A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | June 18, 2014 | Committee Room | Enviroment

Full MP3 Audio File

Good afternoon. Welcome to environment. I happen to be on my tippy toes. I'd like to introduce our pages today. And if you'll just stand up and wave at us when I call your name. We have Connor Christian from Pitt County representative Brian Brown. And Ryan Dawe from Guilford, representing Representative Pricey Harrison. And Tristan Best, did I say that right, or Trystan? Tristan Best from Wayne, and he's here representing Jimmy Dixon. Representative Jimmy Dixon, pardon me. Sabrina Colias, all right. Well listen, everybody misprounces my name all the time, for eight years now, so I'm glad I got it right. From Mecklenburg and of course Speaker Tillis, thank you. And then Steven Dupre from Duplin County, and also representing Representative Jimmy Dixon, and hopefully Representative Dixon will be here soon. And then today we are honored to have sergeants at arm Bill Bass, Joe Crook, Bill Morris and Martha Parrish. Thank you all for your service. And we've got a long agenda. ?? We have a long agenda today. We're going to start with Senate Bill 38 because it needs to be reported out quickly. And so first of all, we'll have Representative Samuelson explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madame Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madame Chair. Madame Chair, I believe, shouldn't we put a PCS before it? I move the PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're exactly right. I haven't chaired in a very long time. Go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that we put the PCS before us, on Senate Bill 38. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The PCS is before us. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madame Chair, members of the committee, this is a long bill with a number of parts. To summarize I will tell you that 2 of them are studies. 4 of them are ERC proposals or are bills that have already passed the committee. The only sort of tweak to that is 1 of the bills that came out of the ERC, the Isolated Wetlands portion, we added a study for Deaner to study a definition of wetlands. Other than that it's exactly as it passed out of ERC. 4 of them are what I would call permissive or allowable. For example, number 15, leases for renewable energy, simply takes what is currently, wow, local bills where all of these local communities have come and asked for leases on the rooftops of their buildings to be extended from 10 years to 20 or 25. And so we finally said there's so many of them, we're just going to go ahead and extend it to all of them. So 4 of them are sort of permissive allow. There are 13 that I would call adjustments or cleanups. For example, number 2, the CND financial requirements for landfills right now. All landfills are treated the same for financial requirements and yet most people understand that a construction and demolition landfill doesn't take the same types of materials and therefore this simply lowers the minimum requirements for those landfills only. And then another example of that would be number 23, to repeal of the waste management board rules. This is one of those, it's a committee, a board that was abolished years and years ago but the rules have still been sitting there and nobody does anything with them so it's just cleaning up those rules. So I called 13 of the items things like that. And there are another 7 that I just said are other. For example number 27 is the Senator Jean Preston shellfish reserve and that's simply setting aside some property and directing Deaner to set aside some property to create a shellfish reserve in the name of Senator Jean Preston. I would be very happy to go through every provision in here if you would like but I also understand that there are other amendments and there are other bills that we would like to cover, so Madame Chair if the committee prefers, I will let people just ask questions about the ones they have questions on, or I can quickly go through all the provisions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair? Over here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wondered if staff could just go through them very quickly for us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff can or I can if you would like, I'll go through them and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, or you can have staff read them to you. Whichever you prefer, Representative Leubke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd prefer that staff do it, and you can correct staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll go with staff then, at your request. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry, Representative Samuelson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand.

And but I had all the hand motions and everything but that’s fine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. ??, would you go ahead, quickly go through to these areas for us? Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure Madam Chairman and I’ll just try to stipulate as much as I can on your behalf. I’ll try to walk through these as quickly as possible. Section 1 of your PCS would authorize the transplanting of seed clams and seed oysters of a certain size from permitted aqua culture operations and certain included shellfish waters to private beds if it’s done so in accordance with aqua culture sea-transplant permit that’s issued by the sector of Environment and Natural Resources. Section 2 of the PCS would reduce the amount of financial insurance that owners and operators of construction and demolition to breed landfills are required to establish from a minimum of two million to a minimum of one million dollars for potential assessment and corrective action at that facility. Section 3 of the PCS would amend the statute that governs the approval of onsite sub-surface waste water systems. Section 4 of the PCS would amend a provision enacted in 2013 to provide for reduced flow alternatives to the daily flow rate for design for waste water systems such that in addition to exempting establishments, private dwellings would now be exempt from the daily flow rate for design and any design flow standard under certain conditions. Section 5 of the PCS would amend the requirements from membership on the Marine Fisheries Commission, amend the ethical standards that apply to those members and would specify the circumstances under which the Governor could remove members of the commission. These sections would also ?? the terms of the currently serving members of the Marine Fisheries Commission effective when the legislation becomes law. Section 6 of the PCS would do the following with regards to rules forming agency review of engineering work, require regulatory agents, authorities to standardize certain regulatory review procedures, direct the creation of an informal review process, create a pilot study of two ?? permitting programs to inventory the work activities associated with those programs and identify those activities that constitute the practice of engineering. And lastly, review the working job titles of employees with job duties that include review of regulatory submittals. Section 7 of your PCS would direct the department to study ground water withdrawal permitting in the central coastal plain capacity used area and report to the 2015 General Assembly when it convenes in 2016. Section 8 of the PCS would make the following changes to the regulation of activities that impact isolated wetlands. It would increase the amount of isolated wetlands that could be impacted without requiring a permit from one-third of an acre to one acre East of Interstate 95 and one-tenth of an acre to one-third of an acre West of Interstate 95. This section would aim, would decrease the amount of mitigation that would be required for it impacts the isolated wetlands. And this section would also direct the Energy Study one, how the term ‘isolated wetlands’ is defined in State Law and two, the surface area thresholds for regulation of mountain bog isolated wetlands. And the department would be required to report its findings and recommendations on those studies to the Environmental Review Commission on or before November 1st of this year. Section 9 of the PCS would authorize ?? and the department of Aquaculture and Consumer Services to issue a waiver authorizing a person to operate a vehicle and access a twenty-five miles per hour at the State Parks Road Systems or the State Forest System respectively. The Secretary of the commission may impose additional conditions on any, on the waiver to protect public health and the safety and the natural resources of the State Park or the State Forest in question. Section 10 of the PCS would increase certain penalties for the taking of protective plants. This section would increase from a minimum of ten dollars to seventy-five dollars and to a maximum from fifty dollars to a hundred and seventy-five dollars per offense. This section would also require the clerk of court for the jurisdiction to report the conviction to the Plant Conservation Board, provided that the plant is, the plant taken is also listed under the protected plant-lists pursuant to the Plant Protection and Conservation Act. Section 11 of the PCS would direct the ?? to study ways to improve the timeliness of actions necessary to address contaminated properties such that the property is safe for productive use, threats to the environment, public health are minimized and the risk of tax payer funded mediation is reduced. The department would be required to report the results of the study to the Environment Review Commission no later than November 1st 2014. Section 12 of the PCS would repeal.

