►
From YouTube: 5/17/2023 - Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
Description
Work session
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
I
am
present,
please
mark
assemblywoman
Duran
present
when
she
arrives
she's
finishing
up
presenting
in
another
committee,
again
welcome
I'm
going
to
dispense
with
going
through
how
all
of
the
rules,
because
I
think
we
all
know
them
pretty
well,
just
remember
to
silence
your
electronic
devices
a
little
lay
of
the
land.
A
We
do
have
a
work
session,
we're
going
to
do
a
work
session,
then
we
are
going
to
have
a
bill
hearing
and
then
just
in
case
anyone
wonders
we
probably
will
be
back
on
Friday
with
another
work
session,
but
that
hearing
will
be
a
call
of
the
chair.
A
So
with
that
I
was
hoping
we
could
assembly.
Woman
Duran
was
on
last
her
final
comments
on
her
bill,
but
I
think
we
can
get
started
so
with
that
we'll
go
into
our
work
sessions.
C
Thank
you,
chair
for
the
record
Becky
peratt
committee
policy.
Analyst
Senate,
Bill
180
makes
various
changes
to
groundwater
boards
established
by
the
state
engineer
for
designated
groundwater
basins.
In
summary,
the
bill
authorizes
a
board
of
County
Commissioners.
To
request
that
the
state
engineer
establish
a
groundwater
board
requires
the
state
engineer
to
appoint.
C
Senator
goikichia
proposed
an
amendment
to
add
language
that
a
decision
of
the
state
engineer
to
comply
with
the
views
of
the
groundwater
board
is
not
subject
to
judicial
review
and
that
a
disagreement
between
the
state
engineer
and
groundwater
board
is
not
admissible.
In
any
proceeding
challenging
the
state
engineer,
assembly,
member
LaRue
hatch
proposed
an
amendment
to
limit
each
groundwater
Basin
to
one
groundwater
board
and
a
basin
which
includes
more
than
one
County
authorized.
C
The
boards
of
County
Commissioners
to
jointly
request
that
the
state
engineer
create
a
joint
groundwater
board
or
if
one
Board
of
County
Commissioners
requests
the
establishment
of
a
groundwater
board
in
a
multi-county
basin.
Allow
members
who
reside
in
the
other
County
to
serve
on
the
groundwater
board
and
to
require
that
members
of
the
groundwater
board
must
live
in
the
designated
Basin
area.
A
Okay
and
then
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
clear
so
also
the
opposite
is
true,
that
agreeing
with,
if
the
groundwater
board
and
the
and
there's
agreement
that
that
also
is
not
a
basis
for
a
lawsuit
right
that
can't
be
used.
We're
saying
that
as
well
that
that,
if
the
groundwater
board
is
in
agreement
with
the
with
the
state
engineer,
that
is
also
not
something
that
can
be
raised
in
a
lawsuit
Aaron.
D
Sturdivant
legislative,
Council,
Bureau,
yes,
I-
think
the
opposite
would
be
implied
in
this
case.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
but
also,
and
then
just
just
so
we're
very,
very
clear
that,
just
because
there
are
facts
that
are
raised
by
a
groundwater
board
issues
that
they
address,
that
doesn't
mean
that
those
facts,
if
they're
relevant,
can't
be
used
by
someone
in
a
lawsuit.
A
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
all
right.
So,
with
that
do
I
have
a
motion.
Okay,
I,
have
a
motion
from
assembly
member
gur
do
I
have
a
second
second.
C
E
Sorry
chair,
just
clarifying
the
motion
is
to
amend,
do
pass.
Is
that
correct.
A
Vice
chair:
do
you
have
yes
I.
F
Don't
know
if
it's
a
question
I
know
this
is
policy,
and
not
the
finance
area.
I'm
just
I'm
still
a
little
bit
concerned
about
the
amount
of
staff,
time
and
everything,
but
looking
at
there's
been
no
fiscal
note
already,
but
that's
just
my
only
concern
is
the
the
concerns
around
staff
time
and
and
being
able
to
meet
with
all
the
individuals
at
the
same
time,
that
was
not
really
brought
up
very
well,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
record,
though,.
