Eye On the Outside

Legislative Report | June 17, 2021

e 81st Nevada Legislative Session ended on May 31st. is was without doubt the most unique session in Nevada

history. Because of the precautions necessary to deal with the COVID 19 pandemic, the legislative building was closed for almost 3/4ths of the 120-day session. e public and all unnecessary people including lobbyists were barred from the building. Only members of the legislature, the legislative staff , and essential employees such as custodians and security were allowed in the legislative building. Hearings on bills and the Executive Budget were held on a regularly scheduled basis and if testimony was needed or desired on legislation, interested parties could apply to be heard and seen virtually or one could phone in. Once the initial testimony in favor of a bill was presented to a committee, other support and testimony against legislation was restricted to 2 minutes. Generally, this was an anti-business session. Employers, landlords, hospitals, and many other businesses bore the brunt of a progressive agenda which seemingly sought retribution for a situation we all faced with the pandemic, but which was no one’s fault. Examples of this attitude on the part of legislators were bills to add new penalties and civil liabilities on employers; add 14 more days of paid time off , and mandated employee return rights for laid off employees. Furthermore, the mining industry, faced with initiative proposals in the next general election which would have changed the net proceeds method of taxation, agreed to a new gross proceedstiered tax which will result in a 100% increase in its tax burden to the state. e Nevada Legislature fi rst experienced a new infl uence in the 2019 session with the increased activity of progressive groups advancing a national initiative agenda. is became one of the driving forces of the 81st session in 2021. Two disparate examples show this new infl uence in our legislative process. Proponents of eliminating the death penalty came within one committee vote of succeeding. Also, it is now the law that farms with more than 3,000 laying hens must follow strict guidelines on cage space and provide free-roaming facilities to keep their chickens. Furthermore, farmers who produce eggs from places in other states which do not follow these guidelines can no longer sell eggs in Nevada. As in any other typical legislative session in Nevada, there were many bills being monitored with a potential impact on the agricultural industry. e Department of Agriculture and the Legislature proposed approximately twenty-seven measures dealing with an aspect of agriculture or administrative requirements within the jurisdiction of the Department. Examples of the latter were petroleum related, weights and measures, cannabis weighing and measuring equipment, authorization of meetings to be conducted by remote technology, and requiring state agencies to submit annual equity in the workplace reports. ere were also many measures directly related to production agriculture for things like growing hemp, pesticide restrictions, seed sales and labeling, brand inspection and rerecording from 4 to 5 years with a rerecording fee of $200 and allowing for notices and applications to be sent electronically, or in writing to the brands division. Moreover, in keeping with a general legislative theme in 2021, there were several bills dealing with restricting the activities of peace offi cers and police including the Department of Agriculture’s law enforcement employees relative to stops and the use of force emphasizing the need to use de-escalation techniques consistent with the situation at hand and requiring the relevant State Departments to provide training in the techniques. ere was a signifi cant number of bills dealing with gender bias, sexual harassment, and the development of agency policies regarding these issues, and also racial discrimination, directing agencies to appoint a diversity and inclusion liaison within the agency who would report to the head of the agency regarding a lack of attention to the diversity of the employees and inclusion of everyone in the workforce. Finally, there was a bill which, as originally introduced, would have reduced the range livestock representation on the Board of Agriculture to one person from the sheep industry and one person from the range cattle or semi-range cattle industry. e bill increased the Board of Agriculture to 13 members. In the bill one person from the “livestock” industry would be joined by a licensed veterinarian, a member of the agricultural processing or manufacturing industry and a person representing groups who distribute nutritious foodstuff s to needy people. I was unaware until digging into this bill that the Department handles 10s of millions of dollar’s worth of food to unfortunate people across the state. e bill was ultimately amended to delete the reference to a member of the “livestock” industry, which could have included a dog breeder, to restore an additional member to the Board from the range cattle industry. e notion of what consists of agriculture and things under the jurisdiction of the Department has obviously changed and is continuing to change. e understanding of Nevada Agriculture at the Legislature is also evolving. Most legislators come from Clark County, the most populous place in our state. e Department of Agriculture is spread very thin and has programs and responsibilities I never thought possible. e legislation discussed above was derived from a written report given by Director Jennifer Ott at a recent Board of Agriculture meeting. at report was over 4 single spaced pages. I am not advocating one way or the other for most of the legislation described above. However, farmers and ranchers need to be aware of these changing attitudes and the potential impact new policies will have on their operations. My main point is to show the reader what was displayed to me this past session. When it comes to agriculture the new view of the subject is vastly diff erent than what many in production agriculture would recognize. e reality is if you do not like this new view you had better become engaged and talk to urban members of the legislature, so they are more informed about what you do than they are now. ere were some water bills introduced by the Division of Water resources which never achieved much traction except one that amended the procedures for hearings on temporary permits under the water law. Another water bill proposed by the Offi ce of Finance in the Governor’s Offi ce would have created a voluntary “Program for the Conservation of Water”. A person holding an irrigation water right would have been allowed to apply for an allocation of conserved water for water they save based upon their implementation of conservation measures. Receipt of an allocation of this water would allow the recipient to reserve the water for future use, or use, sell, lease, or transfer the conserved water. e bill, AB 356, had one hearing with only one supporter. It was obvious the bill, as written had no future. However, as often happens at the legislature, the bill was amended. e new bill allows the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to start taking out so-called non-functional turf in the Las Vegas Valley. is is the grass along streets, in medians, and parking lots that serves no function other than decoration in the Las Vegas Valley but does not include parks or backyard grass. e numbers are impressive. SNWA estimates there is about 5,000 acres of this grass and about 20,000-acre feet of water per year would be saved if there was none of this grass to irrigate. e amended bill was ultimately signed into law by the Governor. Many other bills failed to meet the statutory deadlines or were just watched for potential amendments opposed by the industry. I suggest we all keep a close watch on future legislatures. I’ll see you soon.