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

searching for


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

House | April 30, 2013 | Committee Room | House Agriculture

Full MP3 Audio File

?? call house committee on agriculture order please. Members of the committee and guest welcome to the house committee on agriculture this afternoon. I'd like to recognize our sergeant of arms Brent Heins, Regi Seals, John Brandon, and Mike Clampin. I'd like also to recognize our pages and thank them for their service here today. If you would stand when I call your name, Him Kay Sap from Gilbert County sponsored by the representative of Plus . Ashley Siden from AIdale representing Samuelson, and I've already forgotten how to pronounce that first name again. Meev, Meeve Sinclair from Kentalba representative of Wales, and Adrian Sullivan from White County representative Tillis. Thanks for being with us today. I believe the PCS is for the bills have been passed out. And i believe we can go in order that we had on the agenda originally if that's no problem. Representative Cleveland, you're recognized to present house bill 787. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. House bill 787 would do nothing more than provide a [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have motion for a PCS. Representative Wilkens, motions for a PCS to be before us. The PCS is now before us for house bill 787. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. House bill 787 for PCS would do nothing more than provide a farm owner with a right of action against a public condemner when the application environmental laws, state laws, or local venues ordinances prevent a modified ? of being able to operate for a modified ? purpose in an economically liable manner. The property owner, if the property owner prevails in a civil suit, the court would award them attorneys fees and costs, giving the rural farm owner or farm owner an opportunity to recoup some costs ? armed economically. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stars. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Cleveland. Give me a practical example of this one, apparently there must be a situation or someone at a farming operation and some sort of environmental law or ? was place that made ? unprofitable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland's recognized to respond to the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Some of this is coming from the 2009 environmental laws in the past where municipalities pushing or putting out the water problems out to farm land. In other words, they were using the farm land to keep developing within the municipality as far as the water land ? environmental problems ? . [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Piffen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For motion perfect time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lukin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairmain, I'm looking at the bill summary and I'm trying to, maybe I have a question for staff, I do have a question for staff let me start there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lukin, you are recognized to ask the staff a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I'm curious when it says in the bill now, it says and I'm referring to that rather than looking at the wording of the bill acknowledge that. It says that the farm owner has a right of action against the public in general in the application of environmental laws. Can I get a definition of , give me a for instance of what an environmental law would be and would this include a EPA ? coming from a federal government through by EPA? So if there's an EPA reg and that the farmer can sue somebody? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff is recognized to answer Representative Lukin's question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill is very broadly wrong. It does not distinguish between federal and state environmental laws.

I think that you could take that in the broadest sense possible.. environmental legislation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] So if I am a farmer, and I am unhappy with some environmental regulation and I think it has cost me money, is this about a bill allowing me to go to court with a kind of a stronger hand to play than if we have existing law? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Steph [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think it would be more than you thinking that the regulation has cost you money. I think that it is a practical matter. Under the takings law you have to show that.. regulatory taking shows complete deprivation of value. This bill would.. specifically requires that the farmer can no longer use his property essentially for farm purposes, and I may have misspoke on the federal environmental regulation. The way the bill is drafted, that would apply to state law and public state public condemners, not to the federal. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If no.. I have another question if no one else wants to speak, because I am concerned about this bill.. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will come back to you.. Representative McNeill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just have a comment, or maybe a clarification. It seems to me, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that basically what this is is environmental laws that apply to a region and that if to comply with environmental laws for that region, a person's farm is closed down. For the benefit of the region, they are allowed to sue, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The laws would pertain to a region, and if the municipalities or the state or whoever targets a farm or farms to meet the requirements of some environmental law, then the people who are harmed, they will lose the use of their land every course. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas, do you want to follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, and I think again for ?? but also I guess what the committee considered, it seems there is an underlying thesis to your bill Representative Cleveland that environmental laws and regulations are bad and it seems to be what I read here, and my question for ?? then in that light is what does this empower a land owner to do if this bill were to become law, that she or he can not do now. What is the empowerment as a result of this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think I would have to say that it is more narrowly tailored, in that it specifically applies to a farmer who has lost the ability to farm his property in an economically viable way. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Cleveland, and typically I support the vast majority of the legislation you put forward, and I will probably support this, but I still just don't understand it. What is a municipality ?? owner doing to a farmer's land that would cause it to be economically unviable as a farm. I understand if they are annexed in the past, then they would have the burden of paying the municipal taxes, but I am just trying to understand. What are the towns doing in some of the farms that are causing them to be inviable as a farm. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] possibly if you look at it in the light of Nitrogen and Phosphorous of nutrient.. farmers have to be able to use fertilizer to grow their crops, and if the municipality or regional authority or what-not has basically usurped the ability of the farmer to do that through some process, then the farmer is going to be out of business. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, I guess it is a question for the sponsor or staff, it seems to me that there might be a two-fold purpose here. One.. and see if this is correct. One, to protect the individual farmer if their situation occurs as you have discussed, where some regulations come in, and the first thing that comes to my mind, and I will just make up something, because of where I am from, is Christmas trees. If a particular pesticide to get rid of these little mites is no longer allowed, it might be that entire Christmas tree property is no longer..

