As the process for Nevada bills unfolds in the Legislative process, there are several which will need to be dealt with. A number of positions have been amended with some adjustments, but there are still lets of improvements or reasons for the legislative proposals to continue to be opposed.
SB 172 is one of the major bills that has continued to be opposed but remains in position for possible continuation. The amended version of the legislation removed overtime requirements for time worked over eight hours per day or more than 40-hours per week.
In spite of this change there are still deep concerns over the rest of the Agricultural Workers’ Bill of Rights. This section includes language to provide for collective bargaining for agricultural workers. Along with the rest of the elements of the Agricultural Workers’ Bill of Rights, there was also direction for the Labor Commission to appoint a nine-member Advisory Committee on Agricultural Work, heavily stacked in favor of agricultural workers, advocacy representatives for agricultural workers and Farmworker Law Program of Nevada Legal Services.
At this point the bill has been sent to the Senate Finance Committee for further consideration of how the slightly less than $200,000 fiscal note will be dealt with.
Further continued efforts needs to be made in comments to the legislators of raising points in opposition to this legislation.
SB 31 is another bill that attends strong opposition. This bill has been passed from the Senate and now is under consideration with the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
SB 31 is proposed by the Division of Water Resources offering federal agencies requirements from having to file proof for claims of vested water rights. Private sector water rights for claims of vested water rights must proof claims by December 31, 2027, or their claims will be abandoned.
Those opposing the bill believe the unfair treatment of this proposal proposing. Ideally there will be amendments to deal with equally treatment of the private sector that is being giving for federal agencies.
SB 180 will require every vehicle over 26,000 lbs. that are hauling freight within the state, including those hauling their own agricultural products, to have liability insurance coverage to be raised from the current federal requirement of $750,000. As amended, the bill requirements will increase to $1 million on January 1st. 2026, and again will be passed to $1.25 million on January 1st, 2028, and to $1.5 million on January 1st of 2023.
SB 260 is a bill, with amended, requires the Administrator of the Division of Industrial Relations for the Department of Business and Industry to establish specific levels of wildfire smoke air quality for reduction of the exposure of employees. Air quality levels of 150 or more air quality index or 200 levels will require workers outside to have actions required.
One of the primary questions on how established levels will be determined to have occurred when there aren’t air quality monitors available near where workers are in a field? If the legislation triggers the regulation process to be instituted, parameters will need to be worked out to address remote situations.
Against the backdrop of the problem legislation that has been highlighted to this point there are also legislative proposals which warrant support and passage. A couple of these favorable bills are twin water bills that were brought forward from the Joint Interim Standing Committee on Natural Resources. These bills are AB 104 and . Both bills include similar language for the establishment of a voluntary water buyout program and retirement of those purchased water rights, seeking to bring a balance to over-appropriated and over-pumped groundwater basins. Neither of the bills have funds to purchase water rights at this point, but the intentions are oriented to setting a functioning program up for locating funding in the future.
The one difference between the two bills is that AB 104 has several other elements which were incorporated to meet the needs of other groups who worked together in an omnibus package. SB 36 was assembled in a more singular manner. Either of the bills or each of the bills have the potential to be passed and details can be sorted out if both do pass.
AB 80 is another good bill that warrants further development and passage. This bill, which was also brought forward by the Joint Interim Standing Committee on Natural Resources, deals with launching a Healthy Soils Initiative within the State
Conservation Commission. As amended, AB 80 has been focused on a program that will promote and advance the understanding of environmental and economic benefits of soil health practices. It will also be involved in conducting educational and outreach programs for the benefit of soil health practices.
To get the Healthy Soils Initiative started there has been some significant tweaks within the language to avoid fiscal impacts that could trip it up from going forward.
AB 80 has still moved into the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means but hopefully will get clearance soon and move forward. At has been granted an exemption which will provide for coverage from future deadlines.
AB 251 is an important bill that has also been given a set of amended language and has also been sent to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means with exemption. AB 251 seeks to change existing law in order to allow for properly inspected mobile processing units to be treated as a custom processing establishment. Under this classification the mobile processing unit will qualify under Nevada’s meat inspection program, allowing for meat and poultry harvested within this system to be sold within the state.
AB 251 was introduced by Assembly members Greg Koenig of Fallon and Bert Gurr of Elko.
AB 363 is another water bill that was introduced by the Joint Interim Standing Committee. This bill seeks for a County Commission or a couple of County Commissions, who share a designated groundwater basin, to seek establishment of an advisory groundwater board. This request would be to the State Engineer who would appoint the committee from the nominations sent forward by the County Commission (or Commissioners). There would be a seven-member voting board with an option for one additional non-voting member. Four of the members would be senior water right owners in the groundwater basin and two of the members would be junior water right owners. One additional member would be appointed, and this member would be the groundwater right owner with the largest quantity of water rights or next to the largest water right owner, if the largest water owner was already appointed as one of the other members.
AB 363 has been amended and has been granted an exemption from the deadlines. It is also currently held in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.
There are a whole host of additional bills that are part of the Nevada Farm Bureau watch-list for the 2025 Nevada Legislature. We welcome your calls or questions if you have specifics that you’d like to learn more about. Please call (775) 870-3349 or email doug@nvfb.org.
By Doug Busselman | NFB Executive Vice President