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.

Senate | May 7, 2013 | Committee Room | Agriculture

Full MP3 Audio File

In order now that Senator Cook is here. ?? yesterday, Kate Lee Johnson, from Kipling. We have Brendon O’Dell from Spring Lake. Chad Lee from Greensboro. Evan McDowell from ??. And from Brown Summit Travis Watts. Thank y'all for being here and I hope y'all learning something, and have fun today. And please come back and some of the seats from some of the people we have in here now. That would be much appreciated, including mine. Our Sargent of Arms that are here today. Charles is coming in, Ron was here. And who else was here? OK we're good. First we're gonna move the agenda around a little bit today, cuz I know we have members that have bill's in other committees. First we have Senate bill 638 the North Carolina farm act of 2013, with Senator Jackson. This is a proposed committee substitute. Senator Jackson moves for adoptions. All those in favor will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye (group) [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed no. Ayes have it. Senator Jackson the floor is yours. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Good morning members and guests. Senate bill 638 the North Carolina farm act of 2013 is sort of a copulation of many things, there's a lot of moving parts in this bill. If you'll read your bill summary it's very accurate in describing what is in this bill, and I'm gonna try and highlight some of the things. Actually section one of course is just the informal title. Section two and section three sorta eases some of the worry and concerns that have been going on with the petting zoos, animal rides, and educational programs using animals and their curriculum. It sort of addresses some of the concerns to allow these petting zoos and so forth at state fairs and festivals, and private operations, special ?? Tourism. It gives them a little flexibility and allows them to continue to do that without trying to have so many problems. Section four gives the North Carolina Department of Agriculture board’s commissions and officials with the authority to assess civil penalties but also to assess non-voluntary penalties when it is appropriate to do so. I found it right ironic that you have to have a measure to not assess a monetary penalty. So this sorta gives the board of agriculture, and these commissions the opportunity to assist someone instead of just fining em. And I think that is a great thing. Section number five decreases the frequencies of the survey of persons who withdraw 10,000 gallons per day for agricultural purposes from annually to bi-annually. And this came from a recommendation from ?? and also the water group that's been working trying to resolve some of the water issues across the state. And basically it takes it from a one year to every two years because they pretty much collected the data they need, from the understanding I'm getting. Section number six provides that no information collected by the Department of Agriculture for its animal health programs, including certificates of veterinarian inspections, animal medical records, laboratory reports, or other information may identify a person or private business subject to regulation by the department, may be disclosed without the permission of the owner unless the state veterinarian determines that the disclosure is necessary to prevent the spread of an animal diseases to maintain public health, or to implement animal health programs. What this bill basically, section basically does is it makes it so that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can not just go in and request through the freedom of information act for the state veterinarians office, and through the Department of Agriculture. Because sometimes this priority information. And unless it affects the public health, or the animal industry as a whole those of course would not apply if it did those two things, but otherwise it puts a little restrictions on who can have that information. Section number seven repeals the interstate test control compact article 4E of chapter 106 of the general statutes. The Department of Agriculture has asked that we repeal this language because the IPCC was formed as an interstate compact in 1968 but has not been active in recent years. And earlier this year they chose to dissolve because of an issue with IPCC's tax exempt status. So they've already

…this they just need the authority to do so. Sections eight and nine repeals general statues 106 246 and which set… 248…which set out cleanliness and purity standards for ice cream plants, creameries and cheese factories. Now, we’re not going to say you’re going to have dirty factories so let me continue before we get too…our hairs raised too high. The department of agriculture has asked us to repeal these statues as they have been rendered obsolete by the North Carolina Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which prohibits adulterated food from being entered into commerce at general statute 106 129, so the North Carolina Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act covers what this was doing originally. In 2011, House bill 119 became sectional 2011 dash 394 and changed the setback distance and burn times for debris, stumps, brush or other flammable materials resulting from ground clearing activities. We found that the language does not conform with these changes and this language in section ten brings our general statues up to date to get it to conform to that. Section 11 repeals general statute 119 26 dot 2, which provides self or content standards in gasoline. The department of agriculture has asked that we repeal this section because it was adopted prior to the problem ? EPA standards, in other words, EPA doesn’t require it so we don’t have it either. Section number 12 exempts migrant housing from requirements for installation of and automatic sprinkler system if the building meets certain requirements are met. A sprinkler system using water from a well requires a holding tank, chemicals to keep that water from going stale and an expulsion system. All of these are costly and the federal occupational safety and health administration regulations for temporary labor camps do not.. do not require a sprinkler system and the state requirements of the migrant housing act of North Carolina does not also require a sprinkler system. Both of those regulatory bodies have been placed codes to make sure egress’ fire extinguisher, living space are all included. In order to be exempt from the sprinkler system, the building must do the following: be one floor, meet all the federal occupational, safety and health administration regulations for temporary labor camps and 3) meet all the migrant housing acts of North Carolina. This has become an issue in trying to build new labor camps with the costs being anywhere being from 75 hundred upwards to the 20 thousands range plus to maintain these systems every year on private wells with the tanks and as I said earlier none of the other agencies require this. OSHA does not require this neither does our north client migrant housing authority. Section number 12 also allows a farm building that is used for public or private events , such as weddings, receptions or meetings to maintain its farm building status for the purposes of the state building code. Currently farm building located outside the building rules jurisdiction of any municipality are exempt from state building rules. We have worked with the depart of agriculture on this section because currently there is uncertainty and confusion among agriturlism farms operators about permissional uses of farm building for exhibitions and events where the public is invited into a building. That, originally, was exempt from the building code when constructed because it was farm building. This will allow folks in agriturlism industry to still be exempt as a farm just because they are entertaining and rental out that facility several times a year or even maybe one time a year but it provides some language clarification that has been grey in the past. Sections 13-1 and 13-2 amends the definition of waters under the environmental statues to include only those wet lands or waters of the United States and would revive that a water quality permit would not be required for activities in wet lands that are not waters of the United States. This language modifies the definition adopted for isolated wet lands by the environmental management commission found in general statue 143 dash 2 12 6. This does not alter the purpose or the requirement of the federal wet land program. This language keeps farmers from having their isolated irrigation ponds from becoming wet lands and needs permits for build.

