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 20, 2015 | Committee Room | Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources

Full MP3 Audio File

We come to order please. Thank you all for being here and we will begin but I'd like for the pages to please come to the podium at the back, and just take a moment. Introduce yourself and may be who your sponsor is and something about an event or committee you enjoyed or any exciting part of your visit this time if you'd like to bring up. Turn the mic on. Mr. Sergeant Arms, if you'd make sure the mic is on for him. Test, test, test. My name is Spencer Hames[sp?], I'm here for A little bit closer. Okay, my name is Spencer Hames[sp?] I'm here from North Carolina, I'm here for Representative Warren Daniel, I'm looking forward to this meeting actually alike environmental science want to see how this is done. The sarcasm in the senate has so far been my favorite with a with the red jacket and coach K and all that yesterday in the joint session, I really like that so far. Thank you. Yes ma'am I'm Coven Carvings from hellsprings  North Carolina and I'm responsible by senate job forward. And I'm interested also to see how this I also like science and natural resources, so I'm interested to see how it goes. I think my favorite so far is definitely the sarcasm in the senate was it telling jokes and it really made my day. So that's what my life, yeah. Nice to meet you all. Frankie.  Hello, my name is Manny Michael, I'm from Morganton North Carolina. I'm represented by senator Warren Daniel and Hi, I'm also looking forward to this meeting, I do enjoy the environment sciences and this sarcasm is my favorite as well. thank you we didn't know that we were so entertaining, am Katy Panamanian  from Michel county North Carolina and I was appointed by Senator Rafais and I also enjoy the agriculture it's a big part of my family as well my grandfather taught us to stay agriculture so it's interesting Thank you for being here. Hi, I'm Mary Sagmore and I am from Hamblen North Carolina and I am represented by Senator Tom Mclnnis I grew up on a farm so agriculture has been a very big part of my life so I'm very interested to see this. Thank you.  Thank you. Did we get everyone? Thank you very much for serving. One more.  I'm Sarah Cochran, I'm from a lot about agriculture but I look forward to knowing more, absolutely you will know more and my senator Sen. [xx]. Great thanks so much I am massager and I was sponsored by senator Tom Kenns, I'm from North Carolina and like my sister said we grew up on the farm out near the woods so we are very interested with this topic Thank you so much and thank you for your service. Sergeant Arms to day are Marcus kinn Marcus wherever you are and Larry Handcook OK will move right in to our agenda and first up will be House Bill 574. This PCS, do I have a motion to accept PCS? senator Bingham, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay motion carries, yes sir. Thank you Madam Chair, this is the same bill we had a couple of ago, the biggest differences it's now statewide bill, it will exempt the passing from all state and local ordinances from the period of December 29 is the January the second of each year, appreciate your support. Senator Bryan I have a question madam Chair. Can we staff all this handle the sponsor describe what the current. I know there's been some litigation issue in the past I'm just trying to understand what has been the legal rulings resulting from the pride litigation and how

it compares with what this bill is we're doing now. If somebody could provide an update on that I'd appreciate it and then have one follow up. Stan Sen. Bryan last year's bill was applicable only to one county, it was struck down and so this oene is Statewide. Currently there's not anything in place that excludes the person from world wide force. Follow up, can you explain what the legal rule it was to struck it down. What was it, I just can't remember, if you can help update me.   Thank you madam Chairman, thank you Madam Chairman. The opinion wasn't published, it was a lower court opinion and so I'm not exactly sure what the ruling actually was. Apparently part of it was that it was a local act though, was part of the reason for finding it unconstitutional. Okay, Madam Chair. I don't know whether the same people that have been opposing this are still opposing it, I am assuming so but  I don't know. But I just have a concern on principal about engaging in what I would consider inhumane acts for animals particularly in a public display situation, most importantly because of the impact of children. I don't think we should do anything that would desensitize as children to humane treatment of animals particularly in a government suction public display so for that reason I have opposed it in the past and will be opposing in the future, just wanted to make that comment for the committee, thank you. Representative do you have a comment No.  OK, Senator Bingham. Thank you Madam Chair, when being involved in the Bill we passed the first time I'd like to move for a favorable report, and this is definitely not inhumane. Senator Bryant I think if you went to this event that we're referring to, and saw what was done, you'd certainly understand what I'm referring to, and Representative West may want to expound on that but thank you Madam Chair. Representative West. I have no comment other than it's a good claim of being that there's no inhuman treatment of the possum whatsoever, in a matter of fact the possum is treated him very well. Senator I just wanted to know how many people normally attend this event?   It depends on the weather, if it's not so cold you'll have as many as 4, 000 people there. Followup. Followup. This is a big economic opportunity so that particular particular town, and I also have witnessed how the person is treated in there, I think he's treated a lot better than treated he or she possum which ever one we got there that night or that day. Treated a whole lot better than the wild or if they were crossing the road in front of the car. So thank you protective box from the way I saw it it was not dropped it was eased down and looked like to me that that's a right big economic opportunity for that town there and might give a little glory to that possum rather than being something detrimental so I I'm going to be supporting this bill. Thank you Senator Floyd. Thank you Madam Chair from a little small town here in North Carolina and I'm not familiar with this process we don't do this where I come from so can you enlighten me because I want support you, but you seems to be a little bit reluctant to expound upon the process a little but about the history and what is exactly that you folks do. Representative West  Well I'm not said much about it I thought most people knew about what we do. We go out day or so before New Years and catch a possum, and they put it up, groom it on New Year's eve they put it on a plastic glass cage, and lower to the ground gently at midnight, after that it's taken back released Follow up senator Ford Yeah, are you serious? Representative Hager do you have a comment? It was always a mountain thing Follow up Senator Ford.   We will take now to this kind of discussion and the bait of that process. Oh yes, we've been doing this now for four years I think. We've been luring the person for 28 years. Ma'am Chair. Senator Ford. Thank God for the series.

