
bill.
A
First,
is
the
commission
on
mineral
resources,
as
created
in
1983,
is
made
up
of
seven
members
appointed
by
the
governor.
Six
of
those
members
must
have
direct
experience
in
the
mining
industry,
including
exploration,
large-scale
mining,
oil
and
gas,
small
scale,
mining
and
geothermal
energy
production,
they're,
charged
with
keeping
informed
with
minerals
policy,
making
recommendations
on
such
policy
and
adopting
the
regulations
for
programs
housed
within
their
purview,
which,
as
I
mentioned,
include
oil
and
gas,
abandoned
mine,
land
reclamation
among
others.
A
Those
programs
include:
recording
mining
claims,
managing
the
reclamation
bond
pool
and
identifying
and
securing
legacy
abandoned
mine
lands.
It
also
includes
permitting
and
environmental
compliance
for
oil
and
gas,
including
fracking,
and
the
plugging
of
abandoned
wells,
geothermal
energy
and
in
collaboration
with
ndp
dissolved
mineral
resources.
A
I
believe
the
activities
to
encourage
and
support
the
industry
are
best
left
to
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development,
which
has
played
a
supportive
role
in
these
endeavors,
and,
I
think,
will
continue
to
do
so,
and
education
could
be
handled
by
entities
such
as
our
state
geological
survey,
the
mckay
school
at
unr
and
the
nevada
mining
association,
which
I
believe
should
also
lead
on
matters
of
advocacy.
A
With
that,
let's
look
at
the
other
entity
under
this
bill.
The
mining
oversight
and
accountability,
commission
or
moax.
A
This
entity
was
created
in
2011
and
is
intended
to
be
a
one-stop
shop
to
ensure
the
industry
was
properly
overseen
by
all
of
the
other
agencies
that
it
was
meeting
its
fiscal,
environmental
and
safety
responsibilities
and
that
there
was
additional
review
of
regulations
affecting
the
industry.
A
The
bill
has
many
sections,
so,
instead
of
walking
you
through
them
all
I'll
provide
a
high
level
overview
again.
It
dissolves
the
commission
on
mineral
resources
and
the
division
of
minerals
and
it
transfers
all
of
their
regulations,
authority,
programs,
fees
and
budgets
to
the
state,
environmental,
commission
and
division
of
environmental
protection.
A
The
moac,
the
oversight
and
accountability
commission
is
proposed
to
be
eliminated
in
its
entirety
and
I'll
note
that
in
general
this
is
accomplished
through
the
repeal
of
certain
sections
of
statute.
You
can
see
the
lead
lines
at
the
end
of
the
bill,
and
a
lot
of
this
is
done
by
changing
the
definition
of
commission
and
division
where
it's
referenced
in
existing
statutes.
A
So
where,
before
the
commission
was
the
commission
on
mineral
resources,
we
changed
the
definition
to
refer
to
the
state
environmental
commission
where
it
was
the
division
of
minerals.
We
change
it
to
now
mean
the
division
of
environmental
protection
within
the
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources.
A
Section
52
I'd
like
to
draw
your
attention
to,
and
it
specifically
ensures
that
all
existing
regulations,
contracts
and
actions
that
have
been
taken
remain
in
effect
following
the
transition,
and
you
know
the
other
sections
at
the
end
of
the
bill,
ensure
that,
as
the
statutes
are
updated,
that
everything
is
moved
over
to
this
new
to
this
new
place.
A
A
Some
of
the
reports
that
under
current
statute
are
set
to
go
to
the
mining
oversight
and
accountability
commission
were
proposed
to
instead
be
sent
to
the
state
environmental
commission,
including
on
health
and
safety,
as
well
as
on
revenue,
but
since
the
sec
really
deals
with
environmental
issues,
I
have
a
proposed
amendment
that
instead
sends
those
reports
to
the
legislature,
so
the
legislature
and
the
governor
will
be
kept
apprised
of
that
those
efforts.
A
In
addition,
I'm
removing
some
additional
language
that
relates
to
the
encouragement
and
support
of
the
industry
from
our
existing
statutes,
because
those
statutes
would
be
modified
to
guide
ndep
and
the
state
environmental
commission.
I
think
it's
important
that
we
carve
that
out
and
again
really
create
distinct
boundaries
between
education,
advocacy,
economic
development
and
regulatory
and
permitting
functions
between
the
different
entities
within
our
government.
A
It
also
removes
the
proposed
alternative
language
that
would
have
ndep
take
on
a
consulting
role
for
commemorative
minting
that
is
currently
held
by
the
division
of
minerals.
Since
I
don't,
I
don't
think
that
would
be
required
under
the
proposed
realignment.
A
I
think
it's
time
that
we
take
a
look
at
modernizing
and
streamlining
the
oversight
of
mining
in
our
great
state,
and
I
think
ab240
provides
the
opportunity
for
us
to
do
just
that.
I
ask
for
your
support
and
thank
you
for
your
consideration.
A
I'd
like
to
note
that
we
will
hear
from
some
folks
who
are
opposed.
A
I
think
the
conceptual
amendment
helps
address
some
of
those
concerns
and
I
welcome
their
continued
thoughts
and
suggestions
to
make
sure
that,
as
we
hopefully
move
this
proposal
forward
that
we
address
it
so
that
the
language
matches
the
intent
of
this
bill,
and
with
that,
madam
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
F
Thank
you
chair
and
be
to
questions.
I
just
want
to
note
for
the
secretary.
I
know
that
assemblywoman
carlton
has
joined
us
and
I'm
sorry,
I'm
not
sure
who
else
we
were
waiting
for
from
commerce.
F
G
Thank
you
vice
chair
cohen,
and
thank
you
chair
watts,
for
bringing
this
forward.
I
always
love
to
hear
about
mackey
school
of
mines
as
a
proud
university
of
nevada,
reno
graduate.
I
have
two
questions
the
first
has
to
do
with.
I
know
that
there
are
some
different
federal
funding.
Sometimes
that
goes
along
with
some
of
our
different
divisions.
G
With
this
sometimes
matching
funding.
Is
there
any
sort
of
matching
funding
that
would
be
possibly
impacted
based
upon
this
possible
change
in
the
divisions,
or
is
that
kind
of
covered
in
section
52?
I
think
it
was.
A
Thank
you
for
the
question,
howard
watts,
for
the
record.
As
far
as
I
know,
this
would
not
have
any
positive
or
negative
impact
on
funding
for
these
activities,
so
there
are
certain
fees
that
are
already
laid
out.
I
want
to
touch
on
this
briefly.
At
the
state
level,
there
are
different
fees
associated
with
filing
claims
maps
obtaining
various
permits,
etc,
and
we
are
not
eliminating
any
of
those
we
are
transferring
them
so
where
the
commission
or
division
may
have
accounts
right
now,
a
an
account
for
mining
specifically
would
be
created.