A temporary limitation on enactment of environmental ordinances by cities and counties. I would point out that this is a provision that was adopted by the Environmental Review Commission in the course of it's study this past interim. Going back to the sections, sections 12B and C would require the Departments of Agriculture and Consumer Services and Environment and Natural Resources to report to the ERC on any local government ordinances that impinge on or interfere with any area subject to regulation by those agencies no later than November 1st 2014 and November 1st 2015. Another portion of that section would prohibit cities and counties from regulating the use, sale, distribution, storage, transportation, disposal, formulation, labeling, registration, manufacture, or application of fertilizer. It wouldn't limit Deener or the Environmental Management Commissions authority to enforce water quality standards or a local governments authority to adopt ordinances regulating fertilizers to protect water quality. Section 13 of the PCS would direct Deener to treat a waste containment basin as closed an no longer part of the Animal Waste Management Waste System if certain conditions are met. Section 14 of the PCS would repeal the fee for an undock oyster culture permit. Section 15 of the PCS would amend the statue to increase a lease term of up to 25 years for renewable energy facilities for local governments and remove the language that restricts that provision to certain cities making a state-wide provision. Section 16 of the PCS would direct the Environmental Management Commission to amend it's rules and the administrative code that pertains to open burning without an air quality permit. To provide that in addition to the open burning of leaves, tree branches, and yard trimmings. A permit is not required for the burning of logs and stumps when certain conditions are met. Section 17 of the PCS would direct the Coastal Resources Commission to adopt rules disallowing the establishment of any new and to repeal any existing inlet hazard area in any location that are specifically identified in the PCS. This section would not prevent the commission from studying current or potential inlet hazard areas, designating new inlet hazard areas, or modifying existing inlet hazard areas consistent with this section. Section 18 of the PCS would direct the Wildlife Resources Commission to adopt rules to clarify the hunting license requirements for participants in the retrieve or field trials including, out-of-state participants, judges and spectators. And in developing these rules the commission must hold public hearings and consult with field trial groups active in this state. Section 19 of the PCS would amend the statues regarding the procedure for the EMC's consideration of a determination of an application for surface water transfers for coastal counties. And would apply that expedited procedure to the withdrawal or transfer of water sort in any multi-purpose reservoir constructed by the US Army Core of Engineers that is partially located in the state adjacent to North Carolina. Provided that the Army Core prove the withdrawal or transfer on or before January 1, 2014. Section 20 would repeal various air quality reporting requirements for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Environmental Management Commission. Section 21 of the PCS would clarify that when a venomous reptile is seized and anti-venom approved by the US Food and Drug Administration is not readily available, the Museum of Natural Sciences and the Zoological Park or their designated representatives must euthanize the reptile unless the species is protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Section 22 of the PCS would define a ground water absorption system for waste water collection purposes. It would direct the local health departments to advise the owner or developer of any rule changes for waste water system construction and would remove the five year limit on improvement permits. Section 23 of the PCS would provide that the general assembly finds that the Governor's Waste Board was repealed in 1993 and that the Board's rules are no longer enforceable or necessary. The section would also direct the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources to repeal the Board's rules on or before December 1, 2014. And prohibit any political subdivision in the state from implementing or enforcing those rules. Section 24 of the PCS would repeal the requirement for the state energy office to conduct energy audits of each state agency and institution of higher learning as a part of the Department of Administrations Facilities Condition and Assessment Program. The section would also change from annual to bi-annual. The required updates to the management plans developed by state agencies and institutions of higher learning to manage energy, water, and utility use. Section 25 of the PCS...

Would exempt from the requirements of the electrical contractor statutes including licensure requirements, the installation, construction, maintenance or repair of electrical wiring devices, wiring or equipment by a person certified as a well contractor when running electrical wires from a well pump to the pressure switch. This section also directs the Well Contractor's Certification Commission to establish minimum education, experience and knowledge requirements for each type of certification for well contractors for the installation, construction, maintenance and repair of wiring devices, appliances and equipment related to the construction, operation and repair of wells. Section 26 would provide that drinking water well permitting, inspection and testing programs administered by county health departments must use standard forms created by the department unless the local program submits a petition to the EMC and the EMC finds that the area has unique conditions that constitute a threat to public health that would be mitigated by the use of a different form. This section also provides that local health department registries of private drinking water wells must be searchable by the address or addresses served by the well. This section also provides that neither the department nor any local program may require that well contractor identification plates include well construction permit numbers, and directs the environmental management commission to adopt conforming rules. And lastly this section would provide that if the well location marked on the map submitted with an application to a local well program has also been marked with a stake or similar marker on the property that the program may not require the contractor to be on site during predrill inspection. Section 27 of the PCS would direct the Division of Marine Fisheries to designate a contiguous area of appropriate acreage within the Pimlico Sound as a recommendation to the ERC for the establishment of the Senator Jean Preston Marine Shellfish Sanctuary and create a plan for managing the sanctuary and on or before December 1, 2014, DNR would report to the ERC on implementation of that plan. Section 28 of the PCS would provide that gravel would be considered a part of a built upon area to the extent that the gravel does not allow water to infiltrate through the surface to the subsoil. This section would also direct DNR to use funds to contract with the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at NC State to study the extent to which different aggregate or gravel surfaces are pervious or partially pervious. Section 29 of the PCS would provide that when cluster mailboxes are added to single family or duplex developments permitting by, developments permitting by local government to replace individual curbside mailboxes, that the addition of that mailbox must be considered incidental and not subject to stormwater permit modification or required to be included in the calculation of built upon area for stormwater permitting purposes. Section 30 of the PCS would direct the Commission for Public Health to amend its rules pertaining to the modification of accepted waste water systems to provide that a survey or audit not be required for the installed, modified and accepted systems in order to confirm the satisfactory performance of such systems. Section 31 is a separability clause and the act will become effective when it becomes law unless otherwise provided. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, thank you very much Miss ?? Madam Chair, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, thank you very much. We appreciate that. Representative Iler, I believe, did you have a question? We have 14 amendments, so let's keep these quick questions and then we will get into the amendments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, I think one question has been answered. Representative Miller says a amendment of that effect's going to come forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, I think some of the amendments will take care of some of the questions, so let's go ahead and start the amendments since we have 14 of them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I ask one quick question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] And if they don't. Uh-huh, sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, on the inlet, I don't have it in front of me, the inlet, CRC to indicate the inlet hazard areas you picked 15 years. Was there a particular reason for 15 years? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's a good question. It came to us with that language. My understanding is that that was sort of a predetermined reasonable amount of time to determine if something was going to change in the hydrology of the area and that the intent was simply to take the areas that used to be hazard inlet areas that really don't conform to that statute anymore and remove that designation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, I believe Representative Starnes was next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To offer an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We had asked if amendments to Senate 38 would be presented ahead, if you'll start working on your amendment with staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, they've got it. It's been passed out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've already got it?