Section 14 provides that the current exemptions from the dam safety act of dams constructed to provide water for agriculture use that were designed and constructed by or under the supervision of a person who is employed by the natural resource conservation service, county or local soil and water conservation districts, and has, and this is key, and has federal engineering job approval, authority under chapter 89C of the general statutes. We've worked with farm bureau and DENR on this language. This idea is to give farmers more options when constructing and repairing a dam used for water on their farm. These additional options are also authorized by the federal engineering job approval authority. Section 15 provides that nothing in this statute governing water shortages, emergencies can limit a landowner from withdrawing water for use in agricultural activities when the water is withdrawn from surface water sources located wholly on the landowner's property and from groundwater sources. The goal of this language is to make sure that the water on a farmer's land does not hinder a neighboring property owner and can be used at the discretion of the farmer. Section 16-1 and 2 directs the department of DENR, department of environment and natural resources, and the department of transportation to jointly petition the United States army corp of engineers to allow for greater flexibility and opportunity to perform wetland mitigations outside out of the watershed where development occurs. Also DENR and DOT will report on the progress in petitioning the corps to the environmental review commission no later than January 1, 2014. And that basically, is sort of encouraging them to work together. I would be happy to entertain the questions. I have staff on standby, if I can't answer them. But I've tried to give you a true picture of what this bill does. I've tried to be transparent in my presentation of it. And I'll answer your questions, if there is any. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator Jackson, I think you get an honorable nomination for ??. But you have been very transparent. In fact you went through it verbatim. Any questions from the committee? Senator Alran. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill has a lot of stuff in it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I missed about the first minute or so, so forgive me if I missed that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You didn't miss anything. [LAUGHTER] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you for clarifying that. The question I had is in regard to the farm animal activities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will that have any affect on the petting zoos and the zoos we have at the state fair and the petting zoos that are at various places around the state and that liability from the e coli and all that stuff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, it gives them a little leeway in that area, because if not we're going to lose those petting zoos and those activities that you see at state fairs and festivals and staff might want to address that a little more if we need to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm particularly interested, and if you have those, I think there's, zoos are great but if you got a whole bunch of people infected with e coli, I'm just wondering about the, from a health standpoint and limiting liability and all of that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Alran. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. So what this bill would do is list under on page 5, line 14, it lists the risk of contracting an illness as an inherent risk of farm animal activities. And then a farm activity sponsor or professional has protection from liability for death or injury caused by the inherent risks of farm animal activities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I could follow up. I just ask the question, is this in my head, so will this make the people who have the zoos less likely to be, to keep them clean? So that we're more likely to have, you know, 100, 200, 300 people at the state fair or anyplace else, infected with e coli? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair. The intent of this bill is not to do that. And I don't think we have put language in there to make sure that they do still maintain the best sanitation methods that they can and good