A
So
any
any
funds
that
are
restricted
for
specific
purposes
would
remain
so
they
would
just
be
coming
within
the
particularly
within
the
division
of
environmental
protection,
and
so
the
intent
is
that
any
federal
matching
or
other
support
would
also
just
be
transferred
over
to
that
fund,
and,
as
far
as
I
know,
I
don't
think,
there's
any
impact
that
having
these
activities
housed
under
the
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources
versus
the
independent
commission
on
mineral
resources.
I
don't
think
that
has
any
impact
on
our
state's
ability
to
pull
down
any
additional
federal
resources.
G
Great,
thank
you
and
then
I
do
have
a
second
question
a
little
bit
of
it
has
to
do
with
the
moab
board.
Not
I'm
worried
that
I've
got
the
wrong,
oh
by
the
way.
Similarly,
memory
anderson,
thank
you
for
the
follow-up
question.
Vice
chair
cohen,
I
just
kept
on
going,
but
if
I
could
I'm
a
little
bit
concerned
about
the
moab
not
meeting
since
december
of
2015.,
so
with
adding
these
responsibilities
to
the
site
state
environmental
commission
would
that
are
they
paid
or
does
it
continue
to
be
a
volunteer?
G
A
Thank
you
for
that
question.
Assemblywoman
howard
watts,
for
the
record.
This
is
something
that
you'll
also
hear
from
the
division
of
environmental
protection
about
when
they
provide
testimony,
and
they
will
be
available
to
answer
some
of
your
questions
as
well.
If
you
have
more
specific
or
technical
questions
for
them,
obviously
there
would
be
some
the
fiscal
and
efficiency
benefits
realized
by
having
one
board.
Instead
of
two,
the
workload
for
the
sec
would
increase.
The
gubernatorial
appointments
are
essentially
serve
as
volunteers.
A
This
is
proposing
to
eliminate
certain
budget
accounts
and
change
others.
So
this
is
certainly
heading
to
to
assemble
on
carlton's
committee
for
additional
consideration
if
it
gets
out
of
this
policy
committee.
H
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair,
for
the
ability
to
ask
a
question.
Thank
you,
chair
watts,
for
your
presentation.
I,
like
assemblywoman
anderson.
I
was
also
proud
of
the
mackey
school
of
mines.
Just
so
you
know
how
to
pronounce
not
mckay,
just
as
we
don't
say,
nevada
and
we
say
nevada
as
a
previous
student
at
the
mackey
school
of
mines.
I
I
want
to
jump
on
that
real
quick
now.
H
My
question
actually
is
resolved
around
section
46
of
this
bill
and
it
talks
about
the
administrator
it
talks
about
them,
created
a
board
of
review,
composed
of,
and
that's
an
already
existing
statute
in
that
statute.
You're
removing
in
this
bill,
you're
striking
out
c,
which
is
the
administrator
of
division
of
minerals
from
being
on
that
board,
but
not
really
replacing
it
with
anybody
representing
the
mining
industry.
H
A
Somebody
representing
mining,
thank
you
for
the
question.
Howard
watts,
the
record
I'll
speak
specifically
to
section
46.,
two
notes
on
that:
the
board
of
review
has
not
met.
It
is
a
board
tasked
with
making
certain
public
land
decisions
or
review
and
recommendations,
and
the
other
thing
that
I
note
about
that
is
all
of
the
positions
on
there
are
state
agency
heads
and
the
administrator
of
dep
already
has
a
position
on
that
board.
That's
why
I
did
not
add
any
additional
seats
to
it.
H
Next
question,
if
I
might
madam
vice
chair
well
this
by
eliminating
this
and
moving
this
department
into
several
of
these
departments
now
into
the
different
division,
do
you
see
any
possible
delays
in
applications
or
mining
exploration.
A
Thank
you
for
the
question,
howard
watts,
for
the
record.
I
do
not
expect
those
we
do
have
the
division
of
minerals
who
will
be
able
to
will
be
testifying,
and
I
would
encourage
you
to
ask
a
brief
follow-up
question
of
them
as
well,
but
again
I'll
say
the
intent
is
not
to
completely
create
complete
upheaval.
I
expect
that
many,
if
not
all,
of
the
staff
would
essentially
just
be
moved
over,
so
the
entity
that
they
exist
under
would
change,
but
the
staffing
would
remain
in
place.
A
The
programs
that
they
administer
would
remain
in
place,
so
the
intent
is
certainly
not
to
create
any
backlog
as
a
result
of
the
transition.
I
Hey
thank
you
vice
chair.
I
appreciate
it,
mr
chairman,
when
I
look
at
the
makeup
of
moak
now
and
then
moving
it
over
to
end
up,
I
think
my
question's
a
lot
like
assemblywoman
titus's,
but
what
I
don't
see
is
anybody
from
the
oil
and
gas
exploration
industry
kind
of
moving
over
with
it.
Would
that
would
their
voice
be
completely
silenced
in
this.
A
Thank
you
for
the
question:
assemblyman
wheeler,
howard
watson,
the
record.
I
believe
you
are
referencing
the
state
environmental
commission,
since
the
mining
oversight
and
accountability
commissioner,
would
be
eliminated.
Under
this
proposal.
The
there
is
a
seat
on
the
sec
by
the
division
of
minerals.
The
current
draft
of
this
bill
does
remove
that
position.
A
However,
I'm
more
than
open
to
working
with
you
and
other
stakeholders
to
figure
out
an
appropriate
representative
of
the
mining
industry,
given
the
role
that
the
sec
already
does
and
would
continue
to
play
in
the
oversight
of
the
mining
industry.
Moving
forward
to
make
that
we
have
expertise.
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair
for
the
opportunity
and
good
afternoon.
Everyone
chairman
watts,
we're
talking,
I'm
all
for
streamlining,
but
sometimes
streamlining
creates
a
whole
lot
of
other
situations
and
burdens
and
costs
and
such
so.
E
A
Thank
you
for
that
question.
Howard
watts,
for
the
record
made
more
time
may
be
needed
to
to
implement
this,
and
I
I
would
certainly
be
open
to
moving
the
implementation
date
to
ensure
that
the
state
has
the
time
to
make
this
transition
in
a
way
that
is
effective
and
doesn't
create
unintended
consequences.
So
thank
you
for
bringing
that
up.
J
F
Manifest
and
I'm
sorry
assemblywoman
before
you
ask
your
question
just
to
be
clear.
It's
july
1st.
E
That
would
be
interesting
to
just
pick
july
21st.
Thank
you
for
that.
I'm
writing
21
21
everywhere
and
just
another
additional
question.
Actually
I
think
this
one
we
might
get
into
as
we
get
a
little
further,
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering
I
know
we're
a
policy
committee,
but
we're
being
asked
to
deal
with
things
that
could
have
some
fiscal
impacts,
these
transfers
and
so
I'll
look
forward,
maybe
to
some
more
discussion
on
a
little
bit
more
into
the
hearing,
but
really
that
my
question
is
why
now
what
what
you
know?
E
A
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
hanson,
howard
watts,
for
the
record.
