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 | June 16, 2016 | Chamber | Senate Agriculture

Full MP3 Audio File

[BLANK_AUDIO] I'd like to call to order this committee on Ag and Natural Resources to order our Senate sergeant at arms today are John Inlow, Larry Hancock and Steve Wilson. Our pages today are Trevor Hartley from Jacksonville sponsored by Senator Brown, stand up when your name is called. Owen Tierney from Raleigh by Senator Berger, Griffin Sullivan from Raleigh, Senator Alexander, you need to find a new Representative there, Lovett, Lindsay Lovett from Arvin, Senator Tucker. Likewise find someone else new. Hold on we'll have to work on [UNKNOWN] from Currey/g Sen Smith Sam, Wilson Home Brit. From Currey also that's Sen Smith. Sam was [INAUDIBLE] senator Smith. JC Smith from Reidsville, Senator Berger, Alicia Hansen, by Apex sponsored by Senator Brack and M. Barringer from Kerry. Senator Barringer. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> She in? >> No. Alicia's just fine with the Senator she's got the first bill that we have, actually the only bill that we have on the docket today is house bill 593, amend environmental laws. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> The PCS motion by Sen Cook. All those in favor will say aye Aye. >> Opposed no. Ayes have it. Senator Wade. >> Thank you Mr Chairman. And if it's okay with you I thought we'd let staff go through it. Mr Hudson has an order back there if it's okay. >> By all means. >> Thank you Mr Chair. So so a number of me and my colleagues have worked on different provisions. We'll take the bill in order but we'll be bouncing around as you will see and explain the particular provision. So I'm gonna start with the first few provisions. And the first section of the bill prohibits certain storm water control measures. The operative language here is in section 1B. And it directs the division of water resources to not require the use of on site storm water control measures to protect downstream water quality standards except as required by state or federal law. And also directs the environmental management commission to amend its rules consistent with this new directive to the division of water resources. Section 2 exemplar taking materials from storm water management requirements. The operative language there is on the top of page 2, this is a series of exemptions from built upon areas fro storm water regulation that built upon areas is what you use to determine how much storm water regulations required on a particular Property, this new language would exempt from built upon area and the underlying language there, landscaping materials including but limited to gravel, mulch, sand and vegetation placed on areas that receive pedestrian, or bicycle traffic or on portions of driveways or parking lots that will not receive the weight of vehicular traffic. There's also an additional sentence that basically allows owners and developers of property to opt out of these exemptions from built upon area if they so desire. >> Section 3A and 3B would amend the fast track permitting process for storm water management that was enacted a couple of years ago by directing the environmental management commission to revise its rules by July 1st of next year to include the following licensed professionals as those who have qualified to prepare storm water management system permit without a technical review so long as the application complies with the minimum design criteria and Those professionals include landscape architects, professional engineers, geologists and soil scientists and any other licensed professional that the EMC deems appropriate. >> On section four amidst stream mitigation requirements under current state and federal law the threshold for when you have to mitigate losses of Stream bed is 150 linear feet. Section 4A would direct the environmental management commission to amend its rules so that the threshold would be increased to 300 linear feet. It would also provide that if you impact stream above 300 linear feet you don't have to mitigate for the First 300 linear feet. Then section 4B directs the department of environmental quality to comment to the United States army core of engineers seeking to have the core increase its threshold for mitigation of impact to streams from 150 feet to 300 feet. Section Five of the Bill would repeal a directive in the 2015 budget

that required the Coastal Resources Commission to adopt updated roles for the use of sand bags. The updated roles were approved at the May 2016 meeting of the Coastal Resources Commission. This section would direct the commission to adopt those rules as Temporary rules. Section six would direct the Coastal Resources Commission to amend this settlement criteria rule to allow sand from the Keep Shoal Systems to be used as ocean-beach nourishment without undergoing compatibility analysis requirements. Section seven would direct the division of Coastal Management in the department of Environmental Quality In consultation with the Coastal Resources Commission to study whether long term aversion rate should be modified in and around newly constructed terminal grounds. >> Section eight of the PCS and nine would make a conforming technical and clarifying changes to the provisions enacted last year to To extend the duration of permits for sanitary landfills to a life of sight. Section eight is all just technical changes to ensure that provisions of last years bill engrosses. Then Section nine makes the change to be structured That govern requirements for senatory land fields to enter into franchise agreements with local governments to allow currently operating franchise agreements to be extended to a life outside per the parties agreements. And so it doesn't require them to change but allows the parties to extend. Also provides that a franchise agreement should not exceed 60 years and that change was made at the suggestion of the school government out of concerns of basically allowing a Monopoly, so it would be limited to a 60 year duration. Section nine would require the division of waste management to study land field capacity and usage as well as cost associated with the transport waste from one jurisdiction to another Jurisdiction and the department would be required to submit a report to the environmental review commission by December 31st this year. Section 11 would