Senator Brian.   I was wondering one, if there's anybody in the public that wants to speak and if there's any of our state officials made a position on this, veterinary and the world life people, is there any position from a state agencies government folks on this. Representative Wales, Representative Hegar. Not that I know of. Is there anyone from the public that want to speak on this issue? Seeing none there is a motion on the floor to, oh am sorry Senator Smithinger. Thank you madam Chair I just had a question about the public safety have there be any report of incidence in the past keeping inline with what happen with conscience fields I believe he bit somebody this year had it being any Representative West none that I know of Follow up, so everyone is safe including the person.  Oh yes everybody is having a good time.  Representative hear. Thank you give, I hope from the background I like the directed amount of passanger well bahaved if there is no further questions we have motion for favorable report and favorable to the original and favorable to the PCS those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion carries and it will go to the floor who will be handling on the floor for you? Jim Davis. Okay now we'll move on to House Bill 795 introduce their PCS okay. I've a motion for PCS. Senator Randleman, all those in favor say aye, opposed nay, motion carries. Yes Sir. Thank you Madam Chair move to the committee. There's an alvalvilion statements never follow dancing bears, I think it's safe to swim. We can now add passive to that list, but we'll make a good attempt at it. Ladies and gentlemen in 1971 the state in it's wisdom formed the State Environmental Policy Act. Over the many reviews of current and active operations sustained has, it was concluded from the house that this was pretty much operating in a redundancy mode and that since the Fed had implemented the EPA and that other state agencies have been formed to look after some of these decided to run a bill that will pretty much just take some of the redundancy out, and the bill is in front of you, it came from the House at a few changes, and I understand that PCS has some changes, and I'm not in opposition of the changes in the senate and I'm available for any question that I already answered that, thank you madam chair. Thank you, are their any questions from the members, Senator Foushee. Thank you Madam Chair, the question is for the bill sponsor, can you tell us what type of projects will be excluded from environmental review under the new standards. Some DOT projects it will save and mitigate along the time that that's The DOT projects Representative Hager, if you care to add anything. I appreciate it, thank you. Basic bill sets the limit on the amount of project anything under that would be excluding. Anything above that we think the limit this is low it was set in the 70's to be low. We just moved it up because there is not a lot you can do for a million dollars. These days when you get integrated in pushing dirt so, that threshold got moved up three thing below that threshold for state project on state property. Follow up Senator Brayn you had your hand up. I was curious, I was trying to look up for some notes I had. How would the impact in our area, first of all I want to thank the sponsors for the work you did to make sure that we maintain the status quo where I'll be teachers fars, because I represent a lot of lakes area where a lot of lakes and rivers and a part of our both natural resources and economic development and people where like standing on their heads about that so thank you for that, my question thou is the other area struggled with our land field if you and the staff can say how were the I guess siding or establishment of the review

of environmental impact of land field be affected by this and how will it be different, [xx] The thresholds the sponsors have referred to are over at page two of the PCS so one of those is they're public funds, and the threshold they said that I'm [xx] than 20 million dollars. So, any project we went through are otherwise doesn't receive over $20 million in public funds and CIPE wouldn't apply. Also the other trigger is lower on that page at line 32 use of public lands and it would have to be greater than 20 acres of public lands. I don't know if land bill projects stickily fall will fall above or below those special [xx] they are keeping to a gap And this are as followers, are this are trigger separate or I mean the operate? It's fine having two triggers working together, so there is a lot of details to be taken. They have separate, it's ether or a [xx] I'm 20 million dollars. great with public response will triggle shipper or 20 acre or more of public lands. Is there anyone from the staff know what range land fields normally, I guess I just did. I don't but there is an environmental impact requirement in the solid way statute that stands apart from cepha, so whether it's a public or private land fill and I think for a substantial expnasion. An environmental impact study is required and this will not change that requirement. Okay, and is there a reason why is it already saying that we're standing this. Follow up? Follow up, I'm sorry. Madam Chair I believe the changes in the bill before you are just restricted to the cipher requirement. It will not have an impact on the statute. It stands and it's the most specific statute, so it will still be required, we can look at the language but as closely but I'm not aware of the bill before you that will impact this statute of requirement.  