We've already got it. Never mind. We're gonna wait and we've got them in order as we're gonna have them. Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Ma'am, thank you. I had a question about section 24. I'm just not understanding why would we want to repeal the energy audit requirements that the state energy office is doing and also why are we moving from one year to two years the need to update energy conservation plans. It just doesn't seem to me to be necessary to make this change and I'm wondering why it's in the bill why we couldn't just take it out? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Anybody could, I think somebody might be amending it to take it out. But the reason it was put in there was the understanding that as this technology has continued to progress they've gotten so they can sort of anticipate what the results are being and that the audits weren't showing a lot of change from year to year and that's why they were taking them out. I would agree though that if you were going to change your plan every two years, it would make sense to look at every two years that you might want an audit of something but at least it removes the requirement. Therefore, if they feel like it as they're modifying their plan that they need an audit, they can go ahead and do one. It doesn't say they can't do one it just no longer requires one. And changes the plan to every other year as things begin to stabilize and the facilities people who are administering these understand the system they didn't feel like it was needed for every year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ??? chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanted to follow up on Representative ????? and another one we have another section to understand the rationale for it. On the inlet hazard area I know that this something the CRC has been working on and is this something that came from them because it's so cumbersome for them to adopt regulations or did this come from somebody else? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It came over in a Senate Bill, I will tell you that as we tried to find out where it came from and what the motivation was we were kind of getting mixed things. But all of them sounded consistent in the sense of, they're no longer hazard areas let's change the definition of hazard area. But it was in the senate bill and that was really all the feedback we've gotten on it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another quick follow-up. On the marine fishery commission changes. We went through a lot of work with the Marine Fisheries Reform back in 1997 to establish what we thought would be a fair commission and I'm just wondering, where this language came from for all the new seats or amended seat requirements on the Marine Fisheries commission. That was a pretty thoughtful stake holder driven process. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are right, that this can also be a contentious issue. My understanding is that Marine Fisheries supports these changes. They were brought to me already made, so I don't really know who made them. But, I understand that they do support them and I think somebody might be here to speak to that if we need them to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually, we have an amendment on that so there will be some discussion on that. Ok, the first amendment will be Representative Samuelson. ATQ55 Version 1. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, this is an item that we thought was in the bill that was in finance this morning and they thought was in ours and nobody seemed to object to it. We just lost track of who had it. What this basically says, and if somebody else, if staff needs to clarify for me if they can. The gist of the issue is that sometimes you have a single project that requires multiple licenses and in the process of going through the multiple licenses before the secretary or Chief Administrative Office makes their final decision, you may get some complaints or questions or concerns about objections to what's happening. Whereas, if you waited until you got to the end, at the end of it the decision might actually have resolved the case is only licenses beforehand. So all this is saying is if you've got multiple licenses for the same project, that those objections will be filed at the end once the decision is made rather than all along the way which sometimes hinders the ability to even get to a final decision when the final decision may have been what you wanted anyway. And so they're simply asking to remove that so that you still have the right to object to it but the objection is at the time the decision is made rather than along the way. And I urge your acceptance and support both. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've heard the amendment, all in favor say aye. All against? The amendment has passed. The Second amendment now is Representative Starnes, would you like to explain your amendment 'cause I can't read all your writing but it ends in TA39. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam, Madam Chair, and this amendment applies to page 13 in the bill. What it is it deals with the section where you're taking a protected plant and moving it from...when the board reviews these things as percival penalties it goes from a "may" to a "shall" and the Department of Agriculture felt like that was a little bit severe that you....

...?? of $2,000 penalties, so they just wanted to go back to the language of May and that's taking out a lot of the lines but that what the effect is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair, this is not an issue about which I have any strong feelings. I wanted to ask staff a question. If we make this change is there any need to have the whole division or is this the only change in this section, and that's why that whole piece is in there? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This provision, there are two substantive pieces to it and then the effective date. Representative Starnes is taking out Section 10.b which as he said has changes made to shale. Section 10.a however, increases the fines for the taking of protective plants and right now that statute only applies to certain counties. Section 10.a makes it state-wide, so the Section 10.a is still a very substantive section. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for reminding me that it was that other part was in there, too. Members, I don't have feelings one way or the other on this. I do believe there are some members who do have strong feelings about that so you may hear about it on the floor, but vote your conscience on it. I will probably vote against just because of the way it came but not because I have strong feelings. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion? You've heard the amendment and those for say aye. Against? The ayes have it. The amendment passes. Next we have several amendments, four, I believe, from Representative Millis and we will take them. The first is ASB 109, version 1. Representative Millis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me get my papers sorted here. This has to do with Section 12 of the bill and all they're doing is it's a friendly amendment to actually require that in the actual stakeholder input of local government ordinances that the study is actually dealing with. It just DNR, as well as Department of Ag will actually solicit and receive input from the public at large. That way that as they're doing the study that the stakeholders could have a voice and that we can make sure that we actually get to the overall intent on the backside of the study. I would ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't have any objections. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion? All those in favor, aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment passes. The next for Representative Millis is ASB 108, version 1. Representative Millis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With ASB 108, what this looks to do is within the bill there is current language dealing with the Marine Fisheries Commission. And last night at 7 o'clock was the first time that I've actually seen this language and why I may belief in the intent of trying to take out a little vinegar that's going on on the Marine Fisheries Commission, the actual process of rewriting all the positions without some thorough vetting is concerning to me. I'm with the intent, but this needs some major thorough vetting, not only from the rewrite of the actual member positions. For example, it takes out expertise and just gives individuals who own land in the Northeast, the Central East or the Southeast and it's my opinion just because I own a piece of property in Hampstead that I might not necessarily have a knowledge and an expertise to know about how to manage a fishery. And it's my heart to manage a fishery that is healthy and productive, whether you access that resource by way of a cane and a pole, by charter boat or even by a net. To me, this undermines what we currently have. I know that there is some contention with it and that's the very reason why that I'm actually pulling all of this language out from the bill, is so we can actually have some further debate, some further vetting and actually do this in a right way. In addition, while it seems good, what it does is it strike some ethics requirements that were a part of the '97 Fisheries Reform Act and then flips it to some standard ethics requirements here. That's problematic because you have individuals who are appointed to be a part of this fisheries commission and then just because by way of their expertise that they actually sell a shrimp or sell a fish or run a charter boat, you're taking away their vote on the issues that may actually have to do with them having an expertise in the charter boat.

