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 14, 2013 | Committee Room | Agriculture

Full MP3 Audio File

before you start, Jeff, needs to say something. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just to expedite the movement of bills today, we've put together bill packets that are being passed out now, it has all the PCSs and summaries that you'll hear today. They're in order that they appear on the calendar, so PCS for 515 is on the top of what you're seeing. The code on these is different from the code on PCSs you received last night, they've gone through proofreading overnight, the only changes that would have been made are technical changes that were caught in proofreading. Otherwise the substance of the PCSs are the same. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Gunn. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Ford. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a question, may I ask a question at this time to staff concerning the announcement that was just made? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is this information available electronically. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It was emailed to you last night. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The PCSs were sent out last night. Some of the summaries that were prepared last night were sent out, some of the summaries were just done this morning, they have not been sent out to you yet. All this will be on the dashboard before it gets to the floor. So some of it yes, some of it no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Gunn, you're up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and I would like to thank Sen. Wade for being here also. There's one thing that I can say unequivocally to start this meeting, and that there is not one single person that I believe that is happy with the quality of the water in Jordan Lake. We understand the economic engine that Jordan Lake serves, we understand the hundreds of thousands of people that are affected by Jordan Lake every day, we understand that it is a viable engine for growth, a water supply, for recreation, for wildlife conservation. But here's where the problems lies, folks. A little history, and putting it in a little bit of historic context: Back when this lake was built, and back in the 70s when it was being compounded, the feds knew, and they didn't make any single bunch about it that this would be an impaired water source. Here's what our bill is going to do: As you notice on the front page, it talks about a little bit of history and it states without any exception that we knew what we were getting and the feds knew what they were providing when we did this lake. What this bill also is gonna do is it's gonna clearly state that the legislative intent, that the current water quality strategies are not working, and it will set forth a new strategy to improve the water quality of the lake by developing new rules. What this bill will also do is it will immediately repeal the related session laws and direct repeal of rules by October 13, and this allows enforcement of rules prior to repeal. This bill will also create a LRC study commission made up of 5 from the Senate, 5 from the House, and they will immediately begin to research the issue during the interim. Including reiteration of authority to higher technical consultants, and they will provide legislative proposals to the 2014 General Assembly. I cannot emphasize to you enough, cannot emphasize to you enough that we have had tireless discussions with DNR and they have been very cooperative. And the bottom line is this folks, it has always been impaired, it's impaired now, and every single source of reasonable data will tell you that this lake, biding by the Jordan Lake rules that are now in place, will stay impaired forever, regardless of the amount of money that is put in mitigation efforts upstream. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been put to mitigation upstream, in many different areas. This has become a tremendous burden on the municipalities

Tremendous burden on developers, on tax payers, and we have got nothing to show for it, folks. Now I’ve got studies from DENR going back eight years. I’ve got them with us. You may not have it in your handout but bottom line is in eight years, up through 2012, there has been no marked improvement in the Jordan Lake and in some cases there’s been some degradation of some of the nutrient levels. Development has been stopped in the Jordan Lake basin, among many municipalities. The tax burden continues to increase. Now here’s the positive. And here’s what I like about what we’re going to do. Technology today did not exist like it does now. Technology has improved and DENR has acknowledged that in our conversations with them. These new technologies required us to take a new regulatory approach to the Jordan Lake. There is simply no sense in us continuing upstream to do mitigation efforts that are not showing any market improvement of our lake. Simple phrase, let’s quite throwing good money after bad. I will be glad to answer any questions that you may have. We want the purpose of this, the purpose of this bill is to have a chance to improve the water quality of the lake. We are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that mitigation efforts upstream are going to have no impact on the quality of the Jordan Lake and we need to concentrate our efforts in the lake or at the lake, and we’re going to work tirelessly in the next year to come back and at the beginning of session in 14, with a full report and recommendations. We will work with DENR. We will work with stakeholders. We will work through our legislative body. We will work with corps and we will work with EPA. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Cook. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to move for a favorable report, as soon as we can? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hold up for a second. Senator Kinnaird. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Well, this is my district. This is my lake. It touches both of my counties. And I would like sort of a period of comment and a series of questions, if I may. There were years of negotiation and public comment that got us to the point where we are now. And I realize the cities are very unhappy. Guilford and Greensboro got out last year. Durham, and I realize that people don’t want to put the money in. You know, it’s sort of a love nurture, what happens upstream and what you put in the water ends up downstream. But it just bothers me that those years of negotiation and public comment are just going to be turned over. I don’t see that, there’s new science or new elected officials, but I don’t see that. So I have a couple of questions. First of all, and you’re saying there’s new technology. I’d like to know what that is. But I’d like to know what the EPA is going to say about this because they’re very much involved. And what is going to be the costs? What is the new technology and what is the cost going to be? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s exactly why we’re going to have the study committee, by the way. To come back with a plan and that plan not only will have a cost figure for mitigation, hopefully at the lake or in the lake. But it also will have, part of the recommendation will be how the basin – this is a basin issue by the way. I want to be clear, this is not to involve folks outside the basin – how the basin is going to pay for this. It needs to be a contributory agreement, among all the basin stakeholders. What is our feeling from the standpoint of the federal government, the corps, and EPA. If you’ll notice in your bill, it specifically talks about how we will immediate engage the EPA and the corps to help us mitigate a situation that to date is causing a terrible water condition in the Jordan Lake. As far as technology