Just a comment madam Chair, that kind of relationship is there hasn't been time or the forum for that kind of detail, analysis and I would also like to hear dinners and now while report input on what impact this will have and some of my constituency are worried that there maybe unforeseen when you do this kind of rewrite without taking their time then maybe unforeseen impacts compared to all these other areas of the law and every day somebody is writing me about another one, so I hope you all and we could least look into the landfill, the solid waste piece and reassure me on that and if we could at some point Senator Wade, hear from DENR on their sense of what the impact is, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Representative Torbett, Representative Hager. Senator Brown, I appreciate thank you for your comment and for your concern. I think if you could just give me a few minutes to go through the history of how we got where we are. 1970, SIPA[sp?] was kind of  our first environmental foray into the state, better first environmental secretary at that time. So, since then we've developed division of air quality, land quality, water quality, there's over 160 permits DENR issues now that have come to fruition since 1970's with the federal regulations SIPA[sp?] was put in because we did not have all that other stuff, so what we're doing now is going back and kind of re-looking that and saying is there some redundancy there we need to move some of the numbers around and make it to today's world is because since 1971 We've progressed a lot in the environmental world. So, that was the very first counter underlying peace we used and when we build upon them we don't need a lot of that's in there that makes sense. Representative Hegar, do you've anyone here from Dinna that you need to speak on this? Is there anyone from the audience here from Dinna. Senator Tucker might speak of it, but is there anyone from the audience from Dinna. Yes sir. Good morning madam chair, I'm Tom Leader with the department. If you're asking about specific impacts that this bill would have, we'd have to go back and check on that. This bill has been very dynamic, the threshold has been moved around a little bit, so we'd have to go back and look at our records for the past year and see

which projects that we did at SEPA analysis and would be excluded under this new language. The only thing I'd say about that is that when we did that analysis, what I'd also is to see if those projects would be excluded from Seeper under this, also had other permitting requirements that would require the same analysis and like what Miss Beginiss said earlier on a land field issue, you might not have to do a seep analysis for land field but land field still requires State permits we probably do pretty much the same environmental analysis that you should do under seeper so if you really wanted us to look at this comprehensively what we'd do is we'd have to go back and see how many projects we did in the last year that would be excluded from seeper with this new threshold levels and then we'll have to look at those projects and see how many under those and a one are very similar economic or environmental analysis under the permitting program that they have to go through andthen we'll be able to figure out how many projects would actually not have any environmental analysis if this was adopted I hope that will make sense, could you have a follow-up with senator Bryan maybe after the committee meeting and you discuss it, thank you I think next we had senator Hansen, Thank you madam chair I would like to send forth an amendment. You can send forth your amendment, but first have the Bill sponsor seen the amendment and that had time to? I doubt it, it was  prepared this morning and it's meant to be a friendly amendment, but I have talk it over briefly with senator Brown. One such in a one taken on everyone. Would senator Hansen, so, would you mind getting together with the bills sponsors maybe after this and you seeing it. Okay. It was delivered to me this morning. Do you want time to get together with the     Okay. Senator Hansen okay. Everybody got a copy? Representative Haveman have you seen it before, okay senator Hansen would you like to discuss your ammendment? Sure, madam chair the first thing I want to who is to say the second section of the amendment lowers that from 20 to 10, I just want to take that out anyway, but the other portions the amendment. Let me just tell you where this came from. It came from an environmental engineer attorney who trying to deal with some language associated with the combination of RBTs and this federal lawsuit settlement that rose from North and South Carolina, of the US supreme court that sort of thing to try to get some things in line with to address that, and also have some definitional changes. The first one being recently predicted a further, a more definition of the secondary or [xx] of impact because some of it can be direct or indirect, but just trying to get something a lot firmer that's first section the second section page two line 22 through 30 I'd like to I just want pull it out, understand from that. The third actually has to do with the use of public lands, it lowers the number from 20 to 5 but actually adds additional definitions associated with it that I think more carefully defines precisely what is involved, or could be involved, should be involved in such a way as to actually make it easier to apply I'll leave it at that I think that Mr Hudson who's familiar with it could address more things. First, Madam Chair. Representative Torbett do you have something, do you like to add or? Second time I heard a voice from somewhere and I assume it's not the [xx] That's not Jim. Which staff was that? [xx] Is there any way we could table this and bring it back and let us decipher this I'm being hit cold with this, it's a significant change, lest the bill sponsors are okay with it. thank you Senator McGinnis, but I have spoken to the bill sponsor and ha wants to address it at this point. Thank you Madam Chairwoman I appreciate Senator Hartsell's amendment, but I'm not supportive of that amendment. Most of language is just a back and forth agreement or disagreement on the amounts or the numbers and I saw the PCS on the senate had brought those numbers back to their original amount and were good to go with that

