April 9, 2021
Newsletter For April 9, 2021
This Issue:
  • Thank You For Your Response On Water Bills
  • American Farm Bureau Federation Launches Campaign On Capital Gains Taxes and Stepped Up Basis
  • Bill Makes It Illegal For Sale Of Non-Certified Cage-Free Eggs In Nevada
  • Nevada Farm Bureau Comments On Humboldt River Proposed Order
  • Legislative Deadline Friday, April 9
Thank You For Your Response On Water Bills
Last week we launched the Nevada Farm Bureau “Action Request” system and we greatly appreciate those who responded with their emails to members of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee regarding AB 354 and AB 356.

In addition to the number of emails that were sent, we are also aware of those who weighed in using the Legislature’s Opinion Poll.  Thank you to all who engaged and have been following the legislative process!

The morning before the hearing was scheduled, the acting Nevada State Engineer notified those who had been involved in on-going conversations about the bill that they had an amendment for AB 354 , the bill proposing to create a water banking system in Nevada.  Several of the concerns that Nevada Farm Bureau had highlighted as issues in past conversations and interactions were addressed in the amended language.  Most notable improvements included the language which would prohibit inter-basin transfer for water deposited into a bank, an important aspect covered by Nevada Farm Bureau policy.  The bill also strengthened the language which recognized the continued ownership of the water in the bank, tying it back to the owner who made the deposit.

Nevada Farm Bureau maintained a position of opposition in testimony before the committee, but did recognize the notable improvements made in the last-minute amendments.  It is unclear whether there will be future interests for establishing a water banking system in the state, but it is worth considering that the basis for possible conversations need to start from the point where the proposed amended version for the bill left off.

An amendment for AB 356  was also offered by the Division of Water Resources.  This bill is aimed at providing a mechanism for water saved by enhanced irrigation management would be allowed to not be subject for forfeiture by non-use and would be split between the water right owner and the State on a 75 percent to 25 percent share.

In spite of the improvements to the language in the bill, by the proposed amendments, Nevada Farm Bureau maintained a position of opposition in our testimony.
American Farm Bureau Federation Launches Campaign On Capital Gains Taxes and Stepped Up Basis
We reported in last week’s newsletter on the American Farm Bureau Federation’s (AFBF’s) efforts to get Farm Bureau members involved in emailing their representatives and communicating opposition to the Stepped Up Basis legislation before Congress.  The Senate version of this terrible bill is called the “Sensible Taxation and Equity Promotion (STEP) Act.”  It is sponsored by Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.  The House bill (H.R. 2286) is sponsored by Representative Bill Pascrell of New Jersey.

The change in the Administration inhabiting the White House and the political party taking majority in control of the House and Senate re-raises the potential for adjustments in Death Taxes to capture more funds for the U.S. Treasury. This Action Request is an important activity that we strongly encourage you to become part of…logging into the American Farm Bureau Federation’s (AFBF’s) Advocacy platform to send emails to your elected representatives in Washington, D.C..

Another bill, proposed by Congressman Jimmy Panetta from California and Congresswoman Jackie Walorski, is aimed at allowing more farm and ranch land to be valued at its agricultural value rather than its development value.  HR 2370 is called Preserving Family Farms Act of 2021 This background paper from AFBF offers more details on the IRS Code 2032A Special Use Valuation system and also the organization’s policy position for this concept.

Further information has been prepared by AFBF’s economic review on the consequences of the elimination of the stepped-up basis and how family farms could be negatively harmed.
Bill Makes It Illegal For Sale Of Non-Certified Cage-Free Eggs In Nevada
AB 399 with amendments  works to outlaw any eggs sold in Nevada which the Department of Ag hasn’t certified as being “cage free.”  This bill, as originally introduced required a two-thirds majority vote for passage, but through an amendment that was proposed slightly before the hearing of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee was held – it seems that there’s no need now for new fees by the Department of Agriculture to carry out the requirements.

Nevada Farm Bureau testified in opposition stating “We do not believe that it is appropriate for the Nevada Department of Agriculture to be assigned a role in checking the paperwork on whether eggs or egg products sold in Nevada have come from birds in other states with designated management requirements that rightfully belong under the state authority where the birds live.”

Those promoting the bill, “cage-free” egg producers in California and Colorado, along with the Humane Society of the United States, said that the markets are driving the change to cage-free because of the many of those who sell eggs or egg products are requiring egg producers to provide their eggs from cage-free birds.  They indicated that there are more than 200 companies who limit the eggs or egg products they provide consumers to come from cage-free chickens…so Nevada should also have the same requirement.

Evidently the Nevada Department of Agriculture agrees with that premise since there was no fiscal note or a need for new fees to cover the program which will come about, including an annual certification requirement and the likely inspection of facilities for anyone selling eggs in Nevada.
Nevada Farm Bureau Comments On Humboldt River Proposed Order
April 2nd the Nevada Division of Water Resources held a hearing for the Proposed Interim Order Within the Humboldt River Region.  Nevada Farm Bureau weighed in with oral comments and included comments which sited Farm Bureau policy on conjunctive management.  

A primary point made dealt with the underlying authority for the State Engineer to move forward on implementing conjunctive management.  “We are very concerned over the lack of legislative direction and absence of specific parameters in regard to how ‘Conjunctive Management’ is going to be carried out.” Farm Bureau’s opening statement said.  “We urge a full public discussion of what conjunctive management of water resources means and how combining separate sections of state law will be implemented.”

There are various portions of the proposed interim order which don’t give much insight on what the real-life application will mean, Farm Bureau’s statement observed.  “We don’t fully understand the way that specific wells in different areas, perhaps pumped on a different basis than continual, will be scored under the model system that will be coming into operation at some point in time in the future.”

A clear prohibition against inter-basin transfers, outside of the Humboldt River system is something not covered in the proposed interim order that Farm Bureau believes should be addressed.  “We strongly contend that the Order needs to include provisions which would prohibit water from leaving the Humboldt River system while groundwater basins are out of balance with perennial yields and concerns of meeting necessary surface water rights exist.”

The acting State Engineer has extended the timeframe for anyone wishing to submit written comments to April 16th.  For those who wish to send in written comments, they should address them to:

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
901 South Stewart Street, Suite 2002 
Carson City, Nevada 89701-5250 
Legislative Deadline Friday, April 9
So far this session there has not been a pre-set deadline on legislative activities which have been followed, but the April 9th deadline for passage from the committee of the first House seems to be the first that will be maintained.  Throughout the week committees have been cramming legislative proposals through hearings and work sessions.

Because of the uncertainty over what might end up on the continuing path forward – or what might crash – we will be planning to wait for the dust to settle and report on the results of this deadline in next week’s issue.
Have a great weekend!