One
of
the
things
I'd
say
is
this
is
something
that
in
doing
some
research
and
review
of
how
things
worked
in
our
state
and
what's
gone
on
in
some
other
states.
A
You
know
I
I've
personally
followed
the
the
issues
with
the
mining
oversight
and
accountability
commission
for
some
time-
and
you
know
have
also
heard
from
people
who
are
concerned
about
the
fact
that
the
division
of
minerals
and
and
commission
play
both
regulatory
and
advocacy
and
education
and
economic
development
role.
A
So
I
decided
to
bring
this
forward
not
because
of
any
particular
instance,
but
because
I
think
the
time
is
always
appropriate
when
it
seems
like
there's
an
opportunity
to
take
a
step
back
and
look
at
how
we
have
our
state
government
organized
and
what
we
might
be
able
to
do
to
to
move
it
around
and
streamline
for
other
folks
who
serve
on
the
ways
and
means
committee.
A
F
And
madam
secretary,
mr
ellison
is
now
present
committee:
do
we
have
any
other
questions
or
questions
for
the
for
the
chair?
F
Okay,
I'm
not
seeing
any
okay
with
that
chair.
Do
you
want
to
have
the
representatives
from
ndep
and
the
department
of
minerals
go
next,
or
do
you
want
to
move
on
to
support.
A
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair.
I
think,
in
keeping
with
how
we've
had
our
committee
meetings
operating
it
would
it
would
be
my
recommendation
that
we
proceed
through
support,
opposition
and
neutral,
and
then
I
believe
in
neutral,
although
you
may
need
to
check
with
mr
bishop,
depending
on
what
his
position
is,
I
would
like
to
make
sure
that,
there's
time
questions
after
they
make
their
their
comments.
F
Okay,
thank
you.
So
with
that
we
will
move
on
to
support.
Do
we
have
anyone
in
the
zoom
in
support?
I
don't
believe
so.
F
Okay,
all
right
so
with
that,
if
we
could
please
go
to
the
phones
for
support.
K
C
Hello,
my
name
is
kyle
davis,
that's
k-y-l-e-d-a-v-I-s,
and
I
appear
today
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
conservation
league.
The
nevada
conservation
league
is
in
support
of
ab240,
and
we
appreciate
chairman
watts
for
bringing
the
bill
forward.
This
bill
makes
needed
changes
to
the
regulatory
structure
of
extractive
industries
in
our
state.
Currently,
most
of
hard
rock
mining
is
regulated
by
the
division
of
environmental
protection.
Yet
oil
and
gas,
geothermal
and
dissolved
minerals
are
regulated
by
the
division
of
minerals.
C
C
C
This
can
be
seen
by
the
various
advocacy
positions
that
the
division
and
the
commission
have
taken
from
time
to
time
in
order
to
ensure
that
our
state
maintains
a
high
degree
of
public
confidence
in
the
regulation
of
these
industries.
We
urge
this
committee
to
support
ab240
to
protect
our
air,
water
and
land.
Thank.
F
You
thank
you
and,
and
with
that
I
probably
should
have
put
this
on
the
record
earlier.
We
are
timing,
the
length
of
testimony
we'll
give
equal
time,
but
we
do
want
to
make
sure
that
we've
that
we,
that
we
give
as
many
people
time
as
possible,
but
don't
go
over
so
with
that
if
we
could
have
the
next
person.
K
L
This
is
patrick
donnelly,
p-a-t-r-I-c-k
d-o-n-n-e-l-l,
I'm
nevada
state
director
with
the
center
for
biological
diversity.
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair
and
mr
chair,
for
bringing
this
bill.
We
are
in
support
of
ab240
and
mr
davis
comment
actually
said
basically
verbatim
what
I
was
about
to
say.
So
I
won't
repeat
it.
L
I
will
say
folks
are
aware
that
we
engage
on
mind
permitting
in
this
state
to
in
some
cases,
fight
minds,
and
you
have
the
situation
where,
since
they
are
professionals
in
the
industry,
members
of
the
commission
are
actually
working
on
permitting
new
minds
in
the
state.
The
opportunities
for
conflict
of
interest
are
are
significant.
L
L
So
as
much
as
we
hate
to
see,
moak
go
away,
the
benefits
of
folding,
the
division
and
commission
of
minerals
into
in-depth
and
the
state
environmental
commission
just
makes
sense,
and
it
will
help
undo
the
reduce
the
undue
influence
of
extractive
industries
on
our
state's
environmental
regulatory
structure.
Thank.
F
You
thank
you
next
person
in
support.
K
F
K
K
Caller
you
have
two
minutes,
please
fully
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record,
and
you
may
begin.
M
M
great
basin
resource
watch
is
only
opposed
to
ap240
because
of
the
elimination
of
the
mining
oversight
and
accountability.
Commission
moak
is
needed
as
a
meaningful
public
forum
on
regulation
and
policy
of
mining
and
extraction
nevada.
The
state
environmental
commission
is
a
quasi-legal
body
that
does
not
serve
this
role.
M
Currently,
we
are
grappling
with
the
reality
of
mining
operations
that
will
need
to
treat
polluted
water
for
hundreds
of
years,
largely
from
acid
mine
drainage,
for
example,
the
phoenix
mine
expects
treatment
of
roughly
330
million
gallons
of
polluted
water
annually
with
no
end
in
sight.
This
issue
of
long-term
management
and
water
treatment
at
mine
sites
is
a
growing
problem
in
nevada
and
across
the
united
states.
Phoenix
is
not
isolated
is
not
an
isolated
case
recently
proposed
back
or
passed
lithium
mine
is
also
expected
to
require
active
treatment
for
at
least
300
years.
M
Nevada
regulations
are
silent
on
what
we
call
treatment
in
perpetuity
and
will
allow
permitting
of
minds
that
will
require
management
in
perpetuity.
Recently,
the
state
of
colorado
passed
regulations
addressing
this
aspect
of
modern
mining.
This
is
only
one
of
a
number
of
policy
and
regulatory
considerations
that
need
an
open
and
transparent
public
forum
for
deliberation
so
that
well-considered
statutes
and
regulations
can
be
developed.
The
the
moat
commission
has
and
can
be
an
excellent
vehicle
to
discuss
possible
policy
and
regulatory
considerations
where
all
parties
are
present.
M
K
L
Good
afternoon,
chairman
and
madam
vice
chair
and
members
of
this
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
ian
bigley,
spelled
I-a-n-b-I-g-l-e-y
and
I'm
representing
the
progressive
leadership
alliance
of
nevada
plan
plan
opposes
ab240.
This
was
not
an
easy
position
for
us
to
take,
as
both
the
nevada
division
of
minerals
and
the
nevada
commission
on
mineral
resources
should
be
dissolved.
However,
this
cannot
come
at
the
expense
of
the
mining
oversight
and
accountability.
L
Commission
moak,
which
serves
as
a
much
needed
watchdog
on
mining
regulation,
the
division
of
minerals
and
minerals
commissions
serves
as
a
state-paid
pr
agency
for
the
mining
industry.