so I with all due respect I can't support that amendment. Are there other questions or comments on amendment from senator Brian?   I would just be interested in I'm not clear what part he wanted to eliminate that was what threw me off. Stan are you familiar with [xx] you can answer that? I believe that Senator Hudson eliminate from the amendment, lines nine through 14 of the amendment which would lower the public funds threshold back down to 10. Representative Hager, did you have a comment? No, dont mind me. Just getting the amendment, I'll have to trust my core sponsor on this, but I do want to say talk with Senator Hartsell that he doesn't want to remove the $10 million piece so that would stay in the threshold to stay in the bill. Senator Tucker. Madam Chair, just as a suggestion to Senator Hartsell and to the bill sponsors as they will note. Since you guys just got this and you got it this morning's Representative Torbett and we just saw it, and then Fletcher's tried to explain it and I'm not sure like Senator McInnis what's going on. Can we go ahead and just move your bill forward and then you guys, the three of you get together and clean it up and then amend it on the floor, if you decide that's what you want to do, and that way you can keep it moving and Senator Hartsell, your amendment won't die this morning. Rep. Hager[sp?]   Thank you. If Senator Hartsell is OK with that, I'd love to sit down with him and Representative Torbett and myself and flesh this out, than letting him run on the floor if we so agree I have no problem with that and I want to apologize to sponsors. I had some of this yesterday, late but didn't know this bill was going to be on here today until late and so we couldn't pull this off together. And I've had some conversations with Senator Brock about that one portion, which it doesn't really matter to me in land. I do think that there's some language, some definition issues that need expressly to be clarified, so I'm perfectly happy to withdraw the amendment for the time being. Representative Torbett, did you want to? Senator we're in the House, we're used to this, so it's not a big deal to us. So we understand it. Representative Thorne. Thank you, I just raise a little bit of caution that when you start mentioning direct and indirect, a lot of those terms are speculative at best and when you tell me it's coming from, no offence to any attorneys by any means, but when it comes from the legal profession it's been my notice here that the perfection of inclarity is often the outcome, and what we've attempted to do is to make it specific, make it clear, make it easily discern able? Senator Brown is it on the amendment?  Yes Ma'am. I just wanted to mention that its seems like there are some improvements on the amendment and the amendment it would address, some of the legal concerns that have been brought to me including even the purpose, the major purposes that the sponsors put forth, which weren't covered in the language, such as wanting to eliminate redundancies, and alleviate additional environmental coverage for projects that already had other kinds of environmental statements. So it begins to address even what Miss McGinnis, and readers mention, figuring out what's covered in other places was covered by [xx] and then what will be excluded. Example one, I'm hoping we can get a child as free as she. So that we don't have any intended consequences from what we are doing in this home. Thank you for your comments. And we are going to withdraw this amendment if it is okay with you senator Hardson. That's perfectly fine, let me say that lawyers that use fornication in terms of language the fact that matter in all candle who ever wants to have to defend a language or pursue the language in some fashion or the other and some of these would appear to be simple definitions are not so simple at all and that is all we are trying to clear up here. We will withdraw all this for now am going to continue on I think senator Bingham you had a question. Madam chairman I was just going to look for final report I didn't have a question I think we have discussed this to [xx] and as [xx] we can go ahead and move and make amendments and changes e. T. C between now senator Hardsore and the bill's [xx] Thank you and senator Ford did you have a comment you had your hand up at one time, we have a motion if there is, and for some reason I cant senator Smithson go ahead. Section five of the bill page three Lines, I believe 14-16 that just need a

point of clarification for similar infrastructure projects. Can the bill sponsors give me an example of what a similar infrastructure project will be, and who makes that determination, if it's similar. Representative Hager, would you mind repeating them line numbers please. Line 14, section 5, page 3 line 14. And Representative Hager, are you going to address that or do you want me to have staff address. Staff. Right. I'm not sure what other types of infrastructural projects are envisioned with that language. Representative Hager, do you've any examples. I think what this is attempting to do is to kind of define what projects to look at and lines we're looking at whether state lines, right away as park those things and gives you the examples of what we have on the structure maintenance, move electric power line, water lines, sewage lines, infrastructure issue is what you normally see this over. could they be other activities? I'm sure they could be, the only thing that we've changed our similar infrastructure project that will kind of encompass everything else if you look what's underlined right there or a similar infrastructural project. They can't take in the major pieces, you tend to spend the major money doing these things, and you'll hit the $20 million cap for normally doing these things. Follow up? Follow up yes. I just want to know the breadth of this, what it's going to be included and who makes the determination that this will be a similar infrastructure process, and if we can't get the answer to that now I would at least need it before it comes to the floor. I think you'll talk about probably having fiber for instance, fiber infrastructure phone infrastructure, those things that really are what we call utility. So you must have it, so you're going to be utility infrastructure gas lines, power lines, fiber and those things, broadband. I think we have one person from the public that will like to speak Become as a bill. Yes ma'am. Thank you madam Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Marley Diggins, the state director of the North Carolina Sierra Club. I just want to refresh your memory about a few