A
Thank
you.
Do
I,
have
any
other
comments:
okay,
seeing
none
I
all
those
in
favor
of
amend
and
do
pass
with
the
Amendments
that
have
been
discussed.
Please
say:
aye.
G
A
Okay,
all
those
opposed,
nay,
okay,
so
that
passes
unanimously
of
all
members
present
and
I
will
give
that
for
statement
to
assembly
member
gur.
So
with
that
we
will
end
our
work
session
and
we
will
go
into
hearing
for
SB.
159
sp-159
revises
Provisions
relating
to
pest
control
and
then
members
again
I
know
some
of
you
have
other
committees,
including
ways.
So,
certainly
if
you
need
to
leave,
thank
you
for
coming
for
the
work
session.
Thank
you.
H
Yes,
he
once
famously
told
me
that
once
a
senator
always
a
senator,
so
you
know,
but
that
is
that's
the
peacock
move
right
there.
I
am
Senator
Scott,
Hammond
and
I.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
allowing
us
to
come
in
today
in
what
is
I.
Guess
your
penultimate
meeting
and
talk
a
little
bit
about
this
issue
of
Pest
Management
Pest
Control
Management
I
am
going
to
turn
over
my
time
to
former
Senator
Warren
Hardy
to
go
over
the
points
that
we
need
to
make
on
SB.
159.
H
Sorry,
that's
typo
yeah,
so
Madam
chair.
If
you
don't
mind
I'll
hand
it
over.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
Warren
Hardy
today,
representing
Nevada
Pest
Management,
Association
I
want
to
thank
Senator
Hammond
for
bringing
this
bill
forward,
and
you,
madam
chair,
for
for
having
a
hearing
at
this
this
late
date
this
bill.
The
necessity
of
this
bill,
came
to
our
attention
as
Association
during
the
the
coveted
pandemic,
when
we
were
having
a
very
difficult
time
getting
Pest
Management,
applicators
or
pest
Pest,
Control
applicators
into
the
field
to
to
do
their
jobs
very
early
in
the
pandemic.
G
The
governor
sicilak
declared
Pest
Management
an
essential
industry,
but
as
many
Industries
had
we
had
people,
we
lost
a
lot
of
folks,
a
lot
of
people
retired.
A
lot
of
people
moved
on
a
lot
of
people
quit
we've
always
known
in
Nevada
that
we
have
a
very,
very
tough
test
for
Pest
Control
applicators.
We
we
would
submit
that
that
tough
test
is
very
appropriate,
but
what
we
have
learned
through
the
years
is,
without
the
Hands-On
training,
to
be
able
to
pass
that
test.
Our
failure
rate
is
very
high
with
with
conc
concerning
the
actual
test.
G
So
it's
something
we've
grappled
with
for
some
time.
This
bill
originally
started
out
as
a
bill
to
provide
or
create
a
a
temporary
licensure
process
became
clear
that
we
really
didn't
need
the
Full
temporary
temporary
licensure
that
was
going
to
cost
money
that
wasn't
necessary.
So
in
the
assembly
we
we
re.
G
We
Revisited
that
and
adopted
amendment
that
will
simply
require
the
Department
of
Agriculture
to
promulgate
regulations
with
regard
to
Pest
Control
applicators
Most
states
have
either
a
provisional
license,
or
they
have
a
process
like
what
we're
proposing
here,
where
we
can
now
hire
an
individual
for
up
to
90
days.
They
can
work
in
the
field
for
up
to
90
days
prior
to
taking
the
the
exam
we
find
in
most
States.
When
that
happens,
the
success
rate
of
passing
the
test
is
significantly
higher
because
they've
actually
done
it.
They've
done
the
Hands-On
I'm.
G
A
Hands-On
learner,
so
I
understand
that.
So
what
this
legislation
would
do
would
require
the
promulgation
of
legisl
of
regulations
that
would
allow
new
hires
in
this
industry
to
be
employed
in
the
field
for
up
to
for
no
less
than
90
days.
In
speaking
with
the
Department
of
Agriculture,
they
did
have
some
concerns,
which
we
completely
agreed
with
so
rather
than
leaving
that
to
the
regulatory
process.