Representative: go to Senator Keneer. I do not want to…I think there are some folks here that can talk a little bit more about hat. The bottom line is if you are satisfied with the water, these are working. If you would like for us to start afresh, take a new approach, find out how all of us can benefit with a cleaner lake with a new method of mitigation is what this is about; otherwise, you have got what you going to get. Representative: One last if I may, and then I will be done. When really have we done anything? We have put the rules in place but… Greens County, Gilford County got out of it last year. We have not done much of anything yet, so how can we say it is working? Representative: There actually has been a lot done and a lot to be done. The point here is that what we have had done, a lot of that in point source, where it is just discharged, over this time period, we have seen no relevance. We have also had studies done, some independent, some through the division of water quality. To be honest with you, in a meeting in Burlington, NC, when the question was asked, this is going to cure the problems that the Jordan Lake, and they stood there in public saying they could not make any guarantee with no significant increase in the quality in this timeframe. I think it is safe to say that we really need to revamp our thoughts and improve the lake quality, and, I think this study will do it. Speaker: Senator Raven? Representative: Thank you. I just want to make sure that I have the concepts under. What we are going to do is keep doing what we are doing, so there is really no change for the near term, while we study the problem and try to fix it for the long term: does that capitalize it? Representative: Not exactly, but it is close. We actually stayed a lot of the rules a couple of years ago, so you should not see any material changes in this next year, but we are repealing the rules that are currently in place and immediately proceeding into next year with new rules based on better scientific evidence, better due diligence, better technology and probably in a different location than upstream which, for reasons we believe, will not be able to improve the water quality. Speaker: Senator Bryant? Representative: I have a question about the time table about the repeal, and all this process. From what I can see, it appears that there could be at least 6 months to a year where there could be no rules, is that correct? The appeals and the study, and then the time it takes to reinstitute new rules, that could be a year or two. Could you respond? Representative: I think the best answer I could give to that is to not mistake what we are doing now for the fact that we still have to abide by federal rules. A lot of that has to do with the biggest thing and I believe that source point. So, federal rules remain in place. This is just working with our state rules, which, if you can remember, a couple of years ago, we set those back. So, I do not think you will see a material change in a year. Representative: Follow up? Will we have to get any federal approvals once you repeal all these rules and statutes? Representative: We are going to take the legislative action to repeal the rules now. We will obviously be in contact with the federal agencies to let them now what we are doing. We will have that documented along with them at that time. We are going to repeal the rules and here is the bottom line: we need to stop what we are doing, regroup, and formulate a new plan that is going to increase the water quality of Jordan Lake. Representative: One more follow up Mr. Chair? Do you have an estimate of the costs to the state of this process of repealing and reenacting these rules. I do not know if there is any risk of any fines or penalties, or anything, but is there some cost? Your history lays out a long term process involving multiple groups and entities, and approvals in getting where we were. So is there a cost, or do we need a fiscal on any of this?

I think it’s a double answer there. We’ve got, I don’t think that relates to what we have in place. Anytime you’re doing a study and you got some folks that are going to have some input, I guess there will be some….that item will be addressed at some point in time. The bigger cost is not doing something. Right now, Kerry is in the process of looking at a $2 million aerification system at their intake and they are the least effective intake on the lake. The cost is going to continue to rise if we don’t do something. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair, I’ll be brief. A couple things, are we talking about high algae content in the lake and there has been no movement in that in eight years to speak of? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’ll there’s actually been no movement since the formation because it was a record from the time that the core went on record that it would have high nutrients, it would have high algae content and it’s been there since the formation of the lake and remains there today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One other follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a drinking water lake. Of course it’s been around since I drove down 64 going to state back in the 70s when it was being built. How many municipalities dump treated waste-water into the lake? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker, that may be a staff comment. I cannot give you an answer on that. That’s a good question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jeff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have folks from the department here who can probably answer it more specifically, but the basin basically starts with Guilford County, runs down through Alamance, parts of Orange, Durham, much of Chatham and a little part of Wake. Most municipalities that have wastewater systems, Burlington, Greensboro, I believe they discharge into the upper part of the basin which eventually flows into the lake. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Clodfelter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Gunn, looking at your proposed study, a lot of the topics that you’ve got here are fairly technical or involve expert knowledge. I’m curious about the decision to have the study be done entirely by legislators rather than groups such as the EMC that has backup of that kind of technical expertise. Why do the study with a group of legislators rather than the ENC for example. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Clodfelter, I thank you for the question. I think that the commission is going to be made up of legislators, but it also, I think I made reference, that we plan on drawing on all technical and stakeholders, even some from the public sector, some from the private sector to come up with a plan and a study to make sure that we’re getting the best information, but I think the makeup is simply for the commission, but the commission’s role will be to do a complete study and use folks, whether it be public or from the private that can give us valuable information as we try to modify these rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, Senator Cook moved to accept the proposed Committee Substitute. Also, I guess that was for the bill itself. I don’t have anybody from an audience listed to speak on this bill so...nobody signed up. I’m sorry, Senator Hartsell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just...this is a very simple question. Has anybody ever monitored the effectiveness of the rules that are in place now as to reduction of content. Is there any study that anybody has done as to whether or not this is reduced content? That’s my question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Hartsell. I have a...going to the…bear with me a second, I’m trying to get to the right page. I’ve got a study that goes back that DENR did from 2004 through 2012. That study was to look at the percentage amount of phosphorus, nitrogen, and chlorophyll in the lake. As this graph would indicate to you, nothing on this chart was...