things about CEPA. CEPA was adapted by North Carolina in 1971, is the counter part to the federal national environmental policy act. That's the big picture act that ensures that we look at the impacts of projects on the environment. CEPA fills half gap that would not be otherwise addressed. It's not a regulatory program. It doesn't include permitting requirements. All it does is it directs public agencies, state and local to consider the impacts and the environment and on communities and on public health when spending public funds on public projects. This is about public funds Public projects impacts and it directs state and local agencies to look for the best alternative. And I would know that sometimes the best alternative is is the least expensive alternative. That's what SEPA does. I would hope everyone in the room would be in agreement with it, with that general principle. We've about one minute left. Thank you. I just pointed out that there's no direct coalition between the cost of a project and it's impacts. SEPA has been with us since 1971, the total amount of committee time and both chambers spend on this matter will be in the range of 40 minutes. There has been no analysis of what the impact of this would be, there's no one who can tell you because no study has been done. What information will not be available, that you'd want for your constituents, because there has been no analysis. The House attempted to address some of the concerns raised by trying to limit the scope of this, and the proposal before you today Removes the constraints the house put on. This is effectively and completely a repeal, and it's to the detriment of your citizens. Your taxpayers who'll have the transparency and accountability that SEPA has provided since 1971. We've no objection Madam Chair on members of the committee to a study of the impacts we certainly think it would be timely to review SEPA, and see how it can be improved to work better. But clearly that has not happened, there has been no study, there has been no one else. We would urge you to take that into consideration in your deliberations. Thank you. We appreciate your comments, Senator Tucker. Yes Ma'am, just a question

for the Director of SIA Club please. Yes ma'm. Yes ma'm, thank you for your comments, this is a SEPA over and above what the Feds require. It's my understanding, and so in 1971, we adopted this to fill the gap. Has SEPA ever been used to hold up a project or delay a project are environmental legal attorneys? I can think of one instance for that was the case as is the case with any law. Follow up Citizens do you have a right to appeal projects based on current but again cepa does not require an action it is not required excuse me it is not required regulation it is now to elect anyone to do anything other than to consider the impacts it's not in the avertave regulatory. Senator Taker. Follow up. Just tell one more question so the federal law is not sufficient in God to be able to protect the general public so we have added a layer of requirements for each of on top of this is not in 1971 is that what you are saying?   Senator we are just referring to a little bit to say it is a counter part when there is if federal permit required we are taking care of shipper address those projects which are not federal permit required it's simply a counterpart. Senator? OK well I just had been the last three or four years not to be more than the federal government and that's kind of where we are in reducing rates but I've seen what you're saying, thank you for the clarification. hank you senator, senator fall. Thank you madam chair I was not let the scale but senator taker remind me of what I was going to say and I want to make sure that I seek some clarity from staff as a relate to Senator Browns question earlier concerning land fields, aren't there federal regulations, regulating and monitoring land fields and what I am talking about in particular is sub title D, is that or is that not corect, Stan senators some title deed tend to be very generic so the specificity on how when [xx] are sided and regulated really comes in this day. I am happy though that you followed up on Sen. Bryan's question because there is a specific statute in chapter 138, article 9 which governs land fields that says, an environmental document equivalent to basically meeting the criteria of a SEPA analysis needs to be done for all land fills and unlike SEPA, the provision in the chapter 138 for the land fills, it doesn't matter if public funds are used. It doesn't matter if public property is used. A land fill being sited must have an environmental analysis. While the members were talking, we took a brief look at the language in the SEPA bill before you, and what it says is, not withstanding any other provision of the SEPA article, an environmental document is not required for x, y and z. But it does not withstand the and fill chapter. So I feel fairly confident again, Senate Brian I will be looking at this issue after committee, but preliminary I would say that, that provision in the Land Field Statute stands alone as untouched.  Follow up. It's just and I appreciate that so much on that its been my experience that the federal law and regulations regarding land fields and particular subtitles deeds which require clay and synthetic liners in addition to methane gas collection, and litter collection which are at a higher level, and I'm going to support it, and the reason why am going to support it is because there is federal regulation that would monitor such environmental projects, and I feel comfortable being able to do that. Thank you Senator Ford, Representative Torres senator Ford brings a good thing and it is for clarity sake, basically what you heard about Land Fields is there is separate, laws protecting land it was on the same issue came out with RBTs while basing transfers some concerns that this will do away with those when never was a case because was still separate law that also looks after RBTs so lacks just got back to undones we got a motion by senator Birmigham unfavourable to the original and favourable to the PCS all those in favour say aye "aye" oppose nay motion carries thank you.