00:00 recreational aspect or actually they sell other commercial fish so again this needs further vetting I think it is just wise for us to pull all this out take a prudent look at it and I strongly ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand your concern with it I'm gonna disagree with this amendment Deener helped put this language together the marine fishery supports it, we do have in there one person who is required to have experience in recreational fisherman and one person who is required to have experience in commercial fisherman to try to balance it out, I know that members of the house and the senate have looked at this and agree with it it is often a contentious issue but they're ready to move forward and the fact that we've got both Deener and marine fishery's support for it I would urge your support as well not for the amendment to defeat the amendment but keep the existing language. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you madam chair I would agree with my colleague representative Millis on this and this study this long session issue it's not something that I saw it the last 24 hours myself and I am from the coast I know there's opposition at least from the North Carolina officials association from the actual industry and we need to pull this out study it and come back a long session and try to make improvements after [??]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you madam chairman you know I'm from the mountains I can't see coast from where I am and I've got to support my coastal representative so I would urge the passage of this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will make one correction let me add one thing the bit about the ethics I forgot to mention this on the ethics piece that's actually in the budget so the ethics piece was moved into the budget I'm not sure why they got separated but I want you to know that's where that went. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mrs chair of course the budget is in conference so therefore everything is at play also I wanna mention by the aspects is I definitely support our administration and I think it's very important that we definitely have their input but the issue is that the administration has put this in without any deliberation by the legislative body and this is our authority to deliberate this and to actually decide what's good on behalf of the citizen so I definitely believe in the process and the process is that administration can make proposals but it's supposed to be actually deliberated by the body here and I say that we just definitely stand for the citizen no matter how they access the resource again by way of aligning a pole by way of a charter boat by way of the net we should be here trying to make decisions for a healthy fishery a healthy fish stock so anybody and everybody can access it to the benefit of their own personal pursuit and I definitely ask for the urge of your support to this amendment and us to move on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you madam chair and I just got [??] the arguments [??] made in favor of this but I agree having worked on the marine fishery's reform back when it was enacted in 1997 we spent years pulling together what we thought was the appropriate stake holders to have them put on who should be sitting in the marine fishery's commission so I agree this is an issue that should not be addressed in a multiple [??] laws it's just something that needs separate attention and separate discussion so I hardly endorse representative Millis's amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion here seeing none we are gonna vote on representative Millis's amendment all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] all opposed no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] the ayes have it the amendment passes I have a statement from staff on these amendments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you madam chair just wanted to point out some of you may have noticed a couple of the amendments are off by a line or two so we just [??] your indulgence that make that technical correction when we engross all the adopted amendments into the PCS at the end of the committee meeting. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Don't hold that against us, okay next another Millis amendment my you were busy in between your last committee and this one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mrs chair and I apologize to the members I don't wanna take a lot of committee time but again I've only had a few hours here to kinda right some wrongs so again if can bear with me as we go through this vetting process and the amendment before you right now is ASB107 and this has to do with the isolated wetlands regulation and just to back up a little bit I'll actually give you all the short story the short story is as a member of ERC as this [??] this issue was rolling out language and [??] that language was presented to the ERC committee I contacted the chairs and I asked if they would be supportive of me actually clarifying their intent but having some more specificity of what needed to be regulated my heart is that we most certainly need to protect our environment. 05:00

...that may not fall under federal jurisdiction. And this proposed amendment does not erode any environmental protections but what it does is it put further clarification around what it is that we need to protect. We want to make sure that our agencies have the proper perspective of what needs to be preserved and this amendment does that. I've tied some language, I don't know if ya'll saw this as a separate hand-out, in the prose-prose amendment on lines 21-36 you see that we tie isolated wetlands to a north climate wetland assessment manual. And I gave you the two definitions in that manual. And the manual is very specific that it actually addresses what should should be deemed as isolated wetlands.It covers vernal pools, it covers I(??)depressions, it covers mountain bogs. This is a good guide to put a further fence around this. I'll end with this, on this first initial comment. Is that what we want to do is we want to have certainty for your constituents that a cloud is not looming over them at all times. Where the department can show up on their property and take a cattle pond who has dirt sitting along the edges and claim that as isolated wetlands. Or, to actually take a tire tracker depression and claim that as isolated wetlands. We want to make sure that we protect what needs to be protected from an environmental standpoint and those things that are significant that we give the actual private property rights due to our citizens. So, on behalf of the certainty and the protection of our environment I ask for your support of this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative (??) [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madame Chair. On this particular amendment while I agree with the passion and the desire to protect our environment as well as to protect our property owners from unfair declaration of their property as an isolated wetland, this bill goes way beyond that. I will say Representative's background, ERC. This was a real contentious issue last session. ERC put together a task force. The language that is in your bill is what came out of the that task force out of two days of meeting where we had a public hearing and invited all groups to come up and tell us what they liked or didn't like about the existing rule that Dener(?) has on isolated wetlands. Representative Millis was not on that task force, he did come to me right as we were presenting the bill to ERC, or during the times we were presenting the bill to ERC. But, unfortunately there was not time to amend what was then already the task force recommendation. I told him he would have a chance to share it in committee so this is his chance to share it in committee. I have problems with it on a variety of fronts. The bill that is in front of you came from the ERC. It takes, right now there's a rule in Deener that says, if it's a third of an acre east of I-95 and a tenth of an acre west of I-95 then it has to mitigated and I believe it's two-to-one. What we came up with was we said, "OK, let's make it an acre east of I-95 and a third of an acre west of I-95 and it's a one-to-one mitigation. The reason for doing that wast to get rid of the kinds of things that he legitimately brought up. Which is where you have a truck that get's stuck in a ditch and creates a ditch and some grass grows around it and somebody calls it an isolated wetland. None of us want that to happen but I don't know the last time I saw a ditch that covered a full acre east of 95 or a full third of an acre west of 95. With clay soil you just don't get that big a ditch. So, the goal of having those increased limits was to avoid what were considered some of the arbitrary issues with wetlands. The other thing that we looked at when we were with Deener was how to do you define a wetland. And they went through with us,it has to do with the type of soil,and the depth of the soil, and the type of plant, and all the kinds of things Representative Millis' has laid out. But they said they already had that defined. They already have within their rule structure a definition for it. So, we didn't feel at that point we needed a different definition. The definition that Representative Millis has brought forth may come from a viable source but it's not the source that Deener's using right now. And so, what we did add in difference to his and there was one or two other people who had a completely different definition of a wetland. And we understand there is an issue about what constitutes an isolated wetland. So, what we did put in there is we required Deener to come back to us by November and let us know how they're defining isolated wetland so that if there's some problem after that. You've increased the size, you've decreased the mitigation rate, if you don't like the definition that they've come up with then let's go and change it. But I had concerns that taking a definition that has not been thoroughly vetted, we have not heard everybody's opinion on it. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether this goes to far, whether it basically says no isolated wetland in the state would qualify for this. I just feel like this is something that needs way more discussion and that...