Tell you that between 2000, for the last eight years, 2005, 2012 or 4 to 12, that there has been any, any improvement in the lake and in some situations it’s gone downhill a little bit. So we basically have had no improvement in this whole time and the studies have been consistently year to year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes follow up. And the intakes and discharges from the watershed have they changed at all, during the period of adoption of these rules? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t think so. I don’t think so. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up; Senator Gunn’s staff shared with me that there are multiple multiple municipalities in this clean water lake, that we use for drinking water, dumping treated waste water into the lake. Multiple ones. I don’t know to add [SPEAKER CHANGES] You talking about directly [SPEAKER CHANGES] Directly, directly into Jordan Lake. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the Committee, the motion before you set forth by Senator Cook is unfavorable to the original, favorable to the?? All those in favor will say Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed No. The Ayes have it. Thank you. Next on the agenda is Senate Bill 112. Senator Jackson. This is a proposed committee substitute. Senator Jackson moves for adoption for discussion purposes. All those in favor will say Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed no. Senator Jackson the floor is yours. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. This is a rather lengthy bill, but I’ll try to run through it very quickly and will be happy to answer any questions at the end. A lot of this is from the recommendation of the VRC committee that met in the interim, and Part One is basically just a technical change. What it amounts to is adding the words “and operate” to the general statute to conform to Senate bill 810 that was ratified in June of last year. Part Two clarifies the process for appeals from civil penalties assessed by a local government that has established and administers a state approved erosion and sedimentation control program, purely technical and an ERC recommendation. Part Three amends the notice procedure to repairing property owners that adjoin property subject to an application for a dredge and field permit. This is a ?? request and part of their efforts to fast track certain permits. Part Four amends various statutes governing wildlife to conform to federal law. This is another technical change sent over by them, and this makes technical corrections that more accurately reflect protected and endangered species safeguards. Part Five(a) amends the statute regulating ownership or use of venomous reptiles to correctly refer to them in the term as antivenin not antivenom. So, that is certainly purely technical. I didn’t know what antivenin was until this came out. Part 5(b) amends the statute governing investigation of suspected violations, seizures, and dispossessions of reptiles to direct law enforcement personnel to consult with representatives of the North Carolina Museum of Natural Science or the North Carolina Zoological Park to identify appropriately and safe measures to seize a reptile. ?? has asked that we put this in to protect the law enforcement officers who are being called out in this ?? some of these snakes that are invading our state, and other reptiles as well. Part 6 amends administrative procedure act to provide the Wildlife Resource Commission with temporary rule making authority for manner of take. Currently the Wildlife Resource Commission can change the seasons, but the courts have found that WRC cannot change the manner of take. For example, the WRC can lengthen deer season, if there is a high population of does, but they cannot execute taking bucks during the extended season. Part 7 amends the definition of the term “build upon area” as it pertains to storm water management. In 2006 session law currently includes partially impervious surfaces and definition of “build upon areas”. New language removes conflicting language and clarifies that gravel and other pervious material as well as partially impervious material, paving material that absorbs water or allows water infiltration is not included in “build upon area”. This new language creates an incentive for developers to use impervious or partially pervious paving materials instead of impervious pavement, which I think should be environmental friendly. Part 8 provides that underground storage tanks and systems installed after January