G
We
actually
put
it
in
the
legislation
and
the
restrictions
are
that
an
applicator
trainee
may
only
apply
General
use
pesticides,
as
directed
excuse
me,
General
use
pesticides
under
the
direct
supervision
of
a
licensed
applicator
in
the
state,
and
the
bill
distinguishes
between
a
direct
direct
supervision
and
it
defines
direct
supervision
as
accessible.
The
trainee
has
direct
access,
physically
telephonically
or
by
some
other
means
to
an
applicator
that
is
directs
direct
supervision.
G
I
Visit
here,
thank
you,
madam
chair
I.
Just
wanted
clarification,
I'm,
Senator
Hardy,
where
you
we're
talking,
you
said
it
would
be
up
to
90
days,
but
the
way
that
bill
is
written
as
far
as
training
for
Pest
Control.
It
says
not
less
than
90
days
so
is
there?
Is
there
a
cap
on
those
days?
Thank.
G
You,
madam
chair
Senator,
mcconaughton
I
misspoke,
it
is,
it
is
a
minimum
of
90
days.
We
felt
the
minimum
was
necessary
because
that's
the
amount
of
time
that
generally
and
I
should
indicate
and
I
apologize
to
staff,
because
I
told
him
I
was
going
to
do
this.
I've
got
Mr,
Jeff
Burns
I
believe
is
in
the
audience
in
Las.
Vegas
he's
a
president
of
our
association
actually
practices
in
this
field,
but
he's
my
phone
or
friend,
but
I
don't
need
one.
In
this
case
it
is
I
misspoke.
G
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
think
I'm
good.
There
I
think
Senator
Hardy's
doing
a
great
job,
but
if
you
have
any
questions,
I
am
here
available.
J
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
to
some
of
them.
That's
the
intent!
Absolutely
that
that
there
is
a
there
is
a
limit
and
that'll
be
decided
in
the
regulatory
process,
but
it's
not
the
intent
to
have
it,
go
on
forever
I'm,
not
aware
of
anybody.
That
does
that
and
we
certainly
wouldn't
in
our
case
our
intent
is
to
get
these
folks
trained,
so
they
can
receive
the
full
licensure
as
quickly
as
possible.
J
Now,
if
I
could
ask
my
actual
question,
okay,
so
my
actual
question
I
just
wanted
to
have
some
clarification
on
General
use
versus
restricted
use,
so
the
general
use
I'm
assuming
has
a
lower
degree
of
supervision,
because
that's
something
that
pretty
much
any
of
us
could
go
access
and
it's
not
as
dangerous
as
the
restricted
use.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
Warren.
Hardy,
that's
correct,
General,
General
use
application
is
what
you
would
traditionally
use
in
your
house
that
restricted
use
for
much
more
potentially
maybe
I
ought
to
let
Mr
Burns
address
that,
so
he
can
give
a
clearer
answer
on
the
difference.
E
Yes,
Madam
chairs,
Jeff
Burns
here
the
EPA
is
the
one
that
designates
that
classification
as
a
as
a
product
is
being
as
it
goes
to
that
EPA
registration
process.
They
will
either
label
it
as
a
restricted
use
or
a
general
use,
but
you
are
correct
and
that
label
is
based
upon
the
toxicity
level
of
it
and
the
the
complicated,
also
level
of
applications.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation
I'm
going
to
go
back
to
the
training
piece
for
just
a
minute.
I'm
curious
to
know
is
this:
this
is
an
opportunity
to
engage
in
a
training
program
for
90
days,
but
is
it
mandatory
that
you
have
to
go
through
a
training
program
in
order
to
become
licensed?
Are
we
mandating
that
all
new
people
would
have
to
do
this
90-day
training
period.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
That's
a
great
question.
What
is
mandatory
is
that
you
pass
the
test,
and
so
it's
not
mandatory
that
you
do
a
training
per
se.
We
just
have
learned
as
an
industry
best
practice
that
the
best
way
to
get
these
folks
in
a
position
where
they
can
pass
the
test
which
I
I
should
indicate,
is
one
of
the
toughest
in
the
country.