According
to
state
statute,
nrs
513-023
members
of
this
commission
are
required
to
be
extractive
industry
insiders.
We
believe
that
it's
a
clear
conflict
of
interest
to
have
individuals
working
in
extractive
industries
to
direct
the
formulation
of
administrative
policies
for
a
regulatory
agency,
ostensibly
established
to
oversee
mining.
Furthermore,
the
division
of
minerals
as
um's
purpose,
as
stated
on
its
web
pages,
to
encourage
and
assist
mining.
L
We
do
not
believe
that
a
multi-billion
dollar
industry
led
by
international
corporations
requires
an
entire
government
agency
to
assist
its
effort
as
much
as
we'd
like
to
see
the
eliminations
of
the
minerals,
commission
and
the
division
of
minerals.
We
are
not
prepared
to
sacrifice.
Moak.
Ten
years
ago,
plan
fought
for
the
establishment
of
moak
and
the
legislature
established
to
stop
the
piecemeal
approach
to
oversight
of
the
mining
industry
in
nevada.
Moak
has
been
enacted
since
2015,
due
to
a
failure
of
our
state
leaders
to
appoint
members.
L
The
failure
is
not
based
off
process
or
any
inherent
flaw
with
moak,
rather
is
the
political
failure
of
our
elective
representatives.
Fears
of
the
mining
industry.
If
the
governor
thinks
that
moak
can't
be
sustained
because
lack
of
government
appointment,
then
he
needs
to
dissolve
all
other
boards
that
are
created
through
the
exact
same
appointment
process.
L
It
would
be
one
thing
if
this
was
a
practical
matter,
but
it's
purely
political.
We
stand
in
opposition
to
ab240
and
believe
the
public's
voice
and
mining
regulation
should
not
be
muzzled
due
to
the
inability
of
the
governor
to
uphold
his
responsibilities
to
the
people
by
making
the
necessary
appointments
to
the
commission,
the
problem
is
not
moax.
The
problem
is
our
government's
unwavering
support
for
corporations
at
the
expense
of
nevadans.
F
Thank
you
next
person
in
opposition,
please.
K
C
Good
afternoon
vice
chair
cohen
and
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
tyree
gray
t-y-r-e-g-r-a-y,
though
I'm
elated
to
testify
for
the
first
time
for
this
committee
as
president
of
the
nevada
mining
association,
it
is
with
the
heavy
heart
I
do
so
in
opposition.
It
is
the
custom
of
the
association
to
be
neutral
on
regulatory
bills
unless
the
bill
seriously
brightens
the
stability
of
the
mining
industry
in
ab240,
and
our
estimation
is
such
a
bill.
C
On
the
other
hand,
indom
and
the
mineral
commission
exists
to
promote
and
exist
in
responsible
exploration
and
production
of
minerals,
oil
and
gas
and
geothermal
energy,
which
are
economically
beneficial
to
the
state,
though
not
a
new
concept
on
its
face,
ab240
appears
to
just
consolidate
government
agencies,
but
the
reverberations
can
be
much
more
severe
first,
it
un
reasonably
adds
to
the
state
environmental
commission's
workload
and
they
may
not
possess
the
subject
matter,
expertise.
Second,
it
places
a
regulatory
arm
in
an
uncomfortable
position
of
advocating
for
the
mining
industry
while
hearing
violations
and
contested
cases.
C
Third,
it
may
result
in
increased
cost,
as
indom
is
funded
without
the
use
of
general
fund
dollars,
and
a
reduction
of
services
means
a
reduction
in
fees
collected
and
the
need
to
supplement
last,
as
expressed
by
the
governor
in
his
state
of
the
state.
There
is
a
need
to
develop
nevada's
lithium
resources
and
in
order
to
in
order
to
secure
the
green
future
of
nevada
and
the
us
and
ab240
may
complicate
that
mission.
Simply
put
these
two
agencies
have
very
different
missions
and
appropriately
are
housed
in
separate
agencies.
C
F
Thank
you
next
person
in
opposition,
please.
K
N
N
We
fully
support
strong
oversight
and
regulatory
programs
over
the
mining
industry.
Our
stance
is
that
ndep
has
provided
this
important
role
effectively
and
adequately
for
over
30
years.
The
division
of
minerals
and
mineral
commissions
have
a
very
different
mission,
one
more
of
advocacy
advocacy
for
the
industry.
This
is
not
misplaced.
N
We
see
this
mission
as
inconsistent
with
ndep's.
The
same
is
true
for
the
state
environmental
commission
and
we
should
not
add
the
responsibility
of
the
mining
oversight
and
accountability.
Commission
moak
to
their
already
full
docket.
Most
of
our
state's
primary
economic
drivers
have
state
entities
playing
advocacy
roles.
The
state
should
be
proud
of,
supporting
and
promoting
the
mining
industry,
while
also
ensuring
separate
oversight
and
accountability,
accountability
of
mining.
Thank
you.
F
K
J
Lynn,
volpe
l
y
n,
n
e
v,
o
l
p.
I
chairman
watson,
members
of
the
assembly
natural
resources
committee.
The
women's
mining
coalition
is
a
grassroots
organization
with
members
nationwide
who
work
in
all
aspects
of
the
mining
industry
and
advocate
for
it.
Wmc's
nevada
members
are
concerned
about
the
proposals
in
ab240
to
eliminate
the
nevada
commission
on
mineral
resources
and
to
fold
the
nevada
division
of
minerals
into
the
nevada
division
of
environmental
protection.
J
Based
on
these
concerns,
wmc
opposes
ab240
for
the
following
reasons:
ab240
is
a
solution
in
search
of
a
problem,
because
ab240
would
not
achieve
any
cost
savings.
There
are
no
fiscal
reasons
for
it.
Dissolving
ncmr
would
eliminate
a
public
body
of
subject
matter.
Experts
that
develop
ndom's
policies
and
regulations
and
provide
valuable
recommendations
to
the
governor
and
legislature
pertaining
to
the
state's
mineral
oil
and
gas
and
geothermal
resources.
J
K
K
G
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair
for
the
record
susan
fisher
s-u-s-a-n-f-I-s-h-e-r
with
mcdonald,
carano
speaking
on
behalf
of
nevada
mineral
exploration
coalition.
The
coalition
is
a
non-partisan
grassroots
group
of
individuals
and
small
companies
engaged
in
in
or
servicing
the
mineral
exploration
in
nevada,
and
we
are
opposed
to
ab240.
You
will
find
our
position
letter
in
your
exhibits.
A
number
of
the
the
comments
that
I
plan
to
make
have
already
been
made.
G
There's
a
lot
more
detail
in
our
letter
than
I
can
provide
in
a
two-minute
statement,
the
assembly
committee
on
natural
resources
until
this
session
was
called
natural
resources,
agriculture
and
mining
for
a
good
reason.
These
industries
are
the
backbone
of
our
state.
The
division
of
minerals
does
for
mineral
exploration
and
mining.