...the 1st, 1991, and prior to April 1st, 2001, are not required to comply with well setback requirements or provide secondary containment until January the 1st, 2020. This is another date of request because the underground storage tanks and systems installed after April the 1st, 2011 already had a requirement for the secondary setbacks. Part 9 amends the rules in the North Carolina administrative code that pertain to open burning for land clearing or right away maintenance. We've been working with ?? to help them change the rules in accordance with Secretary ??'s goal of lessening the permit process when applicable, and this will do so. Section 10 exempts ponds that are constructed and used for agricultural purposes from our ?? buffer rules. This section provides that the ?? buffer rules must apply if the use of the property adjacent to the pond changes such that it no longer is used for agriculture. And it grandfathers in ponds used for agriculture that were either in existence on or constructed after July the 22nd, 1997. We've worked with Farm Bureau to provide relief to farmers who are building ponds for irrigation and find themselves losing land around the ponds because the distance of the ?? buffers. This will not affect any ?? Buffer that is currently in statute, and we'll repeat that. This will not affect any ?? buffer that is currently in statute. It just keeps farm ponds from having to live out the last standard. Part 11 amends the rule also in the administrative code to provide reduced flow alternatives to the daily flow rates for design for waste water systems. And this section would exempt proposed waste water systems from complying with the daily flow rate for design. There are numerous options that an engineer can employ to design a low flow system, including waterless urinals and low flow faucets. My Sampson County accent's getting me, y'all, hang on. This sanction allows technology and design flexibility to allow more development on existing lots, which is great especially in rural areas. This provision rewards conservation efforts through low flow design and should allow for more development for technology is available to overcome changes of ?? and waste water systems policies in our state. Part 11 further provides that proposed waste water systems with a daily flow for a design of less than 3,000 gallons per day, are not required to obtain state level review for the system. This language was added for clarification because 3,000 gallon restriction is when a permit is kicked up to the state level from the County. Part 12 amends the continuing education requirements for certified well contractors to provide that a well contractor must obtain six hours of continuing education within a three year period rather than obtaining six continuing education units within a one year period, as is currently required by rule. This tries to help them out by not changing the continuing education credits, but allows them to accumulate them in three years instead of the current one year when they all have to go in and pay. This is done in many other instances with licenses, such as pesticide license and others as done over a three year period. Part 13 directs the Department of Transportation to adopt rules for selective pruning within highway rights of ways for vegetation that obstructs a motorist's view of properties on which agri-tourism activities occur. Some of our wineries and flower farms live and die on people seeing their operation from the road and stopping. Overgrown vegetation can cause serious economic harm to these small business owners, and I believe it is not dependent on the state of our business for survival. Or it is dependent, I am a believer that it is dependent on our survival for these small groups. I will see the Department of Transportation adopt rules that allow these individuals the opportunity to prune that vegetation around their signs or entrances and not wait for DOT to arrive. Part 14 prohibits public entities from purchasing or acquiring an ownership interest in rural property with known contamination without approval of the Governor and the consulate state. This section applies to a purchase or acquisition of interest in rural property occurring on or after July the 1st, 2013. This state has a problem with public entities buying contaminated sites with the knowledge that the state will clean up the mess. This language will sort of correct that, moving forward. Part 15 prohibits a local government from impeding the storage, retention or use of non hazardous recycled materials including asphalt pavement, ?? or roofing shingles in properly zoned storage facilities through regulation of the height for recycled material stock piles. The...

...environmental and economic benefits of using recycled asphalt pavements are very significant and measures should be taken to maximize the use of this material. I'll be glad to entertain any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee, the bill is before you. Questions? Senator Ford. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, I'm looking for a little bit of clarity, sir, please, on section two starting about line 49 as it relates to the collection of civil penalties that would be remitted to the civil penalty and forfeiture fund rather than going back to the local government's general fund as non-tax revenue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. This was a recommendation from the ERC committee and I'll ask staff to help me out there on this one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jennifer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Ford, that is actually a constitutional requirement that fines and forfeitures go to that fund, so this is a correction needed to this statute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bingham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just going to move for a favorable report with your permission. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hold that for a second. Any other questions for the committee? Senator Tucker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry I had to leave, Mr. Chair. I'm back to ask Senator Jackson a question about the procedure for adopting a temporary rule by the wildlife commission. They can just adopt most anything they need in this. Where's there accountability or control or regulation or whatever there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker, I have that same concern. I sort of don't like giving free reign on rule-making, doesn't matter which agency done being directed to the wildlife resource commission; but, I have spoken with Gordon Myers, and Gordon has told me of the issues. And Gordon, would you like to address this question. I think he can give you a very good explanation, or he did for me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gordon? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, the wildlife commission has the explicit authority to adopt temporary rules for certain conditions for setting seasons and bag limits, for establishing no wake zones, and also for gameland regulations. And the way we implement those rules is we do it concurrently with permanent rules subsequent to holding public hearings and in that way we can implement season changes that we believe are necessary biologically to move forward with or to satisfy conditions on landscape that we need to address. But we do go through the public hearing process with full public involvement prior to initiating temporary rule-making. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Also, Senator Tucker, I'd like to add that they already have this capability currently. What we're giving them the authority to do is the manner of take, whether we need to take more bows, as we're seeing we need to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, if you would advise the wildlife commission they need to reduce their bag limit on quail because there are none left for the most part. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will certainly see that message gets passed along. [LAUGHTER] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker, I agree. Any other questions? I didn't see anybody from the audience sign up. Members of the committee, Senator Bingham sends forth a motion unfavorable to the original, favorable as to the Proposed Committee Substitute. All those in favor will say Aye, opposed No. The Ayes have it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Next up, 689, amend trapping law on Senator Sanderson. Hold on. Senator Jackson moves... well, where are we? Hold on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, members of the committee? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hold on, Senator Sanderson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have an amendment I'd like to run. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth your amendment. Members have copies? [SPEAKER CHANGES] They're being passed out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Senator Sanderson will explain the amendment. ?? And if not, I'll help you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And we may need some help. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll just wait. Okay, thanks. Senator Sanderson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of the original bill 689 that was before you, that was before you did one thing. It totally removed a specific type of trap known as a Conner bear trap or a body-gripping trap off of dry land and required it to be totally set in the water. [AUDIO ENDS]

