Panel backs bill to tighten Nevada rules for disinterment and cemetery upkeep; counties raise implementation concerns

The ACLU of Nevada and partners presented Assembly Bill 350 to the Senate Health and Human Services Committee as an effort to clarify and modernize state law governing cemeteries, disinterments and maintenance requirements. The bill would require cemetery authorities to petition the district court for authorization before disinterring human remains, and it would require the petitioner to provide notice to anyone holding burial rights. The court could order disinterment only upon clear and convincing evidence of necessity.

Kayla Mysa, civil rights analyst for the ACLU, told the committee the bill would also define “orderly condition” for cemeteries — a statutory term that currently lacks precision — and provided a conceptual amendment to the committee with specific maintenance elements. The ACLU’s amendment would, among other things, permit annual weed treatments to satisfy some compliance obligations, allow temporary removal and replacement of monuments for operational access, and exempt requirements during dormant grass periods or drought-related irrigation limits. The amendment would also let counties take corrective action to bring cemeteries into order and charge the owner for the work.

The bill would add a provision to allow members of the National Guard or reserve components who meet the veteran definition under NRS 417.005, but who currently fall short of NRS 417.201 eligibility criteria, to be eligible for internment in a state veteran cemetery.

Cemetery operators and veteran groups generally supported the bill and told the committee they had helped to shape the measure. Jennifer Lazovich of Davis Funeral and Cemetery said she appreciated the careful technical work to align the language with industry practice. The United Veterans Legislative Council, Palm Mortuaries and the Nevada Department of Veterans Services also expressed support for the veteran-internment change.

Reno cemetery owner John Drew Lawton voiced two concerns in testimony: that a drafting ambiguity could be read to allow disinterments of plots held in fee simple without court oversight, and that maintenance requirements might be infeasible for non‑endowment (no perpetual care fund) cemeteries. Lawton urged clarifying language to preserve access to judicial review for owners of fee‑simple plots and to exempt or tailor maintenance mandates where a perpetual-care fund does not exist.

Counties and the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) participated in drafting and described mitigation of many impacts, but officials said county workload and legacy cemeteries could still present challenges. Amy Hein Sutherland of NACO said members had worked on the language; she described the association’s position as neutral and asked for further work to address rural, historic and non‑endowment sites. Legal counsel for the Legislative Counsel Bureau explained that the bill’s proposed definition changes would be applied only to the sections on cameras/disinterment (committee guidance clarified during the hearing) and that an amendment was drafted to avoid changing the broader statutory definition across NRS.

Committee members questioned whether the bill would force counties to assume maintenance responsibility for very old volunteer cemeteries; sponsors responded they could add language enabling counties to designate certain historic sites or apply exemptions. The sponsor and ACLU said they would continue to work with counties and stakeholders to clarify those points.

The committee closed the hearing on AB 350 following testimony. No committee vote was taken at this meeting. The conceptual amendment and statutory cross‑references were discussed extensively and may be revised before a work session.