Vs. foothill sorghum shall include that in two top of your kids from that could just said the Lebanon that they are still liable for actual evidence some vaccination becomes a 2-1 disregard for the safety of the proposed that so many, many within seconds of the line will survey of this chairman of the hottest some comments premature rifleman for five with four with a challenge for 3 to 4 with 4 seconds and pressure from committee becomes an audience that's not serving them is too high a unstable to racial table to the table to approve the proposed use of state, Federal say OP-Ed fries said the center's chairman thank you very much like so much of the new channel that more than two a senate bill 636 NF lee sources from commissioned by the Nikkei is set for making your own deck racially about making sure that the at the La those kids can hear me that the bomb hit of that to some of the missing funds and increases the number of illicit funds will number of items from ticker one home can help would be the OB unlawful taking a milk ?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) for example in racism to act cool place recalls 2500 caller to a number of items like that for at them, but the fact that the bill briefly that little quicker that kept fifth at the bank industry chairman at that, yes this irony that the dead, but in places that the toll increases from finds the sea at the west county's increases penalties consultant in places that decreases penalties from friends cents from nine misdemeanor to an infraction said TOCOM going through the bill I would just add about first section is just a name change from P. Cassell Khamenei I would tend to be our C2 that the cutting CP too many a time that the next nine penalties associated with FDR C Tampa bay's film roles from our reclassify N tourney of P100 dollar limit on fines but it still is a class three misdemeanor for violation of the rule in that language was also changed from navigational rules to have additional lighting five index does the healthy associated with operation of the bustle while under the influence MM to specify that the violations punishable five, 55 if not less than $250 but it still remains a class to two misdemeanor but next B violation from the applicable two by Wylie a person under the age of 16 to operate a personal watercraft that language is now when the net effect of that ability 2% short a lawful under of the watercraft 4% in control of the watercraft and knowingly allowed operation watercraft by the next is some penalties that are associated with floating in safety education requirements specifying that violations, those are laws are punishable by fines, not 2C50 dollars it remains an infraction as provided under current law that there was no specific five associated with that under current law , then also the penalty associated with rules adopted by Dr. (SPEAKER CHANGES) C and abetting in CP a wider city chapter from Fuhrman Clifford five stains from class three misdemeanor with a fine of 2C250 dollars to infractions such a move from a misdemeanor to an infraction with a fine of $50.00 and it also provides that a person convicted of an infraction must not be assessed for cost amounts also change since there were four costs associated before, it is still however 89 one actually nothing credit is not a class three misdemeanor anymore 579 next we have the violations associated with regulation of wildlife cell largely hunting and coaching vial ??.........

The penalties associated with the possession or sale or possession for sale or purchase of wildlife would be punishable by a fine not less than $250 that stays as class 2 misdemeanor but under current law, there is no specific fine amounts provided. The next is penalty associated with unlawful sale, possession for sale or purchase of deer or wild turkey to specify that the violation is punishable by a fine not less than $500, still a class two misdemeanor but there was no minimum amount under current law. The next is penalty associated with unlawful taking possession or transportation of deer, to specify the violation is punishable by a fine not less than $250, it is still a class three misdemeanor but the minimum amount under current law was $100. The next is a penalty associated with unlawful taking deer between half hour after sunset and a half hour before sunrise with the aid of artificial light and it now states that the violation would be punishable by a fine not less than $500, it is still a class two misdemeanor but the minimum amount under current law is $250. The next is a penalty associated with Berries prohibition on taking permits and tagging rules pertaining to migratory game birds and specifies that the violations are punishable by a fine not less than $250, still a class 2 misdemeanor as under the existing law but the minimum fine under the existing law was $100. The next is a penalty associated with unlawful taking of black bears with the use and aid of bait would state that the fine would be not less than $250 for violation, still a class two misdemeanor but there was no minimum penalty specified under the statues. The next is a penalty associated with unlawful removal of feral swines from a trap. This violation would be punishable by a fine not less than $250, it's still a class two misdemeanor but there was no minimum penalty amount. And then there are two new separate extinct violations that are created under the bill and that would be unlawful taking possession and transportation of Elk from state on land which would be punishable by a class 1 misdemeanor with a fine not less than $2500. The next is unlawful taking possession or transportation of deer from properly posted land without written permission from their land owner or their agent which would be class 2 misdemeanor with a fine of not less than $500. That's it Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. There is also a physical note with this if Kristian leggett or Miss Morsi would please tell us the impact which I think is fairly minimum. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Megan Morsi from research. We were not able to provide an estimate for these incarceration notes. The costs would be fairly minimal and there also be some savings. I am associated with the energy and defense services. There is no estimated impact on the prison sections since these are all misdemeanors and anyone convicted with a misdemeanor is sentenced to jail instead of the prisons. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bingham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to thank senator Newton for bringing this is forward. This will be a great help to the court systems and I'd move for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hold on that for a second. And the question from committee? Comments from audience? ?? ?? for the J2. Those in favor of senate bill 636 will say Aye. Opposed No. Ayes have it. Thank you Senator. Next up on the ??, senate bill 626 Senator Mckissick refortify animal shelter law. Senator Mckissick, the floor is yours. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is a pretty straight forward bill. All we are doing is taking some language that already exist within our laws dealing with animal related issues right now. This particular program is situated over the Department of health and human services, we are moving it over to the department of agriculture and animal welfare division