modify the statute governing the departments issuing through solid waste permits to provide the department would be Require to approve aerosol as a disposal method or a waste water and lead shape from land fields and provide that air solidization of [INAUDIBLE] and waste water that results in affluent free production or zero liquid discharge will not constitute Discharge that requires a permit under the air or water permitting statutes. >> Section 13 would clarify that the activities of shooting, hook the animals or training clipping or maintaining hooves on the animals does not require a license from North Carolina veterinary medical board, section section 14 pertains to private identifying information from the wildlife resources commission, division of marine fisheries and utilities commission, for WRC and more fisheries commission, it will provide the customer email address is received in customer identification numbers issued by those two commissions or identifying information and may not be made available to the public To the public effective October 1st 2016. This act would also provide any customer's name, physical address, email address, telephone number, or public utility account number received by the public staff. The utilities commission is not a public record and may be disclosed only for the purpose for investigating a complaint against the public utility by that customer. And And section 15A would provide that if the museum of natural sciences or the zoo finds the deceased, a legally owned reptile is a venomous reptile or large constricting snake or regulated crocodilian, the museum or zoo must determine the interim disposition of deceased reptile until a court can determine the final disposition Position, the museum or zoo can determine that interim disposition of euthanasia and if they make that decision they are not liable to the owner of the reptile. Upon conviction of any person for violating the laws of the belt, illegally held reptiles, the court shall issue a final disposition of the confiscated reptile Which may include transfer of title to the state and reimbursement to the cost of seizure, delivery and storage of the reptiles. Section 15A would also clarify that law enforcement officers or animal control officers are authorized to kill a dangerous reptile if the officer determines that the reptile is posing an immediate threat to public safety. Section 15B would develop the department of natural and cultural resources and wildlife resources commission to study and develop a list of

potential designated representatives for the storage and safekeeping of venomous reptiles, large constricting snakes and crocodilians and in section 15C would direct the department of natural and cultural resources and wildlife resources commission Permission to study and recommend to the ERC by December 2016 potential procedural and policy changes to improve regulation of dangerous reptiles. >> Section 16 the PCS begin substantively at the top page 11 and this provision would direct the. The commission for public health to amend it's rules to exempt a public water supply system from the daily flow requirements as those are provided in the administrative code such that the flow rates and yields that are less than is required by the rule are one achieved through an engineering design that utilize this low flow fixtures and. Reduction technologies and the design is prepared sealed and signed by professional engineer licence according to state law. And two provide for a flow that is sufficient to scan the water usage required in engineering design. Section 17 would provide to any provision that directly and indirectly condition the terms of an agreement not to sue or to settle pending litigation upon an agricultural producer status as a union and a none union employer. Or entry into a refusal enter into an agreement with the labor union or labor organisation. Section 18 would provide that a public agency that makes it's public records and computer data bases available online and a format that is downloadable satisfies the requirements to allow persons access to this public records. And is not required to provide copies through any other method. The public agency may but is not required to provide copies by another method or in another medium and may negotiate a charge for this service. This provision become effective July 1st 2016. Section 19 would prohibit a city from imposing a fee on gas, telecommunications, electricity or video program utilities for activities conducted in the right of way. Unless the cost of those activities exceeds the amount the city is collected for sales and used tax, Section 20 allow the federal government to pump standing storm water, that is landward upper primary dune, over the dune and into the ocean. Section 21 delay instruments for moped owners. This will delay the effective date of a provision that the journal simply enacted last year related to moped insurance from becoming effective right now under current laws July 1, 2016, this will delay that to July 1, 2017 and in section 21b directs to the Department of Insurance to do a study related to this and to report to the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee. >> Mr Chairman > Senator Wade. >> There is one amendment that I know of that you might wanna go ahead run so we have it. ->> Okay. >> And I think that senator Cook. >> Senator Cook. >> Thank you chairman. >> Do you have copies of the amendment? Have they been passed down? ->> Copies have been distributed I believe. >> No. >> No? >> I do not have them. >> I think you do. I think some pictures out there though hopefully. [BLANK_AUDIO] Everybody's gotta a copy Senator Cook. [BLANK_AUDIO] Hopefully everybody has a copy of some pictures that we had made of some of the plotting of curves out in Heater's island. The objective and intent of this amendment would allow the National Park Service of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore to pump stanings term water over the dunes in the ocean. And that sort of language is already in the bill but my amendment takes it a little further makes it clear that we're talking about federal lands. We're gonna pump from federal lands out into the ocean and that's the only real change that we're making. Mr. Chairman? >> Senator Wade. >> As the bill sponsor I'm certainly in favor to that amendment. >> Any questions?