What
goed
the
governor's
office
on
economic
development
does
for
other
industries.
G
G
K
I
Thank
you
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
david
dazzlich
with
the
vegas
chamber.
That's
d-a-z-l-I-c-h,
we're
here
today
to
testify
against
ab240,
as
you've
heard
from
the
mining
industry
and
several
other
mining
resource
groups
ndp
and
the
dom
are
critical
to
the
mining
industries
that
exist
today.
The
mining
industry
is
a
key
component
of
nevada's
economy
and
one
that
deserves
its
own
expert
regulation
and
permitting
currently
ndp
and
dom
are
doing
a
stellar
job
and
nevada's
mining
regulations
and
rules
are
considered
exemplary,
nationwide
and
worldwide,
as
you've
heard.
L
I
K
I
Yes,
my
name
is
alan
morris
k-l-a-n-m-o-r-r-I-s,
and
I
represent
myself
as
an
independent
contract
geologist
who
drives
most
of
his
income
from
companies,
offshore,
primarily
canada
and
australia,
elimination.
The
department
of
minerals
will
send
a
message
to
these
companies
that
their
investment
monies
are
not
welcome
in
nevada.
I
I
One
one
problem
with
this
bill
is:
if
the
department
of
mineral
resources
is
eliminated,
the
functions
of
advocacy
and
data
preservation,
that
sort
of
thing
or
to
be
dispersed
somewhere,
but
no
one
really
knows
where.
Nor
will
the
money
that
comes
in
primary
all
from
mining
tax
taxes
on
mining
claims.
How
will
that
be
advocated?
I
I
These
regulations
forward,
put
them
up
to
the
legislature
for
revision
of
some
of
the
water
law
in
order
to
make
those
sort
of
things
happen
at
a
time
when
the
state
is
looking
for
economic
innovation
zones
to
eliminate
the
department
of
minerals
which
is
in
the
forefront
of
some
of
these
innovations
would
be
a
waste.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
testify.
F
Thank
you
and
I'm
gonna
go
to
the
zoom
for
opposition.
I
didn't
realize
that
mr
fischer
was
actually
here
in
opposition,
so
please
go
ahead.
Mr
fisher.
O
Thank
you
good
afternoon
vice
chair
cohen
and
committee
members.
My
name
is
michael
visher
and
I'm
the
administrator
for
the
nomadic
vision
of
minerals,
I'm
here
to
provide
testimony
and
opposition
to
ab240
the
nevada
division
of
minerals
is
part
of
the
commission
on
mineral
resources.
The
commission
is
made
up
of
seven
or
seven
governor
appointed
members
who
were
each
chosen
for
their
knowledge
of
a
specific
facet
of
the
nevada
middle
industry,
as
the
bill
calls
for
the
dissolution
of
both
the
commission
and
the
division.
O
I'd
like
to
provide
some
historical
context
on
these
two
entities,
the
roots
of
which
can
be
traced
back
to
1943
when
the
nevada
legislature,
in
its
41st
session,
established
the
mining
advisory
board,
then,
is
now
its
members
appointed
by
the
governor.
The
purpose
of
this
board
was
to
study
ways
and
means
of
furthering
the
mining
industry
of
the
state.
Further
explore
and
develop.
O
It
was
the
responsibility
of
this
office
to
study
the
means
of
furthering
the
mining
industry,
develop
the
oil
and
gas
industry,
evaluate
federal
policies
in
this
area
and
administer
the
oil
and
gas
conservation
law
in
1983.
The
agency
left
ecnr
when
the
legislature
created
the
department
of
minerals
supervised
by
the
commission
on
mineral
resources,
all
the
authority
and
duties
of
which
remain
the
same.
Today,
sweeping
departmental
changes
occurred
in
1993
and
the
department
was
changed
to
the
division
of
minerals
within
the
newly
created
department
of
business
and
industry.
O
This
only
lasted
for
six
years
when
the
legislature,
in
recognition
of
the
importance
of
the
mining,
oil,
gas
and
geothermal
industry
to
nevada,
moved
the
division
for
the
last
time
and
became
the
stand-alone
non-cabinet
executive
branch
agency,
consisting
of
the
commission
on
mineral
resources
and
the
division
of
minerals.
It
is
the
division's
current
organizational
position
within
state
government,
with
oversight
by
the
commission
that
has
proven
to
be
the
most
efficient
and
cost
effective,
and
why,
on
the
grounds
of
good
governance,
we
are
opposed
to
the
bill.
F
Okay,
thank
you.
I
don't
see
any
questions.
Do
we
have
anyone
else
on
the
zoom
who
is
in
opposition.
F
Okay,
seeing
none
we
will
move
on
to
neutral,
so
I
we
have
mr
lovato
on
the
zoom
in
neutral.
If
you'd
like
to
go
ahead,
sir.
P
Good
afternoon,
vice,
chair
cohen
members
of
the
committee
greg
lobato
administrator
of
the
nevada
division
of
environmental
protection,
testifying
neutral
on
ab240
ndp
and
the
division
of
minerals
or
ndom
coordinate
in
several
areas.
Our
bureau
of
water
pollution
control
works
closely
with
endom
to
address
underground
injection
control
requirements
under
the
federal
safe
drinking
water
act
associated
with
oil
and
gas
and
geothermal
operations.
P
Ndp's
abandoned
mine
lands
program
which
focuses
which
focuses
on
environmental
and
water
quality.
Aspects
of
abandoned
mines
coordinates
on
abandoned
mine
project,
prioritization
and
execution
with
ndom's
abandoned
mine
lens
program,
which
focuses
on
physical
safety
issues
associated
with
abandoned
mines.
P
Endom
actively
participates
in
interstate
mining,
compact
commission,
with
other
states
and
relays
important
national
initiatives
and
trends
to
ndep
ndep
has
one
primary
but
significant
concern
regarding
this
bill.
That
is
the
transfer
of
the
duties
of
the
commission
on
mineral
resources
to
the
state
environmental
commission.
I
am
concerned
about
the
additional
burden
placed
on
the
sec
members.
This
also
relates
to
the
question
from
assemblyman
anderson
earlier
sec.
Membership
is
broad
and
members
do
not
have
the
expertise
or
specialization
in
oversight
of
the
oil
and
gas
and
geothermal
industries.
P
P
P
I
don't
believe
this
will
provide
the
sec
adequate
time
to
carefully
consider
consider
all
the
matters
before
the
commission
and
will
create
scheduling.
Conflicts
as
being
an
sec,
commissioner,
would
move
more
towards
a
full-time
commitment
for
purposes
of
our
fiscal
planning.
Ndp
has
assumed
the
intent
of
the
bill
is
that
all
of
ndom's
budgets,
personnel
and
programs
would
come
to
mdep.
F
Thank
you.
I
I
don't
think
we
have
any
questions
for
mr
lovato,
but
just
to
make
sure
any
questions.
Okay
and-
and
mr
lovato,
I
just
want
to
make
clear,
are
you
testifying
in
neutral
or
is
that
opposition.