The fish live the 56 and stakeholders involved in this Monday of this bill region and the cost of growing concern loan between the interaction between tractors and the and what they do and don't understand what they did with the colts in hiring and limit the sale of five that if I realize that areas: a couple married, made the offer both of these groups oppose both of these groups are no great deal and how they do a play and the out of control populations of all of our animal, came from home via a memo before you left Iraq to these discussions with the with the trappers with the dollar's wildlife and those who had a recall to concerns on those several things do not touch blame this on the board is here to help us we also have a couple people from all published the colors are the model to say we're home and basically what it (SPEAKER CHANGES ) does is it goes back and everyplace is read receipts back instead two about the larger size, the judge to allow them to be said of the solar system only response because it is a great on day two of two of the population switch if you've ever been, of subjected to that she could be worse than the other Cuba, can create a tremendous problem for farmers four tree farmers for a long people to a heather Lamm turned into lakes limit that the long-term intellects and so we go back and we sent them back in the statute really go back and make some other changes on one of the things such as Salem change which affect a very important as the bucket six are prohibited above to see it is somewhere you take one of the straps with his bodyguard contracts Utah 5 gallon bucket over the couple have followed by Texas way into a new set of this traffic from protect of those animals there that are not targeted to be trapped from protecting given some protection of the biggest problem that is that bodyguards all their lives or sale of buckets and when they have in the wallet and they say about it the first thing you think about the food and so the first thing that is to convince of this bucket and the money it takes care of all of that goal is so those are born to be prohibited to be used on the next thing that we're looking at is some , chaps that the government can only sell dry land by 77 conditions one is that they are inside a specially designed on the enclosure of this statute what the square box , they're the trap is said to 8 inches back in 7 B boxing has a useful for its overhang on the home the couple also which really prevents that we had two debates can take your most strong protest calls all from getting inside their strengths are even making contact with the show, trips, the thing it does is the default if it's all companies sell land if it's a whole bunch of folks a problem, which in most cases will make it impossible four of a memo is not being targeted luxury to calm about saying that it does say is that he talks about the midsize for the straps those that are clean, half inches in 6 1/2 inches, they can be said of also below the ground, they can be dated, (SPEAKER CHANGES) you can you can set the straps on trial and if there are specifics as without they oppose this debate that the uses one calls the balls two strips home located as is stated dazzle out any of the stretch to be set in seven and close on, say enclosed area of talking about a few at a squirrel in that agreement, a possible new house you will somebody to come and get them out for you and all of these steps are allowed to be said, in those conclusions where would also were of the animal skin can I get two outs in the final thing that this does is that if the louse wildlife , which some are already doing that are going to testify this training program of four track for a station on two make the trappers sophomore where of the consummate that can be used and then they should be specific to the panorama mall that are trying to track-9:00 this morning on almost a caller from this bill were on board with this month after many discussions in the ??....

