August 7, 2020
Newsletter for August 7, 2020
This Issue:
  • Nevada’s 32nd Special Session Update
  • State Engineer Schedules Several Hearings For August 12 On Proposed Orders
  • Arizona Farm Bureau Working On The Interaction Of Land Management Agencies In Fire Related Issues
Nevada’s 32nd Special Session Update
Governor Sisolak called lawmakers back to Carson City with his Proclamation on Friday, July 31.  The result of the legislators coming together for this 32nd Special Session provided for four bills being introduced in each of the bodies and three Resolutions to change the Nevada Constitution, impact mining (if the resolutions are acted on again in the next session of the Nevada Legislature and then passed by a favorable votes by those voting in the 2022 election).  All of the legislation gained passage with only the more contentious ideas resulted in party-line votes.  As has become the custom of the majority party’s approach to the legislative process, it is very frequently the schedule where scheduled times for morning’s or early afternoons are delayed in starts until the evening or nights and it is not unusual for the opportunity for public comments to be made available late into the night or early morning hours.  Of course, because of the emergency conditions, no public are allowed to be in the Legislative Building and input comes in the form of being able to speak by phone during allotted times, for no more than two minutes of comment.

AB 1 – This bill took care of some technical corrections in legislation that were dealt with in past regular sessions of the Nevada Legislature.  It probably didn’t warrant being in the Special Session, but when they were getting started the legislators needed something to do.

AB 2 – This bill provides the green light for holding virtual meetings with remote technology (what the Nevada Legislature and state agencies have already been doing).  It crosses some legalistic “t” s and dots some bureaucratic “i” s along the way, but also makes it possible for a Special Session to be used as the launch pad for starting the legislative process of moving amendments to the Nevada Constitution (something that speeds the end-game for proposals that came forward coincidentally dealing with changing Nevada’s Constitution for mining tax changes).

AB 3 – AB 3 deals with one of the identified reasons for there being this Special Session and involves the manner in which police officers carry out their responsibilities.  It deals with the conduct of police officers in the use of “unjustified force” and is mostly known for the provisions of the bill which limit the use of a choke hold by a police officer.

AB 4 – The claim to fame for this bill is that it changes the way that Nevada elections will be operating, when there is an emergency (as determined by the Governor or the Legislature).  It sets up the system for mail-in ballots in these declared emergencies.  Under the provisions of the new law, every voter on the voting rolls will be sent a ballot and the process allows for “helpers” to aid voters in completing their ballots and then bringing the completed ballots to turn in (ballot harvesting).  The very righteous justification for the change is the argument for the way this legislation is intended to ensure Nevada elections will be conducted “safely and securely” when there is an emergency.

SB 1 –This bill works on creating a system, established by the Supreme Court or a district court, for a process of alternative dispute resolution for evictions of non-rent or payment of mortgages when the moratorium set up by Governor Sisolak expires.

SB 2 – This is the Senate’s version of addressing the concerns over how police officers will be dealt with in disputes involving their conduct.  It tweaks a law passed in the last session of the Legislature which dealt with protections provided to officers in investigations of their conduct in improper ways.

SB 3 – SB 3 deals with the operations of the struggling Nevada unemployment system, operated by the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR).  The bill allows for advancement of emergency regulations to address some of the limitations that have been discovered in the nation-leading rate of unemployment, caused by the Governor’s shutdown of the economy in March.  It also provides for an extension of benefits for a longer period of time as well as a provision for workers going back to work to remain eligible for receiving payments as long as their income from working doesn’t exceed one-and-one-half times the eligible unemployment that they are qualified to receive.  This is intended to serve as an incentive for people to go back to work, even on a part-time basis, while still drawing unemployment benefits.

SB 4 – This bill is supposedly providing limited liability protection to some Nevada business operations – as long as they follow dictated protocols in carrying out their protection of causing the spread of COVID-19.  The contentious nature of the legislation came down to which businesses were protected in the limited fashion that is being provided for liability claims and which aren’t going to be included.  Certain hospital facilities were excluded from the protection as were Nevada’s public schools (pre-school to 12th grade).  Sections of the bill get into excruciating details over the protocols for cleaning and other required safeguards necessary for some types of business operations to obtain the protection being provided.  It is likely (and was really intended to cause the result) that Nevada public schools will not be opening this fall for students to attend, given the explicit deletion of their being qualified to have the limited liability protection.

AJR 1 – This is the Assembly’s version of the proposed Constitutional amendment that seeks to change the current language for net proceeds for mining (not to exceed 5 percent) to a gross proceeds tax, levied at 7.75 percent of the gross.  The bill calls for using the funds collected by the State of Nevada to be used for educational funding.  Another provision of the change in the bill would alter the two-thirds requirement provisions to allow for the rate to be increased by a majority vote of the Legislature, but would still retain the two-thirds vote for any lowering of the rate.  Nevada Farm Bureau testified in opposition to the proposal in the two-minute allocation for “public testimony.”  Farm Bureau opposed the change in the two-thirds requirement for increasing taxes as well speaking against targeting a single sector of the state economy.  Lastly, Farm Bureau’s opposition was against using this Special Session as a vehicle for starting the process of making such a change.