F
Thank
you,
okay,
seeing
no
questions
for
mr
lovato.
We
will
go
on
to
the
phones
for
neutral
testimony.
F
Okay,
do
we
have,
I
don't
think
we
have
anyone
else
room
in
case
I
miss
someone.
If
there's
anyone
else
on
the
zoom
in
neutral,
please
wave
your
hands,
nope,
okay,
seeing
no
testimony
chair.
If
you
would
like
to
make
a
final
statement.
A
A
A
This
is
not
an
attack
on
mining.
As
you
heard,
this
consolidation
has
aspects
of
it
that
don't
appeal
to
environmental
advocates
either.
You
know
I
would
be
fine
with
leaving
the
division
of
minerals
as
a
an
advocacy
and
the
commission
of
advocacy
entities.
A
Just
to
be
clear,
the
staffing
wouldn't
go
away.
The
bond
pool
would
still
exist
and
continue
to
function.
The
abandoned
mine
lands
program
would
still
continue
and,
as
we
just
heard,
from
the
division
of
environmental
protection,
there's
a
lot
of
areas
where
there's
crossover,
communication
collaboration
and
I
think
that
those
areas
would
be
strengthened
by
housing.
A
lot
of
these
programs
in
one
place
to
the
point
around
having
mining
expertise
on
the
state
environmental
commission.
A
I
I
will
commit
right
now
to
the
members
of
the
committee
to
make
an
additional
amendment
to
ensure
that
there
is
a
position
with
with
specific
mining
expertise
on
that
entity
under
this
proposal
and
look
forward
to
working
with
those
in
opposition
and
others
on
the
effective
date
of
the
legislation
and
anything
else
that
could
assist
in
making
this.
Guaranteeing
that
this
would
be
a
smooth
transition
that
follows
through
on
the
intent
of
the
bill
as
I've
laid
out.
A
So
with
that,
I
I
thank
you
again
for
your
time
and
consideration
and
ask
for
your
support
on
assembly
bill.
240.
F
A
A
All
right,
thank
you,
members
of
the
committee,
we're
going
to
do
our
work
session,
real
quick.
We
have
one
item
on
our
agenda
for
work
session
today.
It's
assembly
joint
resolution,
three
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
mr
stinispec
to
lead
us
through
the
work
session
document
on
this
item.
K
O
You
chair
watts,
for
the
record
against
inspector
research
division
of
the
lcd.
I
A
I
K
A
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
stanisbeck,
for
the
presentation.
Are
there
any
questions
for
mr
stensbeck
about
the
resolution.
A
Unless
it's
a
a
policy
consideration,
if
it's
a
more
of
a
an
opinion,
I'd
like
to
wait
for
discussion
on
the
motion
perfect,
thank
you
all
right
hearing.
None
do
I
have
a
motion
to
do
pass
assembly
joint
resolution,
three.
A
I
have
a
second
firm
assembly
going
gonzalez
with
that
we'll
move
on
to
discussion
and
assembly
women
titus,
you
may
take
us
off.
Thank.
H
You,
mr
chair,
as
we
see
in
this
building
and
have
for
many
many
years,
a
lot
of
bills
are
introduced
with
well-meaning
intentions,
and
I
for
one
feel
that
I
am
a
great
conservation
land
protected
love
to
enjoy.
As
most
of
you,
I
think
on
this
committee
also
feel
that
it
is
important
that
we
have
it
for
our
children
and
grandchildren
for
many
years
to
come.
H
A
D
L
A
A
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Thank
you
with
that.
We'll
turn
the
gavel
back
over
I
I
know
that
it's
5
13,
but
I
think
this
next
bill
we
can
get
presented
very
quickly.
So
with
that
I'll
turn.
The
gavel
back
over
to
the
vice
chair
for
us
to
be
the
last
item
on
the
agenda.
F
Thank
you
chair.
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
joint
resolution,
five
assembly
joint
resolution,
5
urges
congress
to
sell
off
or
transfer
certain
public
lands
to
local
governmental
agencies
and
not
non-profit
organizations
with
that
chair,
whenever
you're
ready.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
vice
chair
members
of
the
committee
again
for
the
record,
I'm
howard
watts,
representing
assembly
district
15
in
clark
county,
I'm
presenting
assembly
joint
resolution
five.
Today,
as
a
member
of
the
legislative
committee
on
public
lands
over
the
2019-2020
interim,
the
eureka
county
board
of
commissioners
submitted
a
recommendation
to
the
public
lands
committee
regarding
the
status
of
lands
held
by
the
federal
government
under
h.r
4362,
the
recreation
and
public
purposes,
amendment
act
of
1988.
These
lands
are
owned
by
the
federal
government
and
leased
to
public
and
not-for-profit
agencies.
A
For
example,
there's
been
discussion
in
clark
county
about
expanding
the
access
of
school
grounds
to
the
community,
but
the
terms
of
leases
with
the
blm
have
been
brought
up
as
potential
issues
or
barriers,
senator
parks
who
cheered
the
public
lands
committee.
Last
interim
noted
some
of
the
workload
that
he
saw.
The
clark
county
to
review
renew
and
update
rpp
leases
over
the
last
couple
of
decades.
A
As
a
result,
the
committee
unanimously
recommended
the
drafting
of
ajr5,
which
asks
the
federal
government
sell
or
otherwise
convey
land
ownership
to
the
entities
that
are
currently
leasing
these
parcels.
This
is
a
narrow
ask,
just
focused
on
these
lands
used
for
these
purposes,
not
a
broader
ask
for
the
transfer
of
federal
lands
and
with
that.
That
concludes
my
presentation.
H
A
A
Sorry
for
that
solomon
ellison,
howard
watts,
for
the
record
only
if
those
parcels
were
rpp
lands.
So
again,
this
doesn't
address
any
broader
public
lands
transfer
issues.
It's
specifically
schools,
non-profits
that
have
leases
so
they're
operating
facilities
on
land
that
is
still
currently
owned
by
the
federal
government
asking
that
it
be
turned
over
to
them.
Only
for
those
specific
parcels.
F
Oh,
I'm
sorry!
Sorry,
mr
wheeler,
you
did
let
me
know
you
have
a
question.
Sorry
about
that.
Please
go
ahead.
I
I
know
I'm
easy
to
forget,
madame
vice
chair.
Thank
you.
I
actually
kind
of
like
the
bill.
I'm
just
wondering
mr
chair.
If
there
is
a
list
somewhere
of
the
lands
that
we
are
requesting
to
come
back.
A
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Someone
wheeler
howard
watts
for
the
record.
I'm
sure
there
is
a
list
somewhere
of
rpp
leases.
I
do
not
have
that
perhaps
mr
tibbetts
and
folks
in
eureka
county
have
a
list
for
for
the
lands
that
are
within
that
county.
Again,
I
believe,
there's
50,
maybe
more
schools
within
clark
county
that
are
on
blm
rpp
land.
F
Assemblywoman
brown
me.
E
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
do
have
one
question.