Useful for christmas trees. So that's just one example that came to my mind, I don't know if that fits or not but the individual farmer to get some relief. But also isn't this a way to get some cost benefit analysis done here on regulations that we can actually look at some of the cost? We hear how the benefit if you put a certain regulation of the region, but if you start, if you have this situation won't you have individual costs that you can start counting up that we can actually do a cost benefit on things? What are your thoughts on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I hadn't really considered it but it would be a viable way of getting some cost analysis I believe, yes, from individual units. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wilkins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. The questions have been wide ranging and some of that has caused me to lose a little bit of focus so I'm going to ask Representative Cleveland - boy this is scary, to bring me back into focus. Representative Cleveland isn't the trigger mechanism here a condemnation process? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, it probbaly could be considered as a condemnation process. If you put someone out of business through some regulation you're taking his livelihood and property. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair if I may? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would Stef [SP] chime in on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Stef [SP] could you address representative Wilkins questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, representative Wilkins, the statutes GS48-51 provide for situations involving like a regulatory taking where you don't have the department of transportation coming in and filing a direct condemnation action and then working through the perceived fair market value of the property. And when that doesn't happen, when you have something like a regulatory taking under 40A-51 you can go in and ask the court to file an action just to seek compensation for the regulatory taking of your property. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Daughtry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. You can have a taking even though you keep the land. For example an airport might want to ahve a path flight, and so that would be a taking. You couldn't use the land underneath what the airport is taking off and landing. Looks to me like you have a remedy for a taking and this would be a taking if someone is not able to plant christmas trees or not farmed, then you've taken the land and they would have already a remedy and that would be to condemn, bring an action in condemnation under 40A-51. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady and then Representative Whitmire and then Representative Jordan, and then I'll recognize Representative Pittman for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is really a comment, on lines 11 and 12 we talk about the application of environmental regulations or other state laws or local ordinance limiting land use. Well most environmental regulations and state laws to my knowledge involve a federal law that the state has taken over responsibility for in terms of implementing that law. So what you've got is often times you've got federal law that's being applied or required in state laws or local ordinances, but then down below who's going to pay the cost of this issue that's being probably precipitated by federal law, but rather it's going to be put on the counties municipalities. I think clearly the bill is well intended but I think it's overly broad and there's a disconnect between what is the reason for the condemnation and then who is going to end up paying for it, and that is really bothersome to me. Am I wrong I guess and maybe Stef [SP] can answer this. Am I just totally off in my understanding of the application of environmental laws? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Stef [SP] do you have a comment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't think that you're completely wrong. I think there may be different ways that the states and local governments can implement federal regulations. There are some obviously that we have to implement sort of as written.