for right now to take it up into the long session this will protect property owners while at the same time allowing Deener[?] to do what they need to do without going overboard. So I urge your defeat of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. May I ask Representative Millis a question, amendment sponsor? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Representative Millis, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis, I know us in the west, or west of 95 were a little concerned with a third acre and east of 95 being an acre. Can you explain to me what difference your amendment does in that area on the thresholds? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, on line 12 the actual language is consistent with actually providing uniform protection of our environment regardless if it's east or west. Therefore we want to treat all of our property owners and all of our citizens and all of the aspects of our ecosystem the same regardless if you're east or west. If these aspects are important to protect by way of a threshold then so be it. But in regard to this moving forward, thresholds aren't necessarily that important to me as much as it is to be very defined about what we're going to protect versus what we're not. But my understanding was that no one had any issue about the thresholds including because it basically came from the Senate and, of course, this is going to be a part of conference so if people don't like the thresholds, understood. But, of course, my focus is on the overall definition. And I will say this, members need to understand this, is that since the federal ruling of ?? which deals with federal regulated wetlands is that the way that the current EMC rules stand is that there not authority to regulate isolated wetlands. When we put something in the statute we are codifying in law the ability for our agencies to now regulate isolated wetlands. So I say, if we are going to do such, that we do so that provides certainty and is very, very defined and I just think that this is an important process to move through. While I understand that the task force met for two days, I've been working for two months with stakeholders on this issue, for members of EMC, all the way around. So I, this is something that's very thorough and thoughtful. I'm more than happy for any type of alterations that need to be made but if you're going to give statute authority to an agency that does not have the authority to do it now then let's make sure we put a fence around it so that your constituents aren't calling you up and lighting you up for rogue agencies. I've been on the field personally where I've seen a cattle pond with dirt next to it being flagged by Deener[?] and, again, the dirt's right next to it just as if the farmer's just dug it. This amendment here is, from my understanding, supported by the Farm Bureau and other stakeholders and I ask for you're support as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair, can I follow-up that long answer? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Millis, what does it set the threshold to? I know Representative West and Representative Dobson and I are interested in what that threshold is for the west, for west of 95, what is the new threshold under your amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, under my amendment it uniformly treats all aspects of the state under one acre. So if you have a isolated wetland by this definition, that it is above an acre, then all of it has to be mitigated from a one-to-one standpoint but if it's below that threshold, whether your east or the west, it's all treated the same. And I would say that mitigation ratio of one-to-one is very important because what was actually happened is that your constituents may have a low quality wetland and their actually having to mitigate at a high quality and also having it mitigated at two-to-one of what they're actually compounding. So talking about making it triple or quadruple cost. This is a very important measure to actually protect our environment but also to protect private property rights and also their wallets. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chairman, I don't think we have time for me to ask another question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Quickly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm just kidding. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh. Representative McGrady. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, I oppose the Millis amendment. I think what is in the bill reflects a compromise that occurred. I wasn't real excited about the compromise but I got there. Representative Millis talks in terms of wanting uniformity here but our state isn't uniformed. The mountains and it's mountain bogs are different than other wetland areas across the state and that was reflected in the original rule that we're now trying to address. We've rolled that back in this bill but to roll it back as Representative Millis is suggesting, basically there will be no protection for mountain bogs and similar sorts of things in the mountains. That's why this rule is there. So I particularly find that objectionable. This, in my opinion, doesn't protect what needs to be protected. Now, with respect tot he definition of wetlands, Representative Samuelson's got it right. We've suddenly got some language and it's very, very long and widely technical. The better way to handle that issue is the study that was added. This was not part of the original ERC recommendation but recognizing that there is this