Français his office and supported the speaker James river town to a provision said hand and will be taken this long nine existing logging would basically says that if you're undocking enamel phone and filtered you'll have to create some Federal law that made easy by the end and secondly ,(SPEAKER CHANGES ) we comes to these particular provisions, there's a cell of the animals became began institutions are leaders amendment has been prepared by which the barnacle Justin we went so well, let me to a lot of thinking too soon for some and, for barefoot sense for them in the seventh fleet of FL and Jeff wolf and staff was finalist in pastel fairly simple act of taking the sincere bestseller makes you sick and wounded one of the changes to the kernel audience to unruh's the ability four battles to be sold to the institution for the status line with the server on page three plus 26 to 27 L6 strikes to the language allowing the sale than most institutions under several references however , in the existing statute in the new language 22 CL Baum said this isn't really conforming change to remove those references to sail in other parts of the statute in the new law because sales no longer an alternative says its system for exchangeable the Fargo the pressure from the committee's fair cover that, like you miss sure?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) cervical braves four served with this bill home the one that partisan lives within the study that this research like to have a North Carolina the problem to the idea that there's the school that their medicine will be only assembles 212 the panel talks to home two, maybe the create some sort of research for the animal is that we're still serves up, no actually infinite than areas?? content of Asian women do some research animals they can continue to be self this is more about the its head in the Vietnam War shelters been there had been some exploitation into her show syllables animals to be as efficient and EZ in some instances resulted in the death of the animal and the potential use the am so weak that allow for the Salem) to be animal shelters two for institutional agencies, but below person we have got people still be opened up a bit about the problems the law?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) visit them from school for their medicine institution in the day-288 they would not be purchasing plants and animal shelters and they would typically have animals already the Embraer that they would have seen their own division that they would not typically be going out to an animal shelters were picks are bound to condemn the research is typically they need to have kids are coming from or animals Italy from all controlled environments service control Goldman noted that the may not be a control group: the fact that the fed a windfall Mr. Lamont in the corner from?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) if the commission and the national park is simply a long way toward car that for long state functions for Owen moss is used in all of individual when the Pensacola from landfills to the next animal shelter breaking the law also using them for experimentation purposes to the environmental idea won't increase the probability that there will be people out there inclined to do that, because their actual identification allegedly linked with the home in a way that the teacher. So as to say and play some sort one Foster City employees-as a place in the photo identification is for people who borrow from one and shelter turnover much likable guy from one buddy list when the success of their hands on Israel, indication they supposed as president until we have put some code seven-man stood out in the valley of adoption of a man that the form of CDs are impacted by the spill-fate of the Males they are pushing and said that as the family is managed by the Favre said bill 626 as many will say some of their weight ??......

The Chairman: Senator Wade. Senator Wade: Senator McKissick, I see that where an animal's surrendered to a shelter by an owner, that they can go ahead and waive the waiting period and have the pet euthanized or adopted, or whatever they decide to do, is that correct? Senator McKissick: That's correct. I believe there is a 72-hour window that's applicable. Senator Wade: My question is, when they surrender the pet, are they still required to mention whether this pet has bitten anyone, or is up to date on its rabies vaccine, or, all those things need to be taken into consideration. So is there another law that applies to that, if you're surrendering your pet and you're waiving your right to hold this pet? Senator McKissick: I'm not aware of other laws that address that specifically. This would address any situation when an owner would bring a pet to a shelter. It would also address these pets that are picked up there, just kind of roaming out in the county, that people don't know the histories of, which are probably at greater risk. They do very thorough inspection, and it does allow, under circumstances where a shelter determines that a pet is unhealthy or not fit for adoption, to go ahead and proceed with euthanizing that particular animal. The Chairman: Senator Wade. Senator Wade: Followup on that is, sometimes we have problems with pets biting members of the family, or a stray dog come into the yard that they've been feeding for a day or two and it bites a member, and they might go down to the shelter and relinquish the pet, and it's okay to go ahead and euthanize this pet, but I think we have to have, somewhere in here, that you need to say whether this pet's bitten someone, because that's going to leave us pretty open there, and that does happen quite often. Senator McKissick: Sure. And that's an excellent observation. What we can do is this, I will check with those that are more familiar with the details of what questions they're asked when these pets are surrendered, to see if that is, in fact, being done today, but if it's not being done, I certainly would be open to a friendly amendment that we could run on the floor. Senator Wade: I have another followup. The other thing is, with the photo ID, now, I've had this problem happen with some of my clients who go down to pick their pet up that might have come from the shelter, some reasonable excuse for getting out of the fence, for some reason, the pet got under the fence, and they go to pick their pet up, and it was signed out originally from the shelter in the husband's name, and the wife goes to get the pet, and they're not able to pick the pet up. They have to call the husband at work and have him come, because of the ID requirement. Have you addressed that in some way, because I've had that happen about five or six times in my office in the last year? Senator McKissick: This is impacting situations where a pet's being adopted. So if the rightful owner is going for it, I assume it's not an adoption occurring, but again, we can certainly raise that with the Department and see if we need to, perhaps, even though it's not the focus of the bill, I don't have any objections to including something like that if it's in an appropriate location, to insert it and there's not something that addresses it today. So we'll follow up on that as it moves to the floor. Thank you. The Chairman: Senator Wade. Senator Wade: I know it says that you have 72 hours to reclaim your pet, but it also says in here that the shelter has to be open at least four hours a day, three days a week. So what if your dog comes in on Monday, the shelter closes for the next three days. So is it working days? Somehow shelters aren't open all the time, so when you say 72 hours, how long do the people really have if the shelter's closed for three days, and their 72 hours is expired before they've even had that chance? Senator McKissick: It's my understanding, based upon the way they've been operating, they do have to hold the pet a minimum of 72 hours. Now whether they're counting weekend days or not, as I say, we're re-codifying a lot of existing law that was on the books previously. I believe they are looking at the actual number of days they are in operation, but we can certainly seek some clarification. But the main thing we were doing in terms of carrying it over was making certain we had a division in entity in charge of these rules and regulations that is accustomed to handling animal welfare issues, which is what we have in Department of Agriculture. They have an animal welfare section. So it's better that they get involved in monitoring these things and handling them, and of course the other provision that we've talked about already dealing with institutional sales that...

