Nevada Farm Bureau Resolution | AB146 | AJR3

Resolution Urging Congress To Fund Wild Horses and Burro Management

By Doug Busselman | NFB, Executive Vice President

One of the risks in writing on a proposed action in the Nevada Legislative process, at this point, things can change rather quickly while at the same time things can stay without changes for a long period of

time. As this article is being drafted the Senate Natural Resources committee has not taken any action since Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 3 was introduced on February 25th. SJR 3 urges Congress to provide funding to reduce the wild horse and burro populations to appropriate levels. Through the “Whereas” statements of SJR 3, points are made to offer a basis of background to present common understanding of Wild Horse and Burro management. As an example, the leading “Whereas” states that “the

Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, as amended, ensured freeroaming horses and burros existing on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or U.S. Forest Service in 1971 would be protected and managed as valued components of our public lands.”

The value in making this point is firming up the understanding that Wild Horse and Burro areas are actual locations – as opposed to the notion that they should be allowed to over-populate any and all federally managed lands. Further laying the groundwork for the established foundation for the program -- SJR 3 a “Whereas” statement covers sustaining herds “while ensuring a

thriving natural ecological balance with wildlife, livestock and other public land uses in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960.”

“Appropriate management levels” (known more commonly as AML) is noted as well as the manner of how freeroaming horse and burros populations are set and once the populations go over the appropriate management level, the numbers of free-roaming horses and burros were defined as excess to the carrying capacity of the land. Nevada’s populations of free-roaming horses and burros are identified as making up over 50 percent of all freeroaming horses and burros there are. It is also spelled out that Nevada’s established appropriate management has been set and that level is 12,800 horses and burros. The reality is covered on how Nevada’s Herd Management Areas are on average 300 percent over the appropriate management level with 50,000 on BLM lands and 2,500 on U.S. Forest Service lands. In addition, there are also approximately 5,500 other feral or estray horses and burros in areas outside of the jurisdiction of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. SJR 3 identifies that a national working group of various interests came to agreement for proposing a pathway to reduce the horse and burro populations to the appropriate level using nonlethal methods and that the BLM’s 2020 “Report to Congress: An Analysis

of Achieving a Sustainable Wild Horse &

Burro Program” is hinged on Congress providing sufficient short and longerterm funding for success. With the connection of funding – short and longer term – identified, the purpose of SJR 3 is to put the 81st session of the Nevada Legislature on record of urging Congress to provide the commitment for sufficient funding to reduce the excess free-roaming horses and burros to achieve the appropriate management level. It is stated that the process of getting populations to appropriate management levels should be carried out within six years to protect and restore the health and viability of public lands and habitat for wildlife, free-roaming horses and burros and other uses into the future. This resolution came forward through the interim’s Committee on Public Lands, but even more important was originated by a working coalition of wildlife advocates and sportsmen groups. The support of these interests increases the emphasis on how overpopulation of Wild Horse and Burros is devastating wildlife habitat and rangeland conditions overall. Although the inability to properly manage free-roaming horses and burros might have once been a problem with the federal land management agencies, the current situation rest within Congress. Foolish restrictions placed on use of the management tools available in the

Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros

Act of 1971 dug a hole that the present over-population conditions can’t be addressed without significant sums of funding. SJR 3 notes in an important “Whereas” that “free-roaming horse and burro populations double every 3 to 5 years.” Timely and aggressive reductions of the wild horses and burros on the range is going to require a serious level of funding for not only the removal of excess animals, but the agreement for non-lethal methods is also going to require funding for housing animals in off-the-range facilities. Without specifically using the words to say so, SJR 3 encourages Nevada’s members in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate to take a leadership role in moving forward within the federal legislative branch to begin the long road to appropriate management levels of free-roaming horse and burro populations. There is plenty of reason to support passage of SJR 3 and appreciation for all who are advocating for the purpose of achieving appropriate management levels.

Thoughts/Questions For AB 146

Prepared by Doug Busselman, NFB Executive Vice President doug@nvfb.org | Cell: 775-870-3349