Back and forth as to what these wetlands are. Representative Mill's suggestion here is probably a good one and would be incorporated. But it's a broader issue, shouldn't be addressed here. So i'd asked our coastal folks who made a plea for, ya know let us handle these marine fisheries thing. To, with respect to this, don't eviscerate the protection for wetlands in another part of the state. We don't need to go there. This is a compromise. Vote down this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Nellis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. Just to add a few more comments. In regard to uniformity, is that the definition that's presented for you today, actually protects wetlands based on the differing aspects of the coast, to the Piedmont, to the mountains. What's uniform is the fact that we're stating is that, if we have an amount of these wetlands that are diverse across our state, once it becomes across a thresh-hold, then we're treating all the citizens the same way. So, understand that the thresh-hold is uniform, but the aspect of the species and the ecosystem, it's allowed to vary by way of this definition. Also understand this too, is that immediately whenever I saw the language come out of the ERC, or actually be presented the ERC. I approached the members about actually providing some further clarification, to not undermine the proposal, but, if we're gonna give statute authority ??, to be able to regulate isolated wetlands. I think you owe it to your constituents to do it in deliberative process. While this may be the first time you'd seen this, I've emailed it to you as soon as I could, as soon as I realized this was gonna be dropped in the bill. I've also been working on this for the last two months by way of regular reform. It's just as surprising to me as it is surprising to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Representative Hager, and then Representative Samuelson, and then we're gonna vote on this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair, and real quick, us being from the west I had to look up where I-95 was. Couldn't remember where it was, well that's pretty far across the state guys, so a third of the acre applies to the Piedmont, as well as the mountains, if you look at the map there. I just think we need to all be treated, and I think Representative West agrees with me, and I've talked to this, we think we just need to be treated equitably in, in all this. So our developers have the same opportunity as a developer, you know in the east, whether your in the Piedmont, or whether your in the west. Understand there are some issues of geography, but your taking out the whole Piedmont, a lot of the southern mountains that I live in, and all the mountains, and saying it's a third of an acre, it's just not equitable I don't believe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ya know it's funny how equitable is applied one way with coastal issues, and another way with these other issues. The dirt east of 95 is different than the dirt west of 95. So, the nature of a wetland east of 95 is different than the nature of a wetland west of 95. And while Representative Nellis is correct, that he's providing uniformity in terms of the acreage size. Once you apply the criteria that he has on there, you wouldn't find an isolated wetland west of 95, that's that big. In de facto, it's basically saying no isolated wetlands. Because the one acre east of 95 already rules out 90 something percent of the ones that were permitted last time. If you go above, the third of an acre already rules out most of the ones that were west of 95. It's just leaving a few in there where they genuinely have, some concerns, and some value to the community. The home builders, and some of the other developers have asked for, the removal of the uncertainty of ditches, and things like that, that happen, that come in here. By raising it to the one acre, and the third of an acre, you are removing that uncertainty. But by taking it to an acre all the way across, what you are actually doing is saying, that, western North Carolina and particularly, up in the mountains, where you have these mountain bogs that can be very sensitive. You are removing the ability to even consider, whether or not they have an ecological value. I agree that not every isolated wetland is worth protecting. But, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, and say that all of them aren't. And to say that it's not, already something that's allowed in North Carolina, it is a rule. The feds changed their ruling, and I think that's something that we can look at. But right now there is a rule in North Carolina, and right now the rule is, one third of an acre east of 95, and one tenth of an acre, west of 95. We're taking that one tenth up to a third, that's a big difference. So, I just think we need to look at, and recognize, that there's more to this than just an acre and an acre. Just like fish hunt, ya know these whole rules on marine fisheries, and the difference between recreational fisherman, which frankly are mostly in the western part of the state, versus the commercial fisherman that are in the eastern part of the state. And yet, we use the argument on.

Speaker: Then the other part on the output is definition where the Representative ?? put a lot of work to this but we have an open process we notified of the proverb and process and invited to the open process and there are other people who came to the mi mid did not speak so all ?? lets take the version that pass out of V R C that use the language and let them come back that you don't like it do this and open process with a public not selective type of stake holders but everybody can make a opinion on it ?? , Speaker Changes: We have our coach here who know a lot about like to speak representative west, Speaker Changes: Thank you madame ?? i know a lot about ?? and a lot about who owns ?? most of the feral ?? are around the federal government so it's not been a big issue i don't think there would you not take at the duration , Speaker Changes: Representative ??, Speaker Changes: I just be very brief i actually i have a problem with section 5 because it really deregulates most of our ?? but since representative e?? amendment deregulates even more i find that to be an unacceptable i would like to be going into other direction ?? that provide an important purification function so we need to deregulate them in general, Speaker Changes: We just gotta before and we guess now that really vote this amendment out i now have heard from everyone i thing and both sides of the issue i think representative ?? wanted just to say something and i she the only one let's here him very quickly representative did anybody else raise the hand one more comment Representative ?? Speaker Changes: Thank you madam chair now i would be just to way i satisfy the ?? the allotted size of it ?? advantage to you and as a reason you have heard ?? about that ?? so supportive fair and agreement i think we all that support the bill passed, Speaker Changes: OK now I'm calling now for the vote on this amendment all in favor please aye i would know we have a division all in favor please raise your hand ,all oppose,OK let's raise your hand those for raise your hands high those against it's ten ten,the amendment fails,OK,alright ten ten the amendment fails ,alright now we are going at a lone last amid and vote to be allowed this is,

Representative Harrison… whatever you have written from here… Representative Harrison, I can’t read hers either. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m not going to take the blame for the handwriting. It’s not mine, although mine is illegible. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry. This is staff. I just can’t read that. We usually have a V, whatever. It’s yours? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This was ?? at the last minute, so there is no code like there is for the other ones. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry. Just staff, they’re so wonderful, but they write terribly. No, it’s really nice. I just couldn’t read all that PCS stuff. Representative Harrison, please explain your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair, and in staff’s defense, their handwriting is much better than mine. So anyway, I am proposing to delete two of the reporting requirement repeals. Said that backwards. On page 18, it says part of the air quality reporting requirements, the bill proposes to delete two of the reporting requirements. I’m proposing to reinstate those reporting requirements. These are vestiges of the Clean Smoke Stack Act, which has done so much to clean up the air in our state since it was enacted a decade ago. I think it’s been very important for the… this would reinstate section 11, which has been really important for the reporting of knocks and socks emissions, and these are reports that have been going to the General Assembly and the Environmental Review Commission, and reflects some EPA involvement to continue to make changes in air quality rules, and then it would also maintain section 20, which is the requirement that permit-holders annually describe how they are reducing air pollution through source reductions and recycling. I think there are folks out there who feel like both of these reporting requirements have some value, so I’d like for us to retain those two pieces, and I’d like to move for adoption of the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t have strong feelings about these reports. I will ask staff if they would like to comment. My understanding is no one ever asks to read these, and we get them given out, and nobody’s using them anymore; they were important at a time, and that this was just to clear up and decrease the amount of work and reporting work that they need to do if to our knowledge, there have been no requests for these reports. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, Madam Chairman, the reports which Representative Samuelson is referring to, you can follow me in your summary on page 5. There’s a paragraph in the middle of section 20. One of them would be a requirement for the EMC to report on the desirability of requiring and the feasibility of obtaining reductions in knocks and socks beyond those required by Clean Smoke Stacks, and the… let’s see. And then the other report would be a repeal for permit-holders to submit to DENR a written description of their current and projected plans to reduce the emission of air contaminants under their permits by source reduction or recycling. This position of these reports is similar… our understanding of that is similar to what Representative Samuelson had earlier indicated. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor of that amendment, signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think the no’s have it, so that amendment goes down. I think that’s it. We’re going to vote on the bill now. Does anyone have comments on the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] So you mind? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. I just… well I really appreciate the efforts of Representative Samuelson and McGrady to help rid this bill of some of the most offensive provisions that came over to us from the Senate, including the air quality monitoring piece. I think there are lots of problems still with this bill. I’m troubled by the landfill requirement for the C&D landfills. I’m very troubled by the isolated wetlands. I’m glad that Representative Millis’ amendment was defeated, but I think that the fact that we are removing protection from isolated wetlands to the extent we are is problematic for water storage and water quality and water supply and all those reasons that wetlands are important. I’m very troubled by the local authority. I’m glad it’s a scaled-down version of the constraints on local authority, but I think that we should not be going there. I’m also concerned about the inland hazard language. Having been on the CRC and worked on these issues, it’s very controversial and I don’t know that this is the vehicle where we should be doing this. I’m concerned about the air quality reporting requirements. So while I appreciate ya’ll’s efforts to make this a better bill, I’m still concerned about it and I will be voting no.