Again, this sort of defines a specific remedy for farmers who have lost their farms. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could I ask one follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Then let's use a specific example. Let's say that there are some water quality limitations put in, in terms of nitrogen runoff into streams caused by the Federal Clean Water Act. Those are, that's a delegated responsibility to the state that's reflected in state law and in local ordinances I'm sure. Are you telling me that in that situation assuming that this farm closes down because of the federal limits on nitrogen that some county or city is going to end up having to pay for that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would think... [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think that they would, if in fact they have adopted an ordinance or further policies because the law allows this kind of condemnation action against the public condemner which would be a county government, a local government or a sanitary sewer district and things like that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Along those lines, I would think the farmer would to show that the municipality, or whoever, purposefully picked on his land to put the nitrogen runoff and whatnot on. He would have to prove that they were not, he was not treated fairly within the region. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Whitmire. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman. For the bill's sponsor, a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Talked a little bit about fertilizer and groundwater thresholds and basically, especially in this general area here that and some counties in the nearby area where farms have been encroached upon and due to one mechanism or another, municipalities have essentially been able to increase the denominator, the bottom number, so that the thresholds aren't exceeded with, whether it be contents of fertilizer, we can talk about setbacks on streams and waterways. Simple question for the bill's sponsor, simply, do you have any other examples to where the effectiveness of a farm basically has been reduced and put them in a situation like that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Anecdotally, I was told that a certain farm had a stream running through it and a municipality had, I think it was a twenty-five foot, I think it was fifty-feet, fifty-feet setback from the stream and they wanted to put a development in, they changed the setback to where the development was to fifteen-feet and increased the amount on the farm to a hundred-and-fifty-feet to allow for the same requirement for setback runoff. We've ?? in general assembly has taken annexation away from municipalities for farm use, we've exempted it from zoning, and this type of thing is going on, and it's just another tool the farmer will have if he can prove that his farm has been taken advantage of. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan and then Deputy Secretary Gillespie would you like to comment on this bill? Representative Jordan and then we'll hear from representative from, mister Deputy Secretary Gillespie. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman, just a final comment and thought here, when property can no longer be used for agricultural value, you usually there's a present use value there for the taxation, if you lose that purpose, your property taxes can go up three times. So, I think that that's another cost that needs to be factored in when we talk about all these regulations and if it's the local municipalities doing it or the county doing it, then they should pay those costs. I think that that's an appropriate consideration in this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Secretary. Welcome to the House Committee on Agriculture. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman. Mitch Gillespie, Assistant Secretary of Environment North Carolina?? DENR. I appreciate the Representatives concerns here, I just got the PCS myself so I haven't had time to look and see the major changes, but I...

Would have some concerns with it as well as I would think other agencies besides ??, even though there are environmental regulations that speaks to that. I give you for example, we’re still trying to decide whether or not that this bill would limit local governments from being able to enact the national flood plan insurance program and if that would be the case where it couldn’t be done because the farmers couldn’t farm in the flood plain and so this bill would be in effect and the whole county could be out of compliance of the national flood insurance program and they could lose the right to any kind of reimbursement. That’s the concern and plus the other concern on the compensation that the state would be responsible for and whether or not this could even impact the buffers that have been mentions and whether or not it could go back to ten years on being responsible for paying for buffers that were imposed in the ?? and noose from five to ten years ago, or whatever the time limit is on that and when most of that is federally required because of our TMDO limits. Those and a few other concerns we have ??. We support the bill, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see no way that this bill would affect flood plains. Section 2 states that the law, the effective date of the law. The act is effective when it becomes law and applies to causes of action filed on or after that date which I believe would preclude something that happened ten years ago. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At this time, the chair is going to recognize Mr. Jimmy Morgan who is in the audience, I think. Is Mr. Morgan here? Mr. Morgan, if you could limit your remarks to less than three minutes, we would appreciate it. The chair is going to recognize Mr. Morgan for a period not to exceed more than three minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your name, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry. I’m Jimmy Morgan. I live at 8625 Bull Road in Colfax, Western Gilford County. My wife and I own and operate two North Carolina Century farms. It’s been in the family for at least 160 years. Being surrounded by municipalities, we are finding ourselves constantly between rocks and hard places. I point ?? all have annexation agreements to divide and claim the county areas between them. They have completed or are in the process of drafting land use plans for their respective growth areas. They city’s plans identify future growth areas comprised mostly of farms and rural areas. The city’s lack ETJ for these areas and cannot enforce their plans, but they use them to protect governing and zoning authority, to project governing and zoning authority. Their aim is to hold property hostage to fit their plans by denying property owners their use rights. Colfax, our community, is vanishing. In addition, North Carolina’s environmental laws aim at claiming polluted water sheds are placing heavy burdens upon farmers while cities regularly seem to be granted exemptions or a relaxing of regulations to encourage economic development. Cities have absolutely proven that growing outwards into rural areas and destroying nature’s water purification system has placed the state’s water supply in great danger. Why else do they now need farmers with our mandatory federal conservations plans to capture and filter their messes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Morgan. We appreciate your comments recognizing that this bill is successful in this committee, it will be referred to Finance. I recognize Representative Pittman for a motion. Judiciary A, I’m sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment first? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Comment and then a motion. Quick comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. Question people have about this, I’m going to try to clear it up quick. If a municipality tells a farmer that ETJ because of water standards, the development’s messing all this up, not the farmers. You can’t fertilize your property. In order to be able to farm, they eventually lose…