It
has
as
high
a
failure
rate
as
any
place
in
the
country,
and
we
believe
part
of
that
is
because
these
aren't
these
individuals
aren't
having
the
hands-on
experience.
H
If
I
could
add
to
that
Senator
Scott
Hammond
for
the
record,
it
really
is
about
training.
Right.
I
spend
a
lot
of
my
time
talking
about
getting
you
know
getting
students
into
more
internship
programs
and
that
Hands-On
approach,
where
you're
actually
able
to
do
something
over
and
over
again.
H
So
you
have
familiarity
with
something
you
know
whatever
you're
doing,
and
so
that's
why
I
got
excited
when
he
brought
this
to
me
because
I
know
that
I
know
a
lot
of
folks
are
in
this
industry
and
they
just
couldn't
keep
anybody
on
staff
because
they
couldn't.
You
know
they
had
a
hard
time
passing
a
test.
H
You
can
take
the
test
often,
but
if
you
actually
allowed
them
to
take
the
test
often
but
give
them
some
practical
experience,
you
know
day
in
and
day
out,
you
become
more
familiar
with,
it
becomes
safer,
become
better
at
what
you're
doing
and
then
you're
able
to
pass
the
test
a
little
bit
quicker.
So
that's
that's
what
that's
the
whole
intent
of
it,
but
yeah
that
what
Senator
Hardy
said
is
correct.
The
thing
that's
mandatory
is
passing
that
test.
K
Thank
you,
Senators
I
I
sincerely
appreciate
that
that
would
lead
into
the
next
question
being.
Where
are
we
with
regard
to
Workforce
Development
for
this
particular
line
of
business?
And
how
do
we
encourage
that
in
some
of
our
trade
schools,
in
order
to
be
able
to
do
that?
So
I
appreciate
your
efforts
relative
to
this
piece.
G
Would
you
like
me
to
address
that
I'm?
Sorry?
No,
we
have
Warren
Hardy
for
the
record.
We
we
have
no
shortage
of
individuals
that
want
to
get
in
this
field.
It's
a
well-paying
field.
It's
a
good!
It's
a
good
career.
We
contemplated
a
full-blown
apprenticeship
program,
but
really
this
is
one
of
those
things
that
just
requires
on
the
job
training.
So
that's
why
we
opted
for
this.
So
thanks.
J
Hatch
I
swear:
I
did
not
walk
in
with
this
many
questions,
but
you
did
just
mention.
Students
and
I
am
a
teacher
and
that
always
perks
my
ears.
So
what
are
the
age
restrictions
that
are
associated
with
restricted
use?
Pesticides,
because
are
we
going
to
see
16
or
17
year
olds,
doing
an
internship
and
then
dealing
with
these
chemicals?
Thank.
E
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Jeff
Burns
for
the
record.
There
is,
as
far
as
the
Department
of
Agriculture
is
the
one
that
sets
the
regulations.
There
are
no
age
limits
that
they
have
in
place,
but
where
the
age
limits
come
into
place
is
set
by
the
insurance
companies
that
each
pest
control
company
must
have
and
prove
to
the
Department
of
Agriculture
that
you
are
properly
insured
to
be
able
to
apply
pesticides
and
those
insurance
companies
set
those
age
limits
of
who
we
of
what
age
we
can
hire
at,
and
that
is
normally
21..
A
I'm
glad
you
raised
Insurance
Mr
Burns,
because
that
was
one
of
my
questions
in
section
one
sub
B
There
is
reference
to
the
business
being
liable,
so
I
did
want
to
know
about
the
insurance
and
and
what
type
of
insurance
the
is
required
for
licensure.
That
type
of
thing.
G
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
I'll.
Let
Mr
Burns
add
to
that.
But
I
will
tell
you
that
we
felt
very
strongly
about
that
being
a
provision
that
was
a
provision
we
requested
that
they'd
be
that
the
owner
of
the
company
and
the
trainee
trainer
be
reliable
and
responsible
for
the
actions
of
that
individual.
That
will
fall
under
our
insurance,
but
there
are
stringent
requirements
on
insurance
and
all
that
allow
Mr,
if
it
pleases
the
chair,
Mr
Burns.