00:00 representative Mcgrady. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate representative Harrison's acknowledgment that the bill that we've got here is better than one if we just took all the environmental provisions that were in the senates' bill and roll them into this I do think that this is a compromise I can't say every provision here I'm widely excited about but on the whole I think we've done a good job and again like many bills large portions of this bill are totally non controversial so I support the bill and madam chair at the appropriate time I'd like to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you at the appropriate time representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you madam chair I heard a lot from my constituents about the air quality monitoring closure of some of those sights so I know it's gone and I appreciate that I get very bothered whenever you have like in section 3 of the bill telling the commission and the department that they may not delay or deny approval it just seems to me that we ought not be going I just give that as an example in section 3 we got places where we're telling the agencies that are working on these issues at the commit the department [??] that they may not do something it just seems to me to be too strong and the kind of thing that we ought to stay away from because we do have technical expertise in these divisions so it's bothersome to me and join representative Harrison in opposing the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any more comments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanted to madam chair if representative Samuelson would tell us why we need these strict prohibitions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you madam chair I was going to address yours on that particular issue it says they may not refuse to do it on the basis of density this bolt density apparently we're one of the only states in the country that has this density requirement and the way it usually works now is because of the density requirement the only thing that they can use is gravel and so this is an alternative way to meet the same concerns but they're getting pushed back on this one density requirement so the department can refuse it on other basis they just can't refuse it just on the density basis so we figured if we were the only one in the state plus the people who manufacture this product are here in North Carolina and this is the only state they can sell it in so that was what was behind that one but on the other things I appreciate your support particularly on the isolated wetlands. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson I'm sorry there was one more comment from representative Insko. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you madam chairman I have a problem with the concern about the section 13 the closure of certain animal waste contamination basis specifically I would like well probably try to work to get an amendment to exempt public supply water sheds we have an issue on king creek that is an old lagoon but it has a beef kettle [??] directly above it and that is within a thousand feet of our water intake for our water supply so I would like to discuss this with some other people about exempting public sector of supply water sheds. [SPEAKER CHANGES] and we would be okay with that I don't think the narrowness of this would affect that but if it does I don't have a problem with limiting it in that way. [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further comments representative Samuelson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] okay as I was saying thank you all for this [??] we really have tried to do this in a way that respects the wishes and concerns of as many people as possible I appreciate your support on the isolated wetlands this has been a contentious issue for years and I do hope we'll keep in mind that as we did with gravel dirt is different in different places so we do have to treat it differently and you can't assume that what works on the coast is actually gonna work in the mountains or in the [??] where we have a whole lot of clay so I know that it will probably come back up on the floor I would request your support of that but also to support the bill and we're open for more questions if anybody has it [??] your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] okay we're ready to vote then all in favor of oh what representative yes you do I'm sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm gonna make a motion my motion would be to give a favorable [??] of the bill as amended rolled into a new committee PCS unfavorable as to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam chair just a point of clarification. [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes. 05:00

Bill comes out of this committee presently it has a serial referral to transportation. That will be stricken when we go back into session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, good, so we won't have to mention that referral at all. OK. You heard the motion from Representative Grady. Thank him so much for reminding me twice today to make motions. Anyway, you heard the motion, all in favor please respond by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ayes have it. The Senate Bill 38 heads to the floor. Thank you very much. OK, no, we're not through, sit back down. We've got several more bills to go through quickly here. Representative Hager, House Bill 1057. OK. It's a PCS and Representative Catlin makes the motion to have that PCS before us. How bout that Representative McGrady? Will you explain your. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chairwoman. It's a study bill and basically the title tells you everything as I direct it. Department DNR to study the strategies, to talk about interbasin transfers. We want to re look at that. We had a review commission to try to look at what water supplies would look like within the subbasins themselves. We want DNR to kind of look at those subbasins to determine if there's new rules needed to assure water and water quality in the individual subbasins themselves. Madam Chairwoman, I move for its adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion? Representative Iler, I think we're ready for your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is not a PCS. This is approval of House Bill 1057. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is a PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Approve the PCS to House Bill 1057, unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair. Madam Chair I just want to note that we literally got the copy of the bill and the bill summary as Representative Iler was making his motion. Can we not slow things up enough, please, so that we can at least have it in front of us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. Would you like to have time to read that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may just ask Representative Hager a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Of course, Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you, I think I'm seeing here that this is a study only bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke it is a study only bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. And Ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Any further questions? Representative Iler for your motion again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move for favorable report for PCS for House Bill 1057, unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor of that motion say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, no. OK, House bill 1057, PCS for House Bill 1057 has passed. Next we have Representative Torbett and Brody for House Bill 1105. This is not a PCS. Would you explain your House Bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. These next two bills come from the Interim Committee on Land Development and they're going to be pretty short and I'll get right to the point. This particular one requires that if a colony is going to take over the erosion and sedimentary control program over from DNR that they take over all the properties in that program and not be selective on which ones they want. That's basically it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And that's House Bill 1107. Representative McGrady. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd recommend the bill to you. Henderson County went through such a transition in the past and got sort of caught in the middle and this it would have if it had been in effect would have been a positive thing. I think Representative Hager and I both served also on this committee and I believe it's a good bill and I'm willing to make a motion at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, we do have a technical amendment that's being passed out right now, ATA 61 version 1. Who's going to explain that? OK. Staff will explain