he's got senator Brown will handle that. Next we will go to senate bill 573. Senator Cook. Okay is there a referral on this bill?, PCS is currently a refferal from commerce [xx] Okay. [xx] I want to check. Let me check on that. Okay, we have a PCS, is there a motion except the PCS? removed by Senator McInnis, all those in favour say aye, aye, oppose nay go ahead Senator Cook. Thank you Madam Chair, today we're going to talk about oysters Make it quick. And I'll make it quick, the oysters industry in North Carolina can be much larger part of our economy. We import 75% of our oysters that are consumed in North Carolina yet we have the second largest estuary system in the United States and the largest system contained in one state. We have clean water in many locations where oysters will thrive but our industry lags far behind other states in the South East last year Virginia's cultured shell fish was valued at $64 million. Our state only produced only $330, 000, 64 million vs 330, 00 worth of cultured fish this bill puts our state on the path to grow in the industry and taking advantage where abundant natural resources. Senator Cook, I have Senator Brock making a motion for a favorable report. Do you want to continue on, or you're happy with the favorable report going by? I don't know how to quit I want to hear him. Madam Chair, I love oysters and the more he talks about them the hungrier I get, and the meaner I get when I don't eat so And I think Senator Cook you told me you had somebody from the audience that wanted to speak? Yes. In fact, there is someone from Dana as well as Jay Sterent from the North Carolina Shellfish Growers Association. If we can have the speakers in the audience come up, that'd be great. and if we can do it in two minutes. Thank you Madam Chair my name is Jay Styrene, as Senator Cook I'm the president of the North Carolina Shell Fish Growers Association quick little background on Oysters in North Carolina and the few we have left. Right now we stand at about five to ten percent of the wild stock that we had back in the 1900s while fisheries would not sustain a commercial harvest to the level that will really be anywhere as near considered an industry as senator Cook said last year, Virginia's report 64 Mayan. Literally they have been growing at least by $10 million a year in the industry for the past five years right now Merilyn is getting online and when they have all chest Py bay together, they are projecting a $ 100 million a year. Waterwise we have more warm water volume that are suitable to grow oysters and all of Virginia marine[sp?] added to that and they are fighting water quality issues in a lot of areas whereas ours for the most part and oysters are a keystone species to our environment, I mean, they are the base bed for a lot of the economically important thin fish and shellfish that we harvest oyster mariculture is at its embassy in North Carolina, there is about a dozen of us right now that do intensive shellfish farming right now it's traditionally extensive which means they have a lease put shell or some kind of material on the bottom and wait for wild oyster to come in well there just not many oysters any more and it's a minimal production were talking about high production and then look at the environmental benefits oysters are cleaning the water while there in there growing after they've done their cleaning and growing get to market size we sell the land of the economy. Our economy can definitely use a boost with a truly green industry and this is probably going to be the greenest industry that North Carolina could ever support we appreciate you and thank you for your time. Madam Chairman. Yes senator Jackson.

Thank you madam I would like to ask gentleman a question if I may. Certainly. Thank you I appreciate oyster business I love oysters as good as anybody in this room and can check them probably as fast as but I want know what we are doing in this this bill and as for the bill for the most part of it, there is one little part I've got a problem with but I'm more concerned if you could briefly explain why we've had to decline in lot of production in Northern Carolina and it is because of regulatory actions or is it because just nature in general I'd a little explanation on that. Thank you Senator, basically our decline in the world population was a couple of factors, one an over-harvest. Early in the 1900s we really didn't have limits in place, so harvesting was happening quicker than they could reproduce. Then in the 1970s we had oyster-specific diseases come in to North North Carolina, [xx] Essex. They probably knocked down our population as bad or worse than the commercial harvest previous to that. that's how we got down to five to ten percent of population. We are at a point now that we really cannot recover from that naturally you would have to stop all harvest and largely wait probably 100 years. So we just are not in the position for world wasters to come back anywhere near they were at that point in time and so intensive farming practices which actually are beneficial to the water these are only resource and it's a great resource. Senator Jackson [xx] Yes Ma'am, thank you Madam Chairman. Appreciate that very much, and I agree with you all I have no problem with the the procedures that you're trying to get accomplished in this bill, I do have a question for the Bill sponsor. Yes sir. Okay. Senator could you explain to me why we're going in with the part one here of creating the shell fish planning the promotion entity within the North Carolina economic development partnership? Well this is just a, excuse me. Senator? This is just attempt to further promote this industry to give it the same kind of exposure that we do with our agriculture industry. Is there a follow up senator Jackson. Maybe. You want to think about it now I know senator Bryant I saw your hand. I signed a bill where that was a moratorium on I guess oyster harvesting from a core sound something. Senator Bryant can we hold that and hear from our last speaker. I'm sorry. I thought. Good morning. Good morning, my name is Brad Nad, I'm with North Carolina dinner. I have nothing too extensive to contribute or to say other than we do agree that there's significant for the Oyster industry as