Lose the ability to continue to farm as they were trying to do. When they have a cost [??] of problem it's being put off on them. Eventually if you can't operate your farm as a farm and make a living on it, it devalues the property and developers, you know, it gets annexed and developers pick it up for a song. And it's running farmers off of their lands and this has to stop because when all the farm lands gone I don't know how we're going to get to this $120 billion dollar agricultural industry that they've been talking about around here lately. This has to stop. they need to quit putting the problems of the city off on the farmers and running farmers off their land and to me that's what this is all about. And so I'd appreciate your support for this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We're ready for your motion and referral to judiciary A. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. I move favorable report for a PCS for house bill 787 with referral to judiciary A and unfavorable on the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've heard the motion, all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Independent shares the aye's have it, the bill passes. Representative Blust you are recognized to explain house bill 5821. We have a PCS, I have a motion to the PCS, Representative Lucas motions that we have the PCS before us. Representative Blust you are recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this is a very simple bill. It would just rename the Piedmont Triad Farmers Market for the late Senator Bob Shaw. Many of you that have been here a while knew Senator Shaw, his accomplishments speak for themselves. It's really to honor a lifetime of accomplishments, over 30 years of public service in the military, on the board of county commissioners for Guilford county and here in the state senate for 18 years. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Question for representative Blust and then a possible motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may state your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is this the farmers market that's off Sandy Ridge road? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a comment sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a comment then a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have spent many many hours out at that farmer's market, it's a tremendous very viable area there and it's very attractive. And many folk from the triad area visit this farmer's market and it's a very popular place and at the appropriate time I'd like to offer the motion sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any questions or further discussion? The time is now for the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to offer a motion that we give a favorable report to the bill, unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is committee substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] favorable to the PCS, unfavorable to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've heard the motion. All in favor? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? Thank you representative Blust and congratulations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen you are recognized to explain house bill 920. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Chairman Dixon. The bill I have before you now is house bill 920. It is a farmland preservation bill that directs the department of transportation and the department of agriculture and consumer services to create a plan to minimize the destruction and damage to farmland due to transportation projects through adjacent farm communities. I bring this to you because in the mountains we have relatively narrow farm valleys particularly and we often widen our road and sometimes we have a lot of slope issues and a lot of fill and cuts and things of this kind. So it really helps if you're coming through a beautiful farm valley to think of the consequence to the farmland that you're running through so that you don't - what happens sometimes is you fill in a bottom, that's the alluvial soils, the floodplain soils of the mountains that we're speaking of there, and you just raise it up to road level to make a commercial strip, a site, and it just sort of changes the whole character of the communities they run through. So when we're going through beautiful farmland in western North Carolina, particularly anywhere really in the state, that the department of transportation should join with the department of agriculture and think about the consequences to the farm communities. I think it will preserve...

farm regions and communities, we have a lot of not only farm farmers and the rural communities that enjoy this, but all the travelers and the folks of our state enjoy our farm valleys, particularly in the mountains. So this is a sort of a study bill, asking the 2 departments to come together and try to work out a strategy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, should this bill receive a favorable report it will be referred to Transportation. I had Rep. Whitmire, and then Rep. Ramsey. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir, just a question for the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You mentioned basically building up for a road, ?? river valley just across the mountain from you, is that to say that that road that crosses our bottom land to a bridge to the other side of the river could not be elevated within Federal- [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I- [SPEAKER CHANGES] It would be elevated- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Queen, you're recognized to answer the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Chairman Dixon, sorry. It really just asks them to study the consequences, so I'll give an example: At 19, going through Yancy county, it happened while I was their Senator. A beautiful narrow valley probably not much wider than this room in a lot of places, and small little 1 and 2 acre tobacco fields on the side, that there would be a sort of priority to save those rather than just fill them in with the waste dirt, but you have to get the elevation of the highway what it needs to be so it doesn't affect them, it just asks them to consider the farmlands that adjoin the right of way, and to preserve them, mitigate them to the extent possible. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Ramsey. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, a motion if appropriate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time. Rep. Presnell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] First I wanted to know whether this was going to cost a lot of money? This plan? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Queen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, we're asking to look at this, the Dept. of Agriculture and Transportation and come back to us. So this is not an appropriations bill, their recommendations would come back to this committee and others before anything was implemented, so it could have some costs associated with it not unlike mitigating wetlands or any mitigation of an asset, but this bill does not direct any cost, it just asks them to study it and come back with a common sense approach. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do have one more question, one more just a statement. The four lane that's going to Yancy county, thank goodness, it's the first four lane our county has ever ever had. And I think that even though it did maybe take a small portion of a little bit of land there through Ball creek, it is a wonderful, wonderful thing because we can- babies are delivered at the head of the mountain without having that road through there, so I just wanted to comment there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Rep. Queen. When the DOT builds these roads, they're required to pay the property owner for any right of way that's involved, this involves mitigation so you're saying that the property owners do additional damages in to- is entitled to payment for damages and to the purchase of the right of way from them? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Queen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What I anticipate is, the bill is aimed at trying to develop a farmland preservation strategy. If there were takings in the right of way of farmlands, perhaps we would mitigate farmlands adjoining to protect them so that there wouldn't be a net loss of farmland, farmlands would be protected. We're trying to preserve- the intent of the bill is trying to preserve farmlands in regions when roads are widened or transportation projects are- come to those communities, those farmland communities. I don't know if that helps answer your question or not. The bill is a study bill, so it asks the Dept. of Transportation and the Dept. of Agriculture to come up with a satisfactory plan that recognizes mitigating and preserving farmlands is in the public interest when you're coming through beautiful farm territory. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So the property owner is compensated when the DOT has the taking of this property for a right of way to build a road? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But you're suggesting he should be entitled to additional damages because of the loss of the use for growing crops? Where he lost right of way? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I'm not saying that. I'm asking the Dept. of Transportation or the Dept. of Agriculture to come up with a plan. Now what their plan would be