To
add
to
that.
E
Jeff
Burns
for
the
record.
Thank
you
they're.
As
far
as
off
the
top
of
my
head,
I,
don't
remember
exactly
the
insurance
levels
that
we
carry
we,
but
but
yes,
the
liability
does
currently
and
will
continue
to
fall
upon
the
company
itself
right
now,
even
though,
once
an
applicator
passes
these
tests
that
we're
referencing,
if
there's
any
improper
application,
that
liability
goes
to
the
principal
of
that
pest
control
company,
it
doesn't
go
to
the
applicator.
It
goes
to
that
principle.
E
A
Thank
you
and
then
so.
My
next
question
is
about
the
direct
supervision
portion.
I
I
understand
that
they're
dealing
with
different
types
of
pesticides
and
that
there
there
can
be
availability
by
phone
that
type
of
things.
But
it
was
somewhat
concerned
because
you
can
have
you
know
these
are
small,
but
for
the
most
part,
small
businesses
you
can
be
in
areas
of
the
state
where
it's
hard
to
have
connectivity
even
by
phone
and
so
I
mean
is.
A
Is
that
something
where
the
the
regs
are
gonna
handle
just
making
sure
that
there's
an
ability
for
contact
and
making
sure
that,
when
we're
expecting
that
the
wrong
tense
and
purpose
purposes,
a
an
intern
to
be
able
to
get
a
trainee?
I
should
use
the
proper
turn
a
trainee
to
be
able
to
get
a
hold
of
the
experienced
person
that
they
will
definitely
be
able
to
get
a
hold
of
them.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chairman
chairwoman.
Another
great
question
you
have
the
intent
of
the
legislation
and
I
think
it
will
carry
over
to
the
the
regulatory
process
is,
if
there's
a
circumstance
like
you
described
where
they
they're
out
of
range,
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
employ
the
trainee
in.
In
that
situation.
They
have
to
be
under
the
direct
supervision,
which
means
they
have
to
be
able
to
reach
them
telephonically
by
radio,
and
if
that's
not
the
case,
then
they
would
have
to
have
immediate
supervision.
A
G
Madam
chair,
that's
the
intent.
We
understand
that's
a
little
bit
of
a
burden
on
these
folks,
but
you
know
this
is
something
that
we
take
very
seriously,
which
is
why
we
specifically
included
the
the
liability
provision
in
there,
because
this
is
serious
business
and
and
we
need
to
make
sure
these
folks
are
trained
properly.
So
that
would
be
our
intent.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
So
I
don't
see
any
other
questions,
so
we
will
go
on
to
supporting.
Let's
go
to
car
sting,
Carson
City.
Sorry
go
ahead.
Mr
Walker.
L
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman.
Yes
I'd
like
to
just
reiterate
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we're
just
we're
trying
to
see
this
is
a
great
paying
opportunity
for
people
that
aren't
College
Bound
and
this
barrier
to
entry
has
really
prevented
us
from
putting
these
people
to
work,
great
people
that
could
do
a
great
job
doing
it,
and
so
you
know
with
this
bill.
We
think
that
that'll
open
it.
This
we're
not
and
we're
not
Reinventing
the
wheel
Arizona.
Just
it
wasn't
90
days
they
just
up
there's
to
120.
E
to
give
them
even
more
time.
So
this
is
a
very
common
thing.
Most
states
do
have
it
and
Florida.
Actually,
never
you
don't
the
applicator
never
has
to
test.
So
it's
very
we're
not
trying
to
reinvent
the
wheel.
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
just
get
these
people
to
work
because
they're
great
people
that
deserve
great
jobs.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank.
A
You
and
I,
don't
think,
there's
anyone
else
in
Las
Vegas,
but
yep,
no
one
else
in
Las
Vegas
and
not
seeing
anyone
in
Elko
BPS.
If
we
can
go
to
the
phones,
please.
A
A
A
A
Thank
you,
BPI
all
right,
so
with
that
again,
we
can't
expect
a
work
session
on
Friday,
probably
call
the
chair,
but
just
keep
an
eye
out.
So
with
that
we
are
adjourned.
Thank
you.