several meetings, and we hope that this will blow a long way and alleviate a lot of the problems that trappers and hunters come to Canada. there are three questions would have wildlife here early. at least one run like a good members of the committee any questions in the minutes before you today lodges [SPEAKER CHANGES] can move for firewall forward, though I work improve this bill on serving fiber on the levels taken inanimate. the community and audience finally got stable signed up itself. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oregon Seo amendment, or if they do, they'll justify several record Monday was fair use of growth of the Eastern fought for milk are a lot of thoughtful or social origin, and we invite you of his lives of children and from that described an updated middle of work put in to trying to work with all the group and commitments led a lot of discussion about it. I just wanted to say from our point of view, and the safety of our hunting dog of" the [SPEAKER CHANGES] thanks are anyone else to defy several record, but I'm starting white president ultralight trappers Association and I'm here to oppose this bill. there's been a lot of good work done on it, but is there something development into restrictive. this bill devastating have a devastating effect on both. while it managers and landowners like if you take away one the most effective tools in certain capacities. the control problem animals in both rural areas and urban situations, making it more costly for property owners to have these animals removed drivers in the state are already the most regulated sporting group Barna, we have to have written permission to be on the landowners land. it has been that way for decades, and we are most times invited to get rid of these animals while she trappers who set legally and landowners be penalized for someone else's lack of responsibility. this bill will lead to a lot more expensive problems for landowners, local governments, and residential property owners, drivers provide a vital service to the people of the state and this bill will cripple us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you. thanks for a few chairmen and committee members, my name is can now come to represent the Humane Society of the United States. I am North Carolina State Director Hamilton, Terry. I would like to ask for your support of SB six eighty nine, their chops sometimes known as body crushing traps cause suffering and death of millions of animals each year. there already banned in nine states, including West Virginia and South Carolina on land here in North Carolina. there are many reports of animals getting caught in these traps, including dogs, cats and hunting dogs, animals caught unintentionally these traps like hunting dogs and containing animals can persist in agony for hours before dying, the body pressing topic is designed to snap shot from the spinal column at the base of the skull for a quick kill. however, the trap often misses this vital spot or does not close enough force to kill what you certainly are you the animal unconscious. they chastised Negro down on the chassis or pelvis crushing bones, blood vessels, nerves and causing excruciating pain. imagine a Sunday walk in the woods of your dog coming to a tragic end in sight. in closing, I'll respectfully ask that you ban all kind are cast in North Carolina on dry land with no exceptions. thank you, thank you, my name is off J Phillips on the memorable contracts Association, Inc. is stand for a long time up to the greater part of the North Carolina five jammies. how did strategies correctly glam comedies to be the distracted use correctly like any other finally have a privilege to veterans, including it is not a dangerous weapon in the hands of a person is lost. what to do with our

This mailing list of safe, he's just like you said about the latest budget say us a lot of trails with east rights and delta tree on my enemy expo fox indexing and of a body of animation when the kind get the nod affiliate offices are dear Beth of Mr. (SPEAKER CHANGES) As a chance to take the Gifford of the year old alma mater what color the list they wish to stop the cellophane tells his sister grateful to use very effective in utilizing that animal if it is correctly used a whole thing, that's a lot more but not let out of politics can call centers actually is got to check for Senator Bentsen and other farmers and would this ramp by all the data tracking the budget say it's OK and the bobcats like a military body their spots take a 60 to 70 pound believer in a wooden box of discount card good column that probably ought to stop by Calvin of this display with any questions to food contact effort is made to get copied by getting big Sur anyone else several first , they just see if he vetoes to the farmer farce policy industry and in the farmers will miss a couple questions and concerns me more news is we move toward server five produce crops in North Carolina we have, how was this: should delay the waste is this bill will allow us to be able to move four with that this would question from a lawsuit waters off Haiti will the following a test of (SPEAKER CHANGES) Mr. Myers if he would like to possibly a position that question should stay within one of them would assume the responsibility that his chair and cored wire stretched a lot less resources commission and McKesson the question us are still be a broader goals, including that of their contract from this and the bill to four users really an attempt to preserve the use of the Convair trap of two women and nine when we recognize important value of this tract home for wildlife commission we disagree with the assertion that this is a limitation of the 220 in terms of 937 would devastate wildlife management of their impacts are ours are well managed, you realize his own tracks loss of 220 and circumstances in which were authorizing one provision in the bill was nominated wise to 220 may still be freely used under deprivation permit issued by wildlife commission has very important consideration any landowner can obtain the depredation permits abundance ratio than in any impact properties and that is a tool that is intact within this bill Tell follow thank you, exclusively in some other counties we have been amazed that programs and that I guess it would have won this will cost center that would apply to all seven under 113 to 91.90 believe the separate statuary, commissioners are set out for track and beavers which provides much greater flexibility to use of air center way , said, questioning from a IE said the box, transfer the box and hacked away any dolls are can't start children might seek their hands than a problem running the NEA a man actually on how many accidents might happen that way a sender we all have the day of relative to what those potential impacts maybe however this situation would greatly reduce the potential 5,000,085 there with them once we have a box here you'd like to see it, it greatly reduces the potential risk of what the necessary summary he'll play the CD should only have 225 air trapped inside an enclosure to beaver somewhere not even we'll know where the S.F. got, 740 2¢ a day into the hands of a a sixth in such a test ??...............