The purpose of their plan as directed by the bill would be to try to minimize the damage to the farm community. So they may come up with some recommendations in the case of environmental mitigation. If your road is required to go through a wetlands you mitigate wetlands elsewhere. So you try to improve wetlands in other places so the net loss to wetlands is not gone. This would be a same sort of strategy hopefully for farmland, that you would not have a net loss of farmlands due to road projects through farm country. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This might be for staff [??], the bill sponsor keeps referring to this as a study. The bill is not a study, it directs the department of transportation and agriculture to do something and to plan and mitigation, etc. I would assume that if they're directed to bring this plan forth this same direction would be in this bill that they could implement the plan. Staff [??] would probably have to address that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff would you address that please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think the question is, is it a study or a bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's not strictly a study bill representative Cleveland but it does require the DOT and department of agriculture to report the plan to the house ag, the house transportation, senate ag environment and natural resources and senate transportation committees within one month of the convening of the 2014 session of the general assembly. They don't take any action to implement the plan they just report the plan out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, follow up, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] They report the plan out. Who then is going to give them authority to implement the plan? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That would require a further act with the general assembly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, maybe I might have overused the general term study bill. It's really a planning studying bill, I'm kind of thinking that it is together. It's not an implementation bill. It is to prepare for, to think about and to prepare for farmland preservation as a part of DOT projects. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chair is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman I would make a motion for a favorable house bill 920 with a referral to finance. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Referral to transportation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Referral to transportation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've heard the motion. All in favor? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Nay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The aye's have it, congratulations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] representative Briston [??], we have four minutes. Pardon me? Yes sir. While he's coming up the house won the milk chugging contest today between the house and the senate. Representative Briston [??] you are recognized to explain senate bill 205. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair and Senator [??] is not able to be here us today and has asked me to speak on this. All this bill does is the current law and you'll see your sheet that was passed out to you, allows the soil testing to go from one year to every three years, but everything else stays the same. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any discussion? Representative Bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I'll motion at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a question. It was being tested annually and now we're going to every three years? Is there a reason for that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Ma'am. well, for one thing, the biggest thing is soil sampling is backing up in our labs and the end results, you now sometimes it's six to eight months and then really if you talk to the [??] once every three years is very sufficient because... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Briston [SP] I think Secretary Gillespie has a clarifying remark, he might be able to address representative Holly's concern. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd be glad to yield to him. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Currently or recently in state university their soil science department has been studying this and based on their studying for the past several years they've determined that moving it to two to three years would be fine, so based on that and Dayners [SP] position on this we think the bill is fine as it is and...

I have no objections. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Bell, you’re recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to move that Senate Bill 205 receive a favorable report and refer to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’ve heard the motion. All in favor. All opposed. As a result of the victory of the house in the milk chugging contest FHA received a $200 donation. FFA. Thank you members of the committee you did a fantastic job today.