Comments? If one all those in favor of Senator Cook's amendment will say aye? >> Aye. >> Opposed no? Ayes have it. Senator Wade >> Questions from the- >> Any questions, comments senator Ford. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. A couple of questions here. One, having to deal with Section ten, Mr. Chairman I'm wondering if there's enough time to conduct the study and get it back. And then secondly Mr. Chairman, and you can direct this where you see fit, would not the Environmental Management Commission, in addition to being appropriate commission to help conduct this study and secondly again to reiterate does the partners feel like that this is enough time to get that study back? >> Mr. Chairman- >> Senator Wake. >> Staff can answer that question. >> Well Mr. Chairman hopefully there's someone from the department who can offer their opinion as to whether depending on the timing of enactment five months is an appropriate amount of time to get the study down. I will say that these issues were preliminary looked at under a study last year and we did have a waste working group at the ERC so it is building upon that. >> Is anyone from the department here? >> They are already studying. Senator Wade. >> I'd add Senator Ford that we did have a study committee on this and they were told several months ago to try and start comparing a list, the capacity we have left in our land fields. >> Hold up, hold up. What about the endowment on management commission having some involvement in that. It's my understanding that they have some expertise in land fields and would that not be a good combination to have those two working together. >> Senator Ford we'll take a look at that and I appreciate you bringing to that. >> Alright, thank you Senator Wade. Next question follow up? >> Yep. >> Alright. Going back over to section 11 I wanna commend the department for being innovative and having the willingness to look at new technology Mr. Chairman with the new technology especially in the environmental field people have a tendency to get freak out on and so does staff have any description of the testing and the results of this [UNKNOWN] technology that is being permitted by the department. I don't have any information as is testing and results I believe that there are a number of aerosolization projects operating at various land fills across the state maybe operating under some kind of provisional permits but we would need the Department particularly waste management staff in all likelihood to give us any details, data on how they're operating. >> Follow up? >> Again I just think that we've got some highly sensitive people but I do not wanna stop innovation And not support technology as it relates to being efficient and effective in disposing of [UNKNOWN]. So if the department Mr Chairman and Senator Wake has some information as it would describe the testing and the results, there is some fear that you're taking [UNKNOWN] which is a Product that is traditionally needed to be treated in order for it to be properly disposed off and now for this technology you gonna disperse it in the air. There is some fear about that wind containment as well as if there is any contaminate center that are a being on the ground in which it's gonna fall. So again if there is any information available that could help answer some of those questions I think this would be the right thing and the great thing to do. >> Mr chairman. >> Senator [INAUDIBLE]. >> Sure senator Ford we can get you some of that information because they've been permitted and they've been testing in pilot programs across the state. >. Senator [INAUDIBLE. >> thank you Mr. chairman Senator Wage I have a sort of a series of questions, if I might Mr. Chairman. >> Listening. >> First be on the land field. I know I was gonna get with you yesterday but then we had appropriations in JPS/g and didn't have the opportunity but on the sanitary Where does the C and D land fields come into play in this, or will that be the same? Cuz I have a franchise on this C and D and it wasn't mentioned that

if you could maybe Respond I just didn't know. >. I think staff can answer that. >> Mr Chairman. Senator Bingham I've seen the land field is a sanitary land field so it would be subject to the life o site permits. Again, going forward all franchise agreements For sanitary land fields including C and D's will need to be issued for life of site not to exceed 60 years, but for those that are in place and operating under a franchise agreement right now they only would be extended if it were by agreement of the Parties no current agreement would be forced to move to a life of site franchise. >> Okay. thank you. that answers that question. If I may Mr Chairman. >> Proceed. >> All of them are snakes issue Be still [INAUDIBLE] >> [LAUGH] >> I know there are some protected [INAUDIBLE] how does that come into play in this. I know it talks about liability, does this If you would just go a little further and explain it cause I know there's some several protected species and I didn't know how that came into play if it was mentioned in