The members of the committee ??? Senator Bingham has, actually we have to vote on the amendment first that Senator Bingham has in the move for a favorable report. All of those in favor of the amendment sent forth by Senator Jackson will say aye, opposed no. The bill is before you as amended. Senator Bingham moves favorable as amended. All those in favor will say aye, opposed no. Aye 7. Senate Bill 151 Coastal Policy Reform ??? of 2013. Thank you, Senator. Senator Raburn moves for the adoption of PCS, all those in favor will say aye, opposed no. Senator Raburn, the floor is yours. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. This bill has 4 parts. 1st part amends the marine fisheries law, 2nd part amends terminal growing construction law, third part camera permitting and forth part clarifying actions dealing with municipalities in cities on the coast. A group of us got together, a bipartisan group from both houses and looked at different things on the coast that we would like to address during this session and we came up with this bill. There are some other things that we wanted to look into, but this one pretty much summed up what we thought were the most important. Part one amends the marine fisheries law, which simply states in every county there will be fishing licenses for sale. Some counties don't necessarily warrant that, and so this allows the commission to have them if they seek necessary but not demand that they're there. Section two amends the terminal growing law and it makes the following changes to the law we passed in 2011. Provides an environmental impact statement for the growing pursuant the federal law is sufficient to satisfy the terminal growing law. It repeals the following: long term maintenance and monitoring of the growing- implementation of litigation measures, restoration of public/private trust of the growing's adverse impact on property. This is addressed further in the bill. It provides that requirement of an inlet management must be reasonable and may not require to address speculative matters or impose requirements whose cost outweigh the benefit. It repeals the requirement that an ?????? for terminal growing demonstrates the structures and infrastructure are imminently threatened by erosion and non structural approaches to the erosion control. It provides the coastal resources commission to consider the benefits of a terminal growing when determining whether terminal growing will result in adverse impacts to private property. It repeals the requirement that inlet management plan be adequate for purposes of monitoring and litigating the impact. It repeals the limitation that no more than four terminal growing may be permitted, i think they are underway currently the total. It repeals the prohibition use of certain type of local government financing in terminal growings. And repeals the direction of the department of environment and natural resources to adopt rules to implement terminal growing law. Part three amends the camera permitting law and it basically requires that any person developing property in an area of environmental concern to obtain a permit, a camera permit. Section four would limit the areas of environmental concern to those designated at the time of the permit, in other words- we don't change the rules as you go along.When you apply for your permit the rules are in effect at that time are the rules that you will live by until your permit is receded. The final part- part four clarifies that cities may enforce ordinances within the state public trust areas which allows cities to remove certain structures that can be hazardous and to enforce their rules

?? The mean high-water mark of the beaches, and what have you. And the final thing is the effective date the provisions of government issuance of ?? counter permits will become effective when this act becomes law. And the provisions governing the abilities of the cities to enforce ordinances will become effective July 1, 2013. The remainder of just one week past. Now I'll answer any questions on the parts of the committee if the committee has questions if that's okay with you Mister Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Questions? Senator Bryant? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was just curious as to this terminal groin, all these terminal groin changes? So this means now there's no, I need an understanding, I'm assuming there's no limit to the number of terminal groins that can, is this on the coast? Is that unlimited now? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Raven. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, senator. There is a limit because there are only 14 inlets. And so if every ?? in the state decided they would like a terminal groin, which is a structure on one side of an inlet. Then there would be none but 14. Which is, in other words, everyone who has an inlet, or that is affected by an inlet, could in theory anyway have a groin if the so wish. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, follow up. This question is for the sponsor and/or the staff. So now, with all the repeals it's hard for me to wrap my head around what is now required for the other 11 inlets I guess. To get terminal groins, what would they have to do? And who can do it? Will somebody refresh my recollection on that and walk us through who can initiate or have a terminal groin, and then what do they have to do to have it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you like me to answer that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please, if you would like to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Bryant, the municipality or the counties in which these inlets exist would be those that would be applying and they would apply through the department for those groins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Following what requirements would they now have to meet? Since so many of the requirements have been repealed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll let staff cover that. The requirements still there are quite stringent. We've changed some of the rules as far as the, how they can be paid for. We've added things that put a little more teeth in it as to who will remove these if they're not functioning properly. Or if damaging is, if damage is approved. Just how we go about that. The staff would chime in on that. Mr. Hudson? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mister Chairman. Senator the current requirements are set out beginning near the top of page 3 of the ?? committee substitute. In sub-section E there. And you can see from the red line, the deletions, the strike-throughs, and the underlining, these are things that are either being taken out or added. So, E is basically what the applicant and as Senator Raven mentioned, this is typically going to be the local governments in the area of the inlet. This is the information they have to supply in their application. The first thing there that is being changed right now under current law, the applicant has to demonstrate that infrastructure would be immanently threatened by erosion and other approaches, other non-structural erosion control approaches are impracticable. That requirement is being removed so that they just have to demonstrate that structures are threatened by erosion. The sub-division 2 there is being changed. There's an environmental impact statement requirement under another statute that could be triggered by another terminal groin application. This basically says that if you have to do an environmental impact statement under federal law, that will suffice for the environmental impact statement here. Down in sub-division 5, this is the inlet management plan as one of the requirements for the applicant. They have to have a plan for managing the inlets. Construction, monitoring, and maintenance, throughout its life. And this basically says that the mitigation measures have to be reasonable and don't have to address speculative matters. Subdivision 6 is again another requirement, a proof of financial assurance. Right now, the financial assurance has to provide for the long term maintenance and ?? measures as provided in the inlet management plan. Modification or removal of the groin as provided