it currently states we think there's great potential to increase oyster production in North Carolina and we stand ready to work with senator and you all to get this bill executed. We would like to assist the state and reaching more comfortable levels like Virginia to bring in more dollars to increase the environmental impacts oysters can have or we think that this bill addresses the law that concerns. Thank you for your comment, so now we have another bill after this one, so if we could keep the comments from the members to very pardoning questions I would appreciate it. Senator Bryant. Just a quick question, I notice the bill opens to cultivation certain areas of cosound that was subject to a moratorium, I just wanted to know the history. Why was there a moratorium the impact of opening it. Senator Cook, Stanford senator Cook. I believe Jake could speak best to that. Yes Mum Madam Senator, Core Sound was closed back in the mid 90s, due to a shell fish leasing conflict. A lot of the local people got up in arms over a very small seven acre lease in core sound Core Sound is a very traditional harvest area. This is a new technology coming in, and of course you take a 7 acre piece of bottom land, any anything there's going to be people that say that was the best fishing hunting ground whatever. Unfortunately it came into a very political battle, they found a legislature that was sympathetic to their calls he introduced the bill and got it shut down by the legislation. So unfortunately now it's going to take the legislation to open it back up again, it was never environment it it was basically a political shouting match they got it shut down  senator Rayon we do have [xx] location of [xx] Okay [xx] is

located between both The North Carolina and [xx] North Carolina Members I would say these [xx] have serial referal[sp?] to finance in the [xx] right now did the mail go to the finance what I would like to suggest. Madam Chairman Follow up question if you'd let me, yes ma'am. What I'd really like for you to do is you could talk with the bill's sponsor, it is going to go to finance to get more information Senator Jackson I am going to here from you, but Senator Ford had his hand up first, and I'm going to let him get his Senator Jackson.  Senator Jackson. Thank you madam chairman, Senator Ford. My question is, and this might be directed more to staff, since we've created this new department in commerce has any pull out like we are trying to do here with this new ENRA been done before. Stan.  I'm not aware of any, but this is a commerce related entity that we don't normally see in the Environment and Natural Resources Area I can find out from the staff people who normally work in that area, but I'm not aware of one thank you Madam Chairman. Thank you unless there's any other burning questions I'll accept the motion for favorable report from Senator McInnis, unfavorable to the regional, unfavorable to the PCS. All those in favour say aye, aye, oppose nay the ayes have it, thank you Senator Cook. Thank you, I would like to take a second to thank you all the folks that helped in this bill I've been really gratified to have that help there's a lot of people very interested in this issue. Senator Cook if you could get the people that have questions, members before it goes to finance, that'll be great Senator Brock, senate bill 486. Thank you Madam Chair, there's a PCS for the Motion from Senator Tucker to accept PCS, all those in favour say aye. Aye. Oppose nay, continue Officer Grant. Thank you Madam Chair, I also have an amendment that would be coming out shortly which opens up section five which allows bike trails and the expansion of [xx] park quickly this is a North Carolina trails expansion and economic court orders act senate bill 486 it will promote the economic development through expansion mountain to see trail replace the strategy plan to fund municiple in a connection to the mountain sea trail initiates public private partnerships to said additional utilization of funding for numerous natural resources throughout the State, it allows for a more cost effective management over natural resources in our corrections and also in Wake County, what it would do here to protect Lake Crabtree Park, which is the most visited park in Wake County, which is currently leased by the county from [xx] and by making it part of the Onsted State Park, one of the most visited state parks in the State less strategic eight rich to [xx] [xx] airport on the eve of the long term strategic [xx] [xx] to allow opportunities for business development and opportunities for companies seeking office, labs face with direct access to major airport hub, and as we continue to grow, we need to make sure our efforts able to grow, and also, with this Bill we're allowing our state park system to grow as well. Part of this, a lot of this and you'll see by the map is been up all being is a lot of land slopping that's over the years has been put in different areas, either for the state or already you, we can go through that more finer detail later on presentation, but this will allow, back home we like to call it work where you help one another. And this is a great way to help open up our practice system, but also create a lot of economic opportunities, and set land that we currently have us tied up with state buildings that are looking to move, their location, because they are outdated, and we've been asked by some of this agencies they need new buildings. And for land that's currently going for $375 Thousand an acre. We can move some of this buildings to other pieces of land, outside the down town economic court house and allow awaken up opportunity and jobs, through the private sector to come in this areas, which will be a good win win win win for the state, for the city, and for the county. This will create the North Carolina trails management trust fund in section one of the bill, which provides ability to fund and receive private donations. It allows the further charge an additional fee between 50 cents and a dollar to already existing fees that will go in to the fund, but it will not raise any new fees in that area that do not currently exist. Senator Backer I have three mentions for favorable report. I need to move to adopt the amendment. Yeah.