here or am maybe I overlooked it. Senator Wake? >> Senator Bingham. It allows them to have a agent, a zoo to go collect the species so it protects the people who are not used to dealing with these particular snakes or reptiles or they could have an individual. It also for public safety if it is a cobra or something you really can't deal it you may euthanize that animal if you can't contain it. >> Okay so what you're saying is if it's say a North Carolina protected species and someone has one in her house or somewhere they're taking it to church with them they need to call the zoo and get them to deal with this or what? >> No sir I believe that would be law enforcement but I'll see if staff has anything to add to that. >> Senator Wade that's correct. That would be local law enforcement that individual would call. The museum or zoo would be responsible for holding the snake and determining the interim disposition of that snake and as far as protected species the existing law says in the case of a venomous reptile for which anti-venom approved by FDA is not readily available the reptile may be euthanized unless the species is protected under the federal endangered species act. >> Okay so- >> Follow up? >> Yeah I'm sorry. I was under the impression that certain rattlesnakes in North Carolina are protected but I didn't realize about federal and state so would you explain that. >> Stan? >> Senator Bingham I think generally all the state list does is mirror the federal list, I'm not certain if that's correct I think someone from WRC maybe here could speak to that if that's inaccurate. But the bill only at least mentions the federal and then the species act. >> Mr, Chairman I think we've hard some. >> Gordon Good morning [INAUDIBLE] resources commission. The state list does near the federal list. However their are additional species on the state list and the protection afforded to those species. I really associate with collection of the species so scientific collection you have to have a permit for scientific collection. Those species may still be taken in defensive property or life threat/g. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Senator Wade.. >> Senator Bingham I would also say if you're trying to catch the reptile and it's making an aggressive move, you might not wait to see if it's endangered. [LAUGH] >> Well I haven't experienced in that line but anyway. But I do know that the military, they buy these species for their own needs , for antivenom and other things but anyway. But that clarifies fishing knowing that the federal state nears each other so that's good. Thank you, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Oh oh, I had my last follow up. Okay, only the pumping of this water on federal lands I think you

was mentioned by Senator Cook. Is that a problem relative to say mosquitoes? What problem has risen from that and why would that need to be done I'm just curious. >> Mr. Chairman I think senator could/g >> I like that, answer that if I may. This I don't know if you saw the pictures I will be passing around, but what happens is you flood the roads and campgrounds and it just interferes with commerce, people can't go on vacation and enjoy themselves. >> Okay, so it's not a health, at all, related issue or could be as well I assume >> Be if it continued long enough but [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay, thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Hudson. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Frankly I'm not quite sure how to ask this but I need to ask it to Senator Bingham if I might. >> [LAUGH] Senator Bingham do you yield? >> Yes. >> [LAUGH] >> Since we only learned yesterday that you once had a franchise for a land field. My real question or concern today is are you now seeking a franchise to handle, a snake handling franchise. >> I would like to get one but I don't know how to apply. >> Senator Hudson, my only question on that with handling the poisonous snakes staring at disposition is that if you get a poise of the snake and the attorney in the same room how do you distinguish the two? >> Any further question Senator Rabin. >> The only way to make it clear if I hadn't comment for senator opinion please, with regards to the military use of the endangered species it does taste like chicken. >> May I make a comment Mr. chairman. >> Let's move on, Senator Alexander did you have a question or. >> I need to get back to work. >> That's what I'm trying to do, thank you senator [INAUDIBLE]. >> Thank you Mr. chairman in section two, page two, line four it talks about inappropriate stuff is not being important to driveways and parking areas that will not receive the full weight of the [INAUDIBLE] traffic, can someone please explain to me what the difference is between the driveway having [INAUDIBLE] traffic and another one not having [INAUDIBLE] traffic? >> I will try, okay, and staff you can correct me if this is wrong, what my understanding is not everybody pays the whole driveway or where you pull the vehicle, the might just pay to two sides where the car is gonna be or the