no longer be allowed in likewise the identification. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any more follow up? Sen. Wade will cross examine your bill after we get through this committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's fine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of committee, what's your pleasure? Any comments from the audience? Don't see anything. Sen. Kinnear moves for a favorable report. Sen. Bingham? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was just gonna say, we'd fix it, Sen. Wade seemed to have a lot of concerns, but [SPEAKER CHANGES] But we'll do [SPEAKER CHANGES] But we can move it on and we'll fix it before it gets to floor. We can address- some of those may already be addressed. And then they are outside the scope of the bill. But if they are not, we're open to doing it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. McKissick, we're coming back on Thursday to have another ag meeting, so why don't we just go ahead and clean it up here before we send it out to the floor. I just make sure we won't stay too long out on the floor. It'll get fixed, we'll get through it til Thursday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I mean if we could go ahead and move it, I'd think these had already been addressed to be completely candid with you. These outside the scope of the actual bill. But it'll help us move it along, I can promise you there won't be any problem with that. Are you okay with that Sen. Wade? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Wade? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I think it would be better if we clean up some of these issues before we voted on it in the committee [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll that'd be fine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] so we'll have another chance if- and I could get with Sen. McKissick and tell him some... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Kinnaird withdraws her motion. We'll just get it cleaned before we send it off. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That'll be- [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll put in a homo sapien provision. Okay, Sen. McKissick. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He'll be back for another show on Thursday. Next up, we have House bill 484, permitting of wind energy facilities, and we're gonna try to go through 689 toward the end, and I know we have a lot of people to speak for and against it. What I may do is try to do a minute each, for each person who wants to speak on it. Any of your comments maybe try to bring up something that hasn't been said by a previous speaker, but you'll identify yourselves, where you're from, who you're representing when you get to it. But currently we have 484, permitting of wind energy facilities. Rep. Bell. The House bill. The floor is yours. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for allowing us to be here today. House bill 484, permitting of wind energy facilities. This bill will establish a permitting program for deciding an operation of wind energy facilities in the state of North Carolina. The program will be implemented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and this is also the companion bill with House bill 491 introduced by Sen. Harry Brown. This bill crossed the House, crossed over from the House with 112 to 2 support, went through judiciary committees, went through environmental, went through- excuse me, did not go through judiciary, went through environmental, public utilities and finance, and received favorable reports in all the committees of ?? the floor. This bill is not against potential development of wind energy, it develops the permitting process for wind energy at the same time while protecting the continuation and expansion of our vital military operation here in the state of North Carolina. Currently the military is the second largest contributor to our state's economy, providing roughly a $26 billion economic impact annually, and business performing defense related contracts are currently in 80 of our 100 counties here in North Carolina. Wind farm encroachment in military airspace, turning operations in radar installations is a critical issue that threatens the long term viability of our military in North Carolina. Incompatible encroachment in turning operations diversely affects the military mission and increases the risk of future base closures and realignment and as we all know, Brack is just right around the corner. Currently there's a regulatory gap here in the state. The regulatory gap exists between the Federal Aviation Administration's review of wind energy facilities' impact on civil aviation, and the Dept. of Defense's review on impact of wind energy project on board issues of National Security. What we found out during this legislation is that the FAA and the DOD actually have no authority to turn down a project, especially when it deals with our military interests. The Dept. of Defense can only rule if it's in threat of homeland security. So just because a wind turbine intrudes on our military airspace doesn't mean it's a threat to national security, it just means that it's a threat to training. So they can up and move our military training installations, especially the ones we currently have. The problem exists with encroachment, and if you look on the maps that are on the sides, I will show you just with the powerpoint, the yellow