You
did
say
that
it
was
for
rpp
when
it's
currently
owned
by
the
federal
government,
but
I'm
curious
to
know
in
the
history
of
clark
county.
In
particular,
there
have
been
a
number
of
land
transitions
that
started
out
as
federal
owned
land
that
they
treated
the
county
for
in
order
to
be
able
to
lease
them
to
non-profit
organizations
or
other
groups.
Do
you
know
those
properties
would
fall
under
this,
or
is
that
now,
specifically
county
property.
A
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Howard
wants
to
the
record.
If
the
land
was
transferred
to
the
county,
then
that
would
not
be
contemplated
under
the
the
ask
of
this
resolution.
It
would
be
lands
that
are
currently
owned
by
the
federal
government
managed
by
the
federal
government,
and
I
know,
there's
also
quite
a
few
discussions
about
lands
related
legislation
in
congress,
and
this
does
not
single
out
any
particular
measure
it.
It
just
makes
the
ask
for
this
specific
type
of
transfer.
F
I
I
have
a
question
about
the
not
for
profit,
so
in
this
situation,
if
something
happens
and
a
non-profit
had
received
the
lands
and
the
non-profit
went,
I
don't
know
what
the
proper
term
is
for
a
non-profit
out
of
business,
then
the
land
just
just
is
handled
as
part
of
the
the
closing
of
the
non-profit
as
any
land
would
have
been
handled.
As
part
of
that
closing.
A
Thank
you
for
the
question
vice
chair,
howard
watts,
for
the
record,
assuming
that
the
intent
of
this
resolution
was
followed
out
by
congress
and
the
transfer
was
made,
the
ownership
of
that
land
would
be
with
the
non-profit,
so
it'd
be
held
as
any
other
private
entity.
When
they
go
out
of
business
or
something
else
happens,
you
know
they
could
choose
to
transfer
it
or
handle
it.
However,
they
see
fit.
F
Okay,
seeing
none
and
I'm
sorry
chair,
I
think
I
forgot
to
ask
if
you
had
anyone
else
presenting
with
you
was
there
before
I
started
questions?
Is
there
anyone
else
you
have
speaking.
A
Thank
you
for
asking
howard
wants
to
the
record.
No,
nobody
else
to
prevent.
We
can
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
testimony.
F
Great
okay,
with
that,
do
we
have
anyone
in
support
on
the
zoom,
I'm
just
saying:
none,
let's
go
to
the
phones
for
support.
Please.
K
D
Good
afternoon
chairwoman
and
committee,
my
name
is
lynn
chapman,
I'm
the
state
vice
chair
for
nevada
families
for
freedom.
That's.
D
L-Y-N-N-C-H-A-P-M-A-N,
we
are
in
support
of
ajr5
nevada.
More
than
any
other
state
is
handicapped
in
our
tax
revenues,
growth
of
cities
and
reasonable
management
of
nevada's
land
by
the
control
of
the
federal
government.
None
of
the
states
east
of
the
mississippi
river
are
burdened
by
control
of
their
land
by
the
federal
government,
because
the
fed
federal
government
only
controls
four
percent
of
their
land.
D
The
u.s
constitution
limits
the
federal
government's
control
of
land
in
article
1,
section
8,
17
quote
to
exercise
like
authority
over
all
places
purchased
by
the
consent
of
the
legislature
of
the
state
in
which
the
same
shall
be
for
the
erection
of
forts
magazines,
arsenals,
dockyards
and
other
needful
buildings.
Unquote,
however,
in
the
11
western
states,
the
feds
control
47
of
the
land
and
in
nevada
that
exceeds
84.9
percent
of
our
land,
the
u.s
government
has
greatly
exceeded
its
limited
authority
in
the
u.s
constitution.
D
Over
nevada's
land
counties
like
lincoln
county
in
our
state,
as
testified
during
this
legislative
session,
are
welfare
counties,
because
so
much
of
their
land
is
controlled
by
the
feds
that
they
do
not
have
sufficient
tax
base
to
support
their
county.
This
is
wrong
and
it
hurts
nevada's
citizens
today
the
feds
control,
approximately
640
million
acres
of
land
and
after
decades
of
very
poor
management,
many
are
calling
on
the
states
to
take
a
larger
role.
Does
the
bureau
of
land
management
really
need
to
have
and
forty
seven
million
acres?
Does
the
forest
service
really.
D
Oh,
I
thought
I
was
I'm
just
talking
about
the
what
the
federal
government
has
taken
over
in
our
state
and
that's
what
we're
concerned
with.
We
are
we
like
this
bill
and
we
would
like
to
see
it
go
forward,
and
so
we
just
wanted
to
point
out
how
much
the
federal
government
has
taken
over
the
land
and
we
need
to
get
it
back
to
the
schools
and
non-profits
in
our
own
state.
This
is
our
land.
D
K
N
N
The
resolution
would
be
improved
if
there
was
a
change
in
the
language
where
it
speaks
only
to
the
transfer
of
lands.
Where
quote
permanent
public
infrastructure
has
been
built
unquote.
Some
of
these
leases
have
planned
infrastructures
that
have
yet
to
be
built.
The
resolutions
should
request
all
lands
under
lease,
regardless
of
what
is
permanently
built
on
them.
N
It
is
critical
understand
acknowledge
that
the
federal
lands
under
these
leases
went
through
a
thorough,
big
and
rigorous
planning
and
analysis
process
in
the
first
place
under
the
federal
land
policy
and
management
at
litma
and
national
environmental
policy
act.
Nepa
the
disposal,
land
planning
and
classification
process
through
blitma
and
nepa
require
coordination
with
all
stakeholders,
including
and
not
limited
to
federal
and
state
resource
management,
local
governments
and
land
user
interest
groups
and
individuals,
including
environmental
groups.
Coordination
at
the
planning
and
management
level
has
been
employed
for
decades
since
the
inception
of
flip
map.
N
We
assert
that
the
methodology
and
protocols
require
whitman
and
nepa
to
evaluate
these
plans
and
a
blm
resource
management
plan
is
by
far
more
integral
and
provides
a
proven
and
usable
tool
for
land
use,
classification
and
allocation.
The
protocol
is
substantiated
through
on-site
evaluation,
ecological
site
correlations
and
existing
and
historical
land
management
implication.
N
F
Mr
walker,
I
just
want
to
confirm
if
there
are
any
changes
you're
seeking
to
the
bill,
that's
no
longer
support,
so
are
you
in
support
or
in
opposition.
K
I
apologize
vice
chair.
I
muted
them
prematurely.
If
they're
still
on
the
line,
they
can
press
star
six
to
end.
F
N
I
do
feel
that
if
you
could
add
a
well
modify
the
joint
resolution
or
amend
the
joint
resolution
to
include
leases
where
the
structures
haven't
been
built,
but
the
lease
has
gone
through
the
environmental
review
that
it
would
strengthen
the
resolution.
N
Yeah,
I
could
add,
we
would
we're
supported
we're
supportive,
as
is,
but
that
would
improve
the
resolution.