A technical amendment. Has everyone gotten that? Technical amendment. They're passing it out right now. The technical amendment. Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chairwoman. The technical amendment just simply removes the word soil because that's kind of old school language and modern language is just erosion control, not soil erosion control, so we just removed the world soil. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move for the adoption of the amendment if that's in order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, you've heard the, OK. Anyone have a question about the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is this mountain soil or coastal soil or peat moss soil, what kind of soil is it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill had the same question too. You know, barbecue is different east to west, maybe soil is too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm from Cleveland County. [SPEAKER CHANGES] How many ways to say soil out there? It's "sawl," it's called "sawl" out in the west. It's "sawl." OK, you heard the motion, all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, no. The technical amendment passes, we're back on the bill. OK, 1105. Please explain your bill Representative Brody. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He's already done that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chairman for a motion. Motion at the proper time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What did we do? We voted on the amendment, right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just the amendment, not the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right. So we're back on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He's already explained it, though. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh. OK. Any questions on 1105? We have a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My motion would be favorable as to the bill as amended rolled into a committee PCS, unfavorable as to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You guys are too fast for me. OK, you've heard the motion. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. OK, the bill passes. Now, House Bill 1106, Representative Brody, you're up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. This also comes from the same. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh, wait it's a PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's a PCS, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move the PCS be before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Wait until we get the PCS passed out. You're too fast. Get it to Representative Luebke, real fast there. OK, staff while that's being passed out will you explain the PCS? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chairwoman, Representative Brody and Representative Torbitt. This PCS is truly just clarifying language to the first edition of the bill as it was introduced. What this bill would do generally is amend the statutes that govern the approval of erosion and sedimentation control plans such that in order to obtain approval for a plan that includes a retaining wall or other similar structural device such as a structural foundation, the applicant for the plan would be required to provide a written certification from the designer of that devices that assures that the device has been designed in accordance with applicable codes and specifications that would be enforced by the local government and installed with the proposed sedimentation control plan. The commission must provide a copy of the plan approval that includes the written certification to the chief building code enforcement officer of the local government responsible for inspection and approval of that device, and the provisions of this PCS would only apply to applicants for plan approvals for land disturbing activity that takes place in jurisdictions that do not administer or enforce local erosion and sedimentation control programs. I'd be happy to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, we have a motion before us. Are there any questions for the bill sponsor or for staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair, over here, to your right. Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No question, I just wanted to briefly speak to the bill. Because I know these bills are getting pushed through pretty quickly, but I think the committee and the folks here ought to know that Representative Brody and Representative Torbitt took a lot of time dealing with some pretty serious situations and actually went over to Gaston County and saw firsthand some problems that happened with some construction and some problems that were affecting folks. So I know we're giving quick approval to these and I expect they'll get quick approval, but I just thought that the two of you ought to get accolades for the work that you and your committee did really spending a lot of time and going to other parts of the state and seeing what's the problem. I just thought you ought to get recognition for that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. I was on that committee but I only went to one of the meetings I think, but they actually took the trip across the state and it was greatly appreciated.

Speaker: I know by that some owners says that thank you both for the time for the committee in all those issue to ?? and thank you for this legislation now you have any other discussion we have a motion before all in favor say aye oppose that was quick and good thank you for your good work.we have representative Samuelson house bill 1139 in there PCS so Representative MC Greedy you are on and the PCS is before us, Speaker Changes: Thank you Madam Chair this came out the ?? let's staff entering ?? basically you are there certainly answer and the nature historic preserves need to be moved around it time ?? or road peace i don't know where they refused ?? but i urge this support we did this regularly we have specific questions before that to staff ,wanna give time for people to read that and Representative ?? when you finished let me know , Speaker Changes: Representative ??you have a question were we are waiting, Speaker Changes: I'm gonna ask a simple example ?? the ball head along stay natural area ?? on this bill, Speaker Changes: I'll let the staff do this because they are chair PRC this is a standard bill ?? so let's staff address now, Speaker Changes: And would i suggest a staff here from the department this is a basically a bill from their request additions and deletions from the preserved i think they would be answer to specific questions about the deletions, Speaker Changes: Please come to podium to state your name who represent,it's still not on, Speaker Changes: Hold it until the light comes on, Speaker Changes: ?? i don't think there is any affect on ?? in this bill the deletions are in other part Representative Samuelson said there are ?? and boundary adjustments, Speaker Changes: Following question is that is the existing language deletions are down blow at that ground, Speaker Changes: Representative Samuelson or staff, Speaker Changes: That's correct Speaker Changes: Any further question for,thank you so much we appreciate in,any further questions Representative ?? has first laid the question I'm sorry, Speaker Changes: No mam just looking for an emotion ?? , Speaker Changes: Representative ??, Speaker Changes: Thank you madam chair one quick question add to the PRC was the grandfather mountain?? is that a over south from the original or the origin of view with some triggered being added to just an over side grandfather mountain particularly, Speaker Changes: May be want the staff until we finish with the bill,thank you so much Speaker Changes: This time could vote the button,Grandfather mountain had been added to the ark system since the last time a bill of this kind was done we normally do it frequently but we haven't done it in the last few ears,so all of the lands had been added to the park system since 2009 will be added to state nature is one the bizarre of this park's bill , Speaker Changes: Follow up,that's a follow up question, Speaker Changes: I can understand that it wasn't in the original but it was just he PCS to do with a oversize or ?? after that, Speaker Changes: The PRC actually considered only the deletions from the nature and historic preserve ?? that time the council of state petition add land to the nature and historic preserve as well so the PCS include the addition of land as well as the deletion, Speaker Changes: Thank you, Speaker Changes: Any further questions Speaker Changes: Representative ?? have you have time to, Speaker Changes: I have studied that thoroughly and support the bill, Speaker Changes: Alright,any further questions,

Hager for your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chairwoman, I move for a favorable to the PCS for House Bill 1139, unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've heard the motion, all in favor say aye. All opposed no. And the PCS passes, thank you. And our last bill. Do we see any of the Senators here? Oh, you're going to handle it? That's right. Senator, Representative Wells is going to handle Senate Bill 163. It's a PCS. And Representative McGrady, this is a PCS, he's making a motion. Similar motion he's made, he's our PCS guy. And do you want staff, do you want to explain it or do you want staff to? The PCS is already before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll start. The PCS is before us. This involves Senate Bill 163, which has had a few adjustments. This is an attempt to get regulation in line with a fast changing technology world. What we would like to do here is give some options to our municipalities to use up to 20% reclaimed water in their water facilities and their water plants. This is not a requirement that they do anything, it does not force them, it is not a mandate, this is an option, an extra tool in their toolbox. It's designed to up to at least the 20% level minimize water drawn from a river, thereby benefitting the municipalities downstream of that as well as the agricultural uses downstream. There is a section 3 that beyond that, the section 3 gets into asking the Environmental Management Commission to study effects of chemicals of emerging concern. I could, I think staff could address that if anybody has any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, any questions. Representative Harrison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not a question, an approval, I mean a motion. For a motion. Perfect time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions? OK, I think that time is now Representative Harrison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Been a while. Motion for a favorable report for the PCS, unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, you've heard the motion. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. OK, the bill passes and we are done. Sorry I was rusty at this position today.