Thank you.   Do you want discuss the amendment. The amendment will allow with the new section allow bike trails in the southern part of the park motion adoption. Have a motion? Through the amendment all those in favor say aye Aye Opposed no motion carries senator Ray also have a motion from senator Bingherm in favor will report to the PCS and on favorable to the original. Is amendment. To the PCS is amended As amended Rolled to the new PCS.  I knew we needed attorneys may be Are there any other questions? Madam Chairman. Senator Jackson. Thank Madam. Senator Backer appreciate this bill and I really like the amount to the sea trails and the things that you are trying to do here on this Wales we actually have it came through my district really caused my home and I'm  pround love them. I've got a problem though with Section 7 of the bill, where you actually swapping some land out I think with the airport authority and you to the Blue Ridge road area, and my concern is that's where NCDA, food labs and the busy centers and all that deserve their which is very important to all of us in the food industry, that we make sure we got them looked after and yank this property from under him and not give them an alternative to build a new building or whatever. What's the thought process on that please? Senator Brock Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Jackson, I know during the process when we've talked with the Department of Agriculture that we were looking at updating the Food Lab because it's unequated and to how much it's grown since it was built many years ago we're looking at building a new lab, but also we're looking at areas that we have other state properties available that will be suitable for it, looking at some of these economic corridors which are located so close to the airport which will be a better use in an  urban area but also being able to move that land somewhere else. We're not planning on moving everything to across the state and I'm not going to channel a Senator John who wanted to make everything [xx] but we do have opportunity in and around Wake County in around other areas to move some of our facilities and be able to accredit the tax base if we work off the great jobs there but also very utilization and for a lot of parts, some of our said employees that I've talked to about this like the idea. Follow up? Thank you Madam Chair and thank you, Senator Brock, for an answer, I'll not completely agree with you, I think it would be great and economic driver to get some of these agencies out of this area and move them across the State and, but is or anything in this bill that addresses my concern with the food liable in the future of it, I know the commissioners asked for indirectly and I don't think officially for many foreign new food lab, I know that's not being put in any budget of saying coming recently any provision in this bill that will guarantee that our food reliable still be able to operate and how do we propose when the time comes that this land is swapped and is already are you going to charge him lease or what's the whole process? Le Bron. We'll put in that Chair, we'll put in that clarifying language to make that's taken care of whether it's through this bill, through an amendment on the floor or also through the budget to make sure that's taken care of because we don't want to leave anybody in the lurch. Only this one we want to make sure we have a smooth continuation of service in that area. Like I said, the third laps are already overburdened this unequated. It should have been done years ago, but now we have this opportunity that we need to builds a new one. I say well, let's see if we can build one another piece of property which this one says it's close proximity to the airport can be used for another purpose, maybe a better purpose, but also this will allow the airport to grow as this is one of the fastest and hottest growing areas in the country, we want to do everything we can to make sure we keep this pace up. Senator Ford, I know you had a question. Thank you Madam Chair, just one quick question for the bill sponsor. You mentioned economic development, I did want to make sure for clarification purposes that we are talking about state land and state jobs. Senator Brown. Yes. We're looking at looking how we expand, some of our areas like the marine expansion at Falls Lake, also looking at the zoo about putting some type of study of a conference center off the savanna exhibit when we are taking about looking at the state

property we have lots of studies that have been done over the years about exactly what property that the state owns and to give account of a short little background of history many years ago in Davie county we swooped property with the state and it saved the county a lot of money saved the state a lot of money and everything worked out really really well and I would like to take some of those good ideas at our former county manager kind of swap property and it was good for us and save a lot of money create a lot of jobs, quick follow up follow up, just point of clarification I appreciate history lesson but we are not talking about private we are talking about public jobs public running, public land, part of that land as far as looking moving out to other lands that we own as a state we own thousands and thousands hectars a lot of it sitting empty and if we can move may be a high variable piece of property of an equated building like we have in this in this instance to move it to another piece of property that's may be just a few miles down the road will save a lot of money as far as the building of the property but also additional tax have been coming in by trading it with already you in this case, We have a motion on the floor and this ever refer? Yes madam chair about appropriations and finance, So we have two referrals and we have a motion on the floor for favourable report to the PCS as amended unfavorable to the original all those in favor say aye Aye Opposed no all serve it thank you all meeting adjourned Thank you madam Chair, members of the committee.