In our physical right here would be to one specific categories are issued will physically reconfiguring reform I'll will propose when forms are fierce foes with five-year with you to offer a range are currently RIF 15 to Seymour Johnson have to guess or 500 foot treading around here to do already that for veteran capabilities unethically talk anywhere from 20 through 25-year-old Hollis off-line low-level round on this project right here alone will will and ability to get adjudicative on the range and result would be a loss to see my doctorto check ridiculous things started off the deadlines I sure as way that gets information that will run one at four out of members and room and I will will you probably became clear to belt which will well estate developers and free will to will or steel facility cultivated a project about regarding this is this project right here as easy as direct route into their offerings in monterey home a seymour johnson air force base it is indicative from her a load out the house that will buy seymour johnson military point officer on langley air force base in virginia saw herself your love is all you suffice more to adorn your north carolina defensive article to 500 windsor ponds are located will will will arouse in their county i have five wonderful wizard of oz if i dropped out of 503 is a caracas art is not it would have a major disaster there home when we do this how we fix this problem on this warehouse your political game abuses in almost a year long process and we decided it was on your coronary scoping affirming process where it leaders division of energy on mineral oil and resources you would annually work would know's military prices determined when energy development would conflict with military training operations in the permit requirement of development of wind energy facilities only where to facility is not adversely affected military training grants on disappointed in place as you if you use their struggle to grow quickly are those executive orders you always i think the thousands well i don't reportedly on his animated desires in our regular military's license with your process only would our bridge site authority you will see a list of our own alert officials elected bodies cities chamber of commerce was accidentally some thoughtless license to be implemented to protect our military is a sidewalk you are and we also work with our also had meetings discussions are many hours on it would be on the phone in person and since i is • after electricity scarcity would be to go to terry if i looking military communities for you wayne county onset old girl entry point to energy industry while the wind energy industry does not fully support the data from across the river's energy standards have been incorporated is less from the novell certified are just the preference on the perfect pork in it you at a question from thank you they do a question from the audience i have 2141 against w thompson against the mr. chairman armbrust thompson a representative american wind energy association and with several our member companies are there working on developing projects in north carolina now that i will represent over $2 billion of investment in eastern north carolina and one of the keys is the investment are in counties that let's certainly could use a standard economic buddhists are right now counties like camden courier talk pasquotank requirements i have active projects where companies would making annual payments to farmers are to use our other cropland to direct to the wind energy farm on in those counties are mentioned those projects when the bill overcome the number one taxpayer in the in the county and will certainly help out an economic impact you will think you are represented by all his fellow sponsors because they have listened to us several of our concerns and also gene or has has worked with a spot where we're not concerned about the military aspects of the bill as a fat