Thank
you.
F
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
With
that
we
will
move
on
to
the
next
person
on
the
phones
and
support.
Please.
K
I
Again,
you
chair,
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
david
dazlich
d-a-z-l-I-c-h
and
I'm
the
director
of
government
affairs
for
the
vegas
chamber
we're
in
support
of
ajr5,
as
does
the
chamber's
long-standing
position
generally
to
use
public
lands
in
southern
nevada,
especially
federal
lands
for
economic
and
housing
development
purposes.
Most
especially,
I
will
note
it
was
noted
in
the
presentation,
some
of
the
ccsd
locations
and
the
difficulties
they
have
in
dealing
with
the
blm.
I
We
would
like
to
see
those
lands
disposed
to
the
local
governments,
we're
in
support
of
hr5.
Thank.
K
I
Hi,
thank
you
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
colby
prout,
c-o-l-b-y
p-r-o-u-t,
I'm
the
natural
resources
manager
for
the
nevada,
association
of
counties.
Nico's
members
are
all
17
of
nevadas
counties
and
we
would
like
to
offer
our
support
for
ajr5.
I
I
However,
differences
in
ownership
use
and
management
sometimes
result
in
obstacles
to
proper
management,
including
when
county
facilities
are
on
federal
lands.
Leases
may
restrict
a
holder
in
a
variety
of
ways,
including
permits
for
maintenance
and
making
changes
in
the
land
use
without
express
authorization
which
often
requires
additional
time
expense.
I
It
makes
sense,
therefore,
to
convey
such
lands
to
counties
and
reduce
delay
in
management
decisions
and
help
guarantee
proper
management
of
these
lands
and
the
taxpayer
taxpayer-funded
facilities
on
them
to
ensure
desirable
outcomes
and
reduce
interference
with
services
to
the
community.
Thank
you,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
your
time
again,
naco
supports
ajr
five.
K
F
Bps
pps,
I'm
sorry,
I
skipped
opposition
and
jumped
to
neutral.
Is
it
so?
Let's
hear
this
person
and
just
see
where
they
are
and
then
go
back
to
opposition
cut
out
the
opposition.
K
No
problem
caller
with
the
last
three
digits
792,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes
and
may
begin.
L
L,
l,
I'm
nevada
state
director
with
the
center
for
biological
diversity.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
mr
chairman.
We
are
weighing
in
and
neutral
on
this
bill.
I
know
there
was
a
little
timing
thing
there,
but
just
want
to
be
clear.
We
are
neutral
on
ajr5
rpp
leases
are
an
important
service.
Our
federal
land
managers
provide
the
community,
but
they
can
be
cumbersome
to
administer
and
challenging
for
both
the
land
management
agency
and
the
lessee
of
the
land.
L
It's
worth
noting
that
the
main
place
we've
heard
a
proposal
like
this
is
in
the
clark
county
land
spill,
which
was
recently
introduced
in
congress,
and
we
do
not
object
to
the
provisions
in
the
clark
county
lands
bill.
Transferring
rpp
leases
to
clark
county
as
an
advocate
for
blm
protecting
our
lands.
The
last
thing
we
want
them
doing
is
instead
messing
around
with
the
land
underneath
a
school
or
a
fire
station.
So
this
just
makes
sense.
L
The
sprawl
would
eat
up,
desert,
tortoise
habitat,
contribute
to
carbon
emissions
and
exacerbate
environmental
inequality.
We
are
opposed
to
the
clark
county
lands
bill
and
would
only
support
ajr5
if
it
explicitly
excluded
the
possibility
of
being
paired
with
a
massive
expansion
of
other
land
disposal,
as
is
currently
proposed.
Thank
you.
K
C
My
name
is
kyle
davis,
that's
k-y-l-e
d-a-v-I-s,
and
I
appear
today
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
conservation
league.
We
are
opposed
to
ajr5.
The
resolution
makes
the
claim
that
the
sale
of
transfer,
the
sale
or
transfer
of
these
public
lands
to
state
and
local
governments
or
nonprofit
organizations
can
improve
land
management
outcomes.
We
see
very
little
evidence
to
support
this.
The
fact
is,
the
recreation
and
public
purpose
program
works
well
and
allows
for
development
of
projects
of
public
benefit.
C
If
all
lands
under
rpp
leases
were
transferred,
it
could
open
them
up
for
sale
to
private
entities
that
would
not
utilize
them
for
public
purposes.
Such
a
transfer
could
also
unnecessarily
increase
costs
to
nonprofit
organizations
by
forcing
the
buy
land
to
pay
property
taxes
with
no
discernible
benefit.
Thank
you.
K
J
A-S-H-L-E-E-F-O-R-M-A-N,
I
am
co-chair
of
the
sierra
club's
legislative
committee
on
behalf
of
the
sierra
club
and
our
more
than
40
000
members
and
supporters.
Statewide,
I'm
in
speaking
in
opposition
to
bill
aj,
r5
ajr5
urges
congress
to
sell
or
transfer
certain
public
lands
to
local
governmental
agencies
and
non-profit
organizations.
J
We
support
the
current
method
of
public
land
provision
in
nevada,
the
recreation
and
public
purpose
provision
works
well
and
allows
for
multiple
public
purposes
of
public
lands.
The
transfer,
sale
of
public
lands
to
these
entities
could
result
in
their
use
no
longer
being
available
to
the
public.
If
the
resolution
passes,
the
public
could
lose
the
benefits
that
come
from
these
public
places
and
infrastructure.
J
Overall,
the
reasoning
for
passing
this
resolution
is
unclear
to
us.
This
session
poses
many
problems
for
the
legislator
to
solve,
but
we
do
not
believe
that
this
is
one
of
them.
Let's
keep
our
public
lands
public
and
accessible
for
current
and
future
generations
of
nevadans,
and
for
these
reasons
we
urge
you
to
oppose
this,
though.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time.
F
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
and
with
that,
let's
just
go
back
and
make
sure
we
didn't
miss
anyone
else
on
neutral.
F
Okay,
and
with
that,
I
will
close
this
hearing
on
ajr5
and
turn
it
back
over
to
the
chair.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
vice
chair
with
that.
We
are
now
at
the
last
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
As
a
reminder,
you
must
register
in
advance
to
provide
public
comment.
You
will
be
provided
with
the
information
to
call
in
we
ask
that
anyone
wishing
to
provide
public
comment
limit
their
remarks
to
two
minutes
and
with
that
we'll
turn
it
over
to
bps.
One
more
time
see
if
we
have
anyone
in
the
key
wishing
to
provide
public
comment.
A
Thank
you
very
much
again
broadcast
production
services
for
helping
our
members
of
the
public
and
agencies
participate
in
today's
meeting.
Thank
you
to
the
members
for
your
time
attention
on
all
of
the
items
on
our
agenda
today
with
that.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
on
wednesday
march
24th
at
4
pm
and
happy
conservation
lobby
week.
This
meeting
is
a.