Section 2 calls on the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to establish a program to reduce, control and mitigate water pollution from diffuse sources… • I think we need to understand what the current program involves. This includes highlighting where problems exist that the current program/approach is not working. Where these specific unmet needs are not being met, what is the nature of the diffuse source contribution to create the problems that are taking place. • 2 (a) What do you envision for the results to be given that federal requirements for management and control of diffuse sources are based on voluntary programs and incentives for implementing best management practices? • 2 (b) What extent do the plans and policies need to “dictate” end results/ requirements? • 2 (c) What standards apply to meet expectations of “reasonably be expected to attain…?” • 2 (d) Are the intentions to “identify the major categories of diffuse sources” supposed to be a statewide list of all “diffuse sources” or are there intentions to consider specific impaired waters and associate diffuse source issues on those specific circumstances? • 2 (e) Current use of best management practices are based on voluntary implementation, with incentives to assist in installing tools that connect to best management practices – This seems to imply more of a regulatory model? Also what extent does “control” mean? Section 3 – requires approval for a permit (NRS 445A.475 or 445A.480) to have an applicant to file a bond or other surety in the amount fixed by the Commission… and (NRS 445A.300 to 445A.730) Section 4 (d) – Adopt regulations for controlling the infiltration of contaminants into underground water through contaminated fluids or soil… • What is considered to be “contaminated fluids” and “contaminated soil”? Are there already regulations or controls already in place which deal with “contaminated fluids” and/or “contaminated soil”? Sub (2) (II) {page 4 – line 35} speaks to “A danger to the health and safety of persons” – this seems like a fairly expansive scope…how will this be dealt with in regulatory specifics? Sub (3) (a) includes historic irrigation and (b) “Any disproportionate impact on historically oppressed or marginalized communities in the respective river basins of this State.” -- this seems like a retribution for possible historic adjudication (Federal Court adjudication/court order) … What is the solution for accomplishing the intended recognition and consideration? How are “disproportionate impact,” “historically oppressed” and “marginalized communities” defined and linked? Section 7 – (NRS 445.490) deals with permits for injection of fluids through a well. What is the new subsection (6) supposed to cover? I’m struggling to understand what fluids are being injected into wells, in Nevada where the new subsection would apply? Section 8 – This section again zeros in on injections of fluid into wells and proposes to intermix consideration of the injection of fluids through a well and disproportionate impact on historically oppressed or marginalized communities… As we have noted earlier we would like to have a better understanding of what injection of fluids are being targeted and the connection for populations that are identified. How are “disproportionate impact,” “historically oppressed” and “marginalized communities” defined and linked? Section 10 – The proposed new language seems to over-ride beneficial use in relationship to water quality standards and make the default requirement that all water bodies would establish water quality standards to include propagation of wildlife and municipal or domestic water? Is that the intention – for all water bodies to be covered in this fashion? New Sub (4) for Section 10… Quoting exactly – “The water quality standards

established by the Commission must include, without limitation, numeric water quality criteria for the major categories of diffuse sources that contribute to water pollution in this State as identified by the Department pursuant to section 2 of this act.”

We don’t understand how numeric water quality criteria is determined for diffuse sources? Our experience has been that the water quality numeric standards are applied to an impaired water body in question and not on every diffuse source (on a statewide basis) that have been identified by an agency… We also question there being a process to outline the science and process for establishing numeric water quality criteria that would be applied to specific water bodies that relate to impaired water designations. In the process, natural occurring water contaminants need to be identified and factored in with a clear background which deal with contaminants that might be related to diffuse sources in a site specific fashion. Section 11 – This section takes away the discretion for the Commission to determine whether controls for diffuse sources are prescribed (delete “may” and replace with “shall”). Section 12 – this section requires the Department to produce “procedures for addressing the major categories of water pollution from diffuse sources…” We perceive this directive to push the Department into a mandatory prescription for diffuse source controls. This runs counter to voluntary implementation for best management practices and incentives to assist in implementing those voluntary actions.

NFB Testimony On AJR 3

For the record, my name is Doug Busselman. I am the Executive Vice President of Nevada Farm Bureau. We are testifying today in opposition to AJR 3.

Our concerns over AJR 3 center on the meaning of the wording “protecting 50 percent of the world’s lands, oceans and waters by 2050” as well as the wording “protecting 30 percent of the lands and waters in this State by 2030”. We appreciate the questions asked regarding what does “protecting” mean. We still are unclear over the calculations of 50 percent or 30 percent and how these levels are derived. These terms and how they translate into actions impacts economic consequences as well as people’s property. As conservation-minded people, farmers and ranchers have a different view of how using natural resources isn’t a bad thing and locking the ability for use of our federally-managed lands under designations of Wilderness, parks, National Monument Areas, etc. doesn’t automatically qualify those designated lands as being “protected” – in our view. In our view, protection should mean active management as opposed to designations for non-management. Nevada farmers and ranchers already provide a great deal of enhanced wildlife habitat and essential resources through the production activities they carry out while making a living. Resolutions like AJR 3 in and of themselves serve as worthy aspirational concepts – how those aspirations translate into impacts on people who depend on their private property and the ability to use natural resources for their livelihoods also matter. These potential ramifications are the reason for our opposing AJR 3. Thank you for this opportunity to share our perspective.