Process but we have agreed that we’re not going to oppose a state level process to deal with that also. The things we’re concerned about is the duplication of regulation that’s in this bill. There are several aspects of state and federal environmental permitting that we already have to go through under existing law. Now we’re going to have to go through them again if this bill passes in its current form. There are also several requirements in there that repeat local zoning regulations. Almost every county where wind projects are being located have local zoning ordinances dealing with noise and shadow flicker and alerting the adjoining land owners. And then finally, there’s one technical aspect. One of the things we’ve asked all along in this bill is that the state process be early in the game because we you’re looking at the kinds of investments that we’re talking about, a developer’s not going to risk the capital of going through a multi-year process that may result in the state denying a permit. So we’ve asked that the DENR permit be moved to the front. That was done partially, one of the things we’re still concerned about in the bill is that DENR can withhold its grant of a permit until you finish the federal process. To sum all that up, we’re supportive of what the bill sponsors are doing with the military. There’s no way we could come in and preach economic development if we were going to do something that damaged military communities and industries in North Carolina. These projects are not going to get built that interfere with them. But the uncertainty that exists because of the overregulation in the environmental area is going to prevent these companies from looking at North Carolina and we’d appreciate any help we can get in terms of making those modifications and hopefully by the time this bill becomes law it’ll be one that we can support. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. ?? ?? from DENR. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to start out by just broadly supporting the bill but I think I need to respond to some of the criticisms from Mr. Thompson. As I believe a lot of Senators in the room and Representatives are aware we’ve had extensive meetings with the wind industry and we’ve repeatedly heard these same criticisms of duplication of federal and local requirements. And we have had a lot of difficulty finding concrete examples of the duplication. I think if you listened to Mr. Thompson’s words carefully he said, almost every local jurisdiction. And that’s a key distinction I’d like to point out. Not all local areas have regulations concerning wind turbine. So what we’re trying to do here is to make sure we don’t have a repeat of what happened in western North Carolina that led to the adoption of the RICH law. We embrace wind companies, we want them to come here. I think that Mr. Thompson’s point about them coming into rural counties is especially important. These are major economic developmental opportunities. Our department is entirely in support of that, we want to encourage it. But at the same time we want to make sure that both the military and environmental concerns are addressed and not just the military issues. If we had a bad project just like that 12 story building out near Sugar Mountain, if we have one bad project we’re not going to have another wind turbine built in the state. We would like to see very good responsible projects, we’ve designed a process where we try and meet upfront and talk about military issues, environmental issues and potentially local issues such as siding wind turbines too close to the houses people occupy. So what we’re trying to do here with this legislation is come up with something that’s rational, brings the right people to the table that?? the process, deals with the problems and allows us to move forward and give the billions of dollars of development income that Mr. Thompson was talking about into these areas. And so the department is entirely in support of this bill as written and we don’t think it needs any amendments. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to touch on the economic impact, the ?? project which is the one that’s listed up there in Beaufort County and also adds two and a half jobs. What’s at stake on that project alone? Would have the possibility of shutting down Seymour Johnson which brings in a $527 million impact. And then when you go through active duty reservice and a non-appropriated funds personnel you’re looking at a total of 12, 478 jobs. So if you’re looking at a detrimental economic impact, that is just int eh surrounding area with one air force base. That does not include Cherry Point down in Havelock. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hartsell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My question is technical. Has to do with, is what is in this bill a statutory scheme that preempts locals.

Tough , tough stance on statutory scheme sounds like something on a lawyer to craft, and that's what we're good enough to understand the concern this issue admonition that could(SPEAKER CHANGES) Mr. Chairman , said Hershel there's nothing NBL that would preempt local governments from having their 949 cents, more regulations concerning all when the solidity now for something about it then jumped to get defense attorneys believe that this other trust so we have out there that we're trying to create content of local governments cannot take home the morning shows are a stricter than the state or Federal level and in my concern is if it is not exchange for a few than we have misunderstood 22212 , we deal with the potential inconsistent say , those two in this context and understanding, but the question really is a move, we can help if in fact are usually too kind of them, securing a server so I am a day would be a policy decision for the body, eight of course, governments under the legislation absent any language the contrary could be more stringent than the state program but not less stringent and sell it if you wanted two fully preempt any local control and we could add a provision that preempts local government regulation of Clinton’s law could (SPEAKER CHANGES) I think I'm not sure why weren't going with this does not mean to hurt the bill over would help the bill Manville the problem is we've got so inconsistent full of Sofia at your home arguably and if in fact the other bill passes after this bill then we have not just a consistent in conflict with the ability to enforce the local rights and that the news from this too weak and come up with something that some concerns in harmony and some five -and some of the only one, suffered a defense bill in aviation daily face with his was that when women that they see a solid was brought up the department's as cannot say that all of that they cannot say no to a city goals broken off a total of no one can say no to the stately process cannot say that it says so with this bill does a sickly of four process across the state so there is a determination five and there were some office as a city project was before the court knows, impact our level flight welfare military operations that are no concerns we haven't studied the fact that doesn't solve the problem should accomplish your goal am not failing to deliver this was chairman that if the creative process does not agree on two of local regulation and the local folks do something that is more stringent for various and sundry races then we not only have an inconsistent solely with the maybe the applications statewide that we have an inconsistency with the philosophical provisions of ago, we're trying to kill lemon juice of succession regulation from this league, if this were some legendary the two I think there probably is awfully would be helpful for us to do to address list of seven philosophical reasons we're looking at the upcoming this month, no on the East Coast in nine states and 50 places across the country via the top five Folsom and the militia talk about that and we look especially with something hell bill Casey said the good among the county's server persona this bowl for , are you telling this bill will preclude had two goals , investment and Mr. Chairman said that ms, not preclude I anticipate that simply said process by which the plan would have to put the project ??.....