AJR 2 – This proposed change to the Nevada Constitution is also aimed at digging deeper into the mining sector’s taxpaying pockets.  It leaves the type of tax to be a net proceeds tax, but bumps the rate from the “not to exceed 5 percent” to 12 percent.

SJR 1 - This is the Senate’s version of the proposed Constitutional amendment that is working to change the current provisions for a net proceeds tax (not to exceed 5 percent) to a gross proceeds tax, levied at 7.75 percent.  Where this idea differs from the Assembly language of AJR 1, is that instead of using the money from the funds collected for education – SJR 1 calls for setting up something like Alaska has and those qualified in the state to receive an annual “here is a gracious amount of money that the State of Nevada has taken away from mining for you to have.”  Farm Bureau opposed this bill on the same basis as the opposition to AJR 1 – the change in the two-thirds voting requirements, targeting a single industry and using the Special Session for rolling forward on an expedited path for bring it to voters in the 2022 election…(if not sooner).
State Engineer Schedules Several Hearings For August 12 On Proposed Orders
Over the past several weeks, we’ve highlighted the proposed public meetings on August 12th dealing with proposed Orders by the State Engineer, covering designation of a number of water basins across the state.

In spite of the law which requires the State Engineer to hold public meetings, in the county where such proposed Orders are being aimed, all of these hearings will be conducted in a virtual sense with those who wish to participate needing to call in or tune in with their computer/tablet/or other device connected to the video teleconference system.  Skirting the law to take advantage of limited participation that will likely be caused by holding only virtual meetings could become a major issue as the discussions unfold, leading up to the “hearings” on August 12.

The hearing for the designations of Pueblo Valley (Basin 001), Continental Lake Valley (Basin 002) and Gridley Lake Valley (Basin 003) is scheduled for 9 a.m. on Wednesday, August 12.  All three of these basins are located in the Northwestern corner of Humboldt County.  Based on the numbers we’ve been able to research the primary issue for the designation is based on the level of committed water rights and the determined amount of the perennial yield.  The highlighted basin names below will take you to the proposed orders for each respective basin…
Pueblo Valley – 001              5,600.32 Committed               2,000 Perennial Yield

Continental Lake Valley – 002 10,66.64 Committed               11,000 Perennial Yield

Gridley Lake Valley – 003.  6,191.85 Committed                 3,000 Perennial Yield

The hearing for the designations of Newark Valley (Basin 154) and Long Valley (Basin 175 is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, August 12.  These two basins are mostly located in the area of Eureka, Elko and White Pine Counties. Again, it appears that the underlying point for the designations are related to committed water rights and the determined amount of perennial yield.  The highlighted basin names below will take you to the proposed orders for each respective basin…

Newark Valley – 154 27,608.62 Committed             18,000 Perennial Yield

Long Valley – 174   4,749.33 Committed               6,000 Perennial Yield

The hearing for the designations of several basins in Lincoln County (Basins 198 - 204) is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 12.  These basins have an accumulated perennial yield of 25,000 acre feet but are dealt with on an individual basis.  There was some confusion on how the designated basins were being dealt with, but we have been informed that the proposed designation orders are being treated as induvial basins.  The highlighted basin names below will take you to the proposed order for each respective basin…  (again remember that the overall total of determined perennial yield for the complex of these basins is considered to be 25,000 acre feet) This is the link for the proposed order for the combined Lincoln County basins.

Dry Valley – 198                                  6,273.84 Total Committed                

Rose Valley – 199                                 1,411.50 Total Committed

Eagle Valley – 200                                   453.12 Total Committed

Spring Valley – 201                             1,125.58 Total Committed

Patterson Valley – 202                         5,546.78 Total Committed

Panaca Valley – 203                           23,880.36 Total Committed

Clover Valley – 204                              2,792.39 Total Committed

Lower Meadow Valley Wash – 205   22,428.08 Total Committed

The total of these individual basins total 63,911.65 of Total Committed acre ft. of water rights.
Arizona Farm Bureau Working On The Interaction Of Land Management Agencies In Fire Related Issues
One of the reasons for there not being a newsletter last week was because of Nevada Farm Bureau participating in a Western Regional Farm Bureau conference in Utah.  During the conversations of state Farm Bureaus working together on issues of importance, wildfires were again on the list of concerns.

Arizona Farm Bureau’s President, Stefanie Smallhouse shared heard concerns over the at least a few fire seasons related to fire response teams not being collaborative or communicating critical information with landowners and lessees as they respond to fires. There have been reports in Arizona of fire response efforts like backburns and fire breaks causing unnecessary damage to infrastructure and resulting in additional damage after the fire is out like excessive flooding and damaged water infrastructure.

It was noted that the state Farm Bureau is hoping to gather information on experiences from producers across the West to illustrate the need for additional collaboration and assistance in recovery after the fires are put out.  We would encourage those with experiences to take advantage of providing input through this survey.

Responses to the survey will go back to AZFB staff. They will be compiling that information and would be happy to provide any information you would like to have at the end of the survey. It would be best to complete the survey responses by August 31st.
Have a great weekend!