track, like if their own loading something in the middles graphs and you're just going like up on the part that's big enough for the wheel to get up on is my understanding I don't know staff, you need to add anything to that? >> Take a minute. >> Senator Ford. >> Quick clarifying question is really just to land fields senator [INAUDIBLE] question as where is the CND in the language it talks about our senator in land field, is that inclusive of MSW? >> Chairman? >> Yes. >> Yes, basically the term sanitary land fields includes all land fields inert debris. >> Any further questions? Senator [INAUDIBLE] >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd like an example of Section number one. I was just trying to understand what problem we are trying to solve that's way above my pay grade just quite get my arms around that. So I would like to kind of what problem we are trying to solve, that's way above my pay grade, just quite get my arms around that. >. Staff do you have an. So the environment review commission looked at this issue during the inter-rum and this is basically what they recommended. Our understanding from the department is that they have some type of issue with interpreting their own rule, and that the way they are interpreting. Interpreting it is perhaps being over zealous in its applications so this is to try to clarify that only under this circumstances when required by state or federal law should they be I'm requiring use as [INAUDIBLE] control measures to protect downstream water quality standards we are not quite sure why They're interpreting their own rule in a way they don't like but this is an attempt to fix their issue for them. >> Follow up. Follow up. Do they have anybody here who can speak to the issue? Is anyone here that can speak to it?

[BLANK_AUDIO] >> Mr. Chairman Senator Wade. >> Senator, we'll try to get you more information on that and clarify. >> Any further questions or comments? Any questions or comments from the public? [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] >>Mm-hm. >> Good morning, thank you for the opportunity to provide comment, my name is Mary Mclean Asbill, I'm with the Southern Environmental Law Center and I want to thank all the Senators that are present at this meeting and I appreciate your good question And attempts to get answers on many of this vary substantive matters, basically my comments today are gonna involve process, here we are faced with the polluter protection at 2.0. Once again we've gone from a five page bill last night at 8:59 to a 14 page bill last night at 9 o' clock, we had less than 12 hours to read it, study it for the senators themselves to think about this and how they impact their constituency, it took five or six different legislative stuff to work on this during this super busy time for them Them, I just think it's not the way to handle this subsive issues, you've put in land field reform that needs to be completed by this December if put in storm letter reform. Pumping large amounts of storm water into he ocean without any important state oversight it can attack on head water stream Your broadening even what kind of materials can be placed on our beaches when you're doing re-nourishment and the question is just how it has really been answered, this is a really complicate and important issues you're addressing today, they relate to long standing protections they are currently afforded to the citizens of North Carolina And our air and water and I urge you to please take your time and trade carefully, thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else. Senator [INAUDIBLE]. >> I would like to remind the committee that most of all of these have gone through DRC committee and being discussed over the interim. So they are not new and of course the committee and everybody is going to have the entire weekend to look over this and in the bill I'm not sure if it gets a favorable report which day next week Next week it may run on the floor but you're gonna have the whole weekend for sure to look over it. And I'll be glad I'm sure staff will to answer any questions you may have. >> Any questions or comments? Senator Alexander. >> Mr. Chair I see we have Gordon Myers here and he's already spoken and Gordon I don't know if you have Do you have any other comments to make because there's a whole section here related to wildlife issues. Do you have further comments sir? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Just to comment relative to the licensing and the protection of data is just basically our customers have an expectation of privacy and then we have great compliance particularly With our bear hunters for example forgetting data and we're fearful that as that data is not protected we'll have poor compliance in terms of working with us to provide the data that we need to manage our wildlife populations. >> Thank you Gordon. >> Any further questions or comments? If none If not. Senator Floyd moves is unfavorable to the original, favorable to the PCS as amended. All those in favor will say Aye, >> Aye >> oppose No. Aye's have it we are adjourned.