If the fed also say the word were all residents add to reduce the selling of represent both recounted in a row for favored 1,000,000,004 (SPEAKER CHANGES) Wesley thank you just a set list to say from Oakland expertise Sunday than two level routes bombing ranges in all supportive if this is the two bases their existence of Y2 subordinates organize tranquil combat forces to be ready to go into combat the agenda world trade environments and we compromise said to have them have two workarounds to make them believe that the outback B said UCLA EL DC law to read on the year chart this display the wall there are low level routes is Forrester width that is an area that we need to be extremely protective of whether the flights a few to simply were real world realistic training so when the pilot to go see a phony sense from a mere 45 and older five began to list a trend that this is not the whole stake this is the whole county and the list at SMU arrest film and a machine that there can bombing hangs from the top and Willie small piece of airspace trouble 46 miles this military operation USA hire me extended five those numbers if they're not exactly a close enough to local routes from the Shiseido and I should go to school but this to say 50 miles wide and from awful that not all fun that would topple to National Security and our economy and not just their states were talking headquarters air combat command headquarters itself the station are to the Spanish I first base and Oliver bases seven if that helps with 5 to 7 Kramer shall we got you under can under consideration of hope it goes into effect that testimony, so they could take a little bit off a bomb will be a public ordeal for much the same goal ram and thank you and seven brought to my question is this a special legislation against Ephesus piece of legislation had any effect one lawyer for another own deciding when mills, North Carolina Mts excellent 38 says existing also been reported that were the possible walls in regard to that I'm asking because of the reference to the rich will control the staff that this chairman; (SPEAKERC HANGES) if you look, and the LNG 7 to 10 cc -25 to 27 assists the criteria by which the department would have 229 permit application from the screechy rain and sleet include whether the construction of facilities would be prohibited under the bridge club too close to the feel and forward the case of emerged as this law protects employees are a small table and Craig SNC 3 S : it's fair game this Chairman Nam, they were the only push for Tom Luce it's instantly this issue is extremely important and everyone in your hand them in every one of them suppose the same succumbed to sign conclusion for taking these are relishing several are also not the way the same thing or your fear was that future possibility so could lead to war would use chairman can share of oblivious subcommittee is simply could not have somebody saying I could use the 80,000,000 shares to the 774 for the future of our state of about five summer I would say there are still many people wanted we met personally, we have met, has a large group with everybody involved is on the browns office window on the phone with an elevator we have meant to be uploaded these legislation to go back to look of fighting for the fifth edition of everything that we try to do to make this AEA irresponsible the fate of these legislation home and the other thing is that all the states are walking over to win because we have put a minute you look almost a year process from start to finish to wear warren right now with these lists lace and so on a lob a fight the subcommittee 22 to do this with just a rehash their offense to go for less isolated to most a survey by the star Monica bay the sale referral for both commerce can finance so you got 11 but the apple this will generate a ??.......

Thank you. Just real quick on the military prerogatives and all of that. I'm glad that you brought up the ?? range things in this area, but we have to recognize I think in this state we have a lot of special operations going on that are classified. So the answer to some of the question is, you're not gonna know ahead of time and that's why the department, the DOD representatives have to be involved in the decision process, because they're the only ones who know which land is being used and whether they're doing clandestine or semi-clandestine training and be ready to adjust to it without regard to the open things that are going on there on the East coast. It's just something to keep in the back of your mind when you're going through this stuff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hartsell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not trying to, my questions were not designed to throttle back the bill or anything. They were designed to say, to ask the very specific question, if we are creating a state wide scheme for this kind of regulation, should we not also say that that state wide scheme is preemptive of local regulations that are inconsistent with the state wide scheme. That's, that's all I'm saying. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Allran. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would just suggest that the answer to that would, should be no, because they might want to be more restrictive on the local level. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But we just adopted regulations, or just adopted a bill yesterday that said that we couldn't have more restrictive legislation. That's, ?? that's why. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But it doesn't necessarily pertain to this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator Allran. Senator Allran's right. When you're looking at the federal regulations that are passed down some, the regulations that we took care of, and legislation the other day did not pertain to air space. And I'll say this as a family member of a former Air Force pilot, probably one of the best in the Air Force. Anything that we do that harms our, harms us in as far as BRAC and realignment closing, we're looking at losing twelve thousand jobs at Seymour-Johnson. I think it said ??, take a look at what we've got to make sure we protect our air space for our pilots and, and so Representative Whitmire's talked about that you don't have a lot of room, there is not a lot of room out there when you're flying those jets, so I think the bill will protect that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But, mister Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hartsell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's not the point. If the local activity causes the problem, we don't want that, and what we have in the bill at present is we're not precluding the locals from doing something that does something more. And that's my concern. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right, I know that's one thing. We'll take a look at commerce and finance to make sure it goes through. Senator Wade? We're gonna take a vote on this bill. Is there a motion for it? Senator Barefoot moves that we favorable to House bill 484. All those in favor will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed no. Ayes have it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. We had a lot of people travel up for 689. The committee's leaving. I hate to do this. For those who came up, I know ya'll came up here, supposed to have it. We had a full slate today. We'll try to carry over 689 to Thursday. I apologize for that, but we didn't think the discussion would be that long on the bills we had before. So we'll try to take up 689, we'll take it up first on Thursday morning when AG meets again. Committee dismissed.