The plant and restoration college come by than public Trust Property of the boy has adversely impacts on several of those parts from portions of the financial assurance provisions are being removed so that if this the CS now becomes law only become the block a sure removal of the turmoil boy would need to be covered by the financial assurance that the father of page four, this is some subdivisions are subsection S Allies beyond the backers of the coastal resources commission has to consider and whether 92, issue a permit for terminal and I'm consistent with what I just read from the application that subdivision two is the norm is single and no longer have to two of demonstrate that the structures originally threatened on that and other matters other structures would take care of the bomb in determining whether not the issue the permit because she also has to come consider the benefits of the C adversely impacts from N mission would no longer have to consider whether they can let major plans aquifer of monitoring the impacts of the turnover one of many C7 division are some sections GMH are being removed G is the limitation on the number from Owens right now the current law only four firm is what may be issued as they were moved, and then subsection H would disallow income surtax of local government financing is typically found in nonvoting bonds of the city's remove said that would be an option for local governments to pursue some especially what the current on requirements are enlisting change to the message N 30 and nine AUIID is suffering to spank me for years we shot off the grounds that we find me to get past that there were so many restrictions L plan on learn over this explanation section to section no longer have to no longer have 2:00 AM (SPEAKER CHANGES) very concerned ever be the photos I am thankful that you have left in the same EL MEM testimony last 5:00 AM at 5:00 AM (SPEAKER CHANGES) and two older may suffer greatly MM very concerned that this is happening I just think it's out of the trailer containing the most agree two F burns for allowing someone very disappointed with the scale that salad thank you for bringing the spokesman said early indications of stepping regulation that it would protect a patrician are a good looks and the system goes for which there by-one FAS um people to the public that would like to speak Elizondo phenomenal was very much a public issue late in his memory was an issue with a four cell that this site will generate an attack in a comment from Elliott’s but soon the leader of first I had my wishes they just need to do with them off the public, which say the fishermen in the past assist in some on two controversial and there's a lobbyist and an assist from the issue of home to call for this Internet thing working with an octave from negative impacts on other people out yet, just been tested with public excitement , from Elliott’s that he was Chairman Martin Schram and represent the North Carolina coastal federation and the sooner coach consideration as a home ground combat that the CIA public education for a new organization that was founded off and on the coast and a 1982 as crime two on more than 10,000 members statewide, are we have most are members actually an urban areas and one of the week selling and amount from the that the shuttle a risk also condemned coast league tour daily dose of the that the offer that talks in a cigarette and as we were there a wall during the conversation around this: 2001 1000 more are a number of coastal scientists, without going to have nothing to mistaken the matter except for their research and consistently, expressed a strong reservations about the use of turmoil groins four under Russian control of them are many Christians and including north Carolina’s, we were opposed to the com listing of them uncomfortable groins, but also fell ??...............

Bill included two got to the law for December brown and others to their credit includes some very significant reductions for local governments for local taxpayers from 7 to 9 for the resource mom and pop of the compromise that was worked out on short notice on maintaining the com the prohibition altogether was a really responsible bill, and it's unfortunate, from coastal federation's perspective of thing from the scientific perspective and I think frankly related to the bomb, Techsters prospectus only one member of the fatale of the mission was also core post to move to the prohibition 15 German police from taxpayers perspective this bill raises many questions and many concerns on for not just on the conservation slide but are also one of the economic and tax implications of certicom really expensive, unstructured former POWs spoke on behalf of the coastal federation bottom of the coalition of folks who were close to this building 2001 and we would really accomplish the committee to take unfair aid their router four law (SPEAKER CHANGES) not just of the environmental impacts of this bill by the impact on local taxpayers, are bad and the long-term impact on cuts take a rematch they considered to have a move for that report generated 5H2 clutch be well for millions and how we really grief and I prefer nearly three SF and 79 the law center in the loss in modest L clears again with Mister A.(SPEAKER CHANGES) Stewart is a shame that there are kids are just joining us every night to CME and Ellis describe glass and ceramic filing program nothing intense project English class lists you look at the installation of central point in returning CIA impacted neighboring BGC much they cost CF that Michael use them as needed and I just want to surprise that we read your hand and accommodating before we can TS 2 C how the structures in Congress C and its taxpayers are encouraged and returned to the CL a YAG saturated the database General Augusto both of those so very briefly if I might have purchased this concern are about the expansion this will we'll talk about the four bill frist N2 will increase funding for dredging of these, which would, hopefully save some of the good from anyone really tech firm along on taxpayers of North Carolina rather than increase in the long haul up to the second lay-up on that, to program is underway and this will work only employee got off the ground and so we're moving four and that's going to commercial for favorable report and a move to four and takes quite a bit under those employees are and when you're wrong in this killing all we're fully alert and washing away , you'll have a look at no more on this committee would be proud that backdrop for running down the street and the fact the city would buy a constantly decrying five say the house and washing away make absolutely no sense today no housing that will, (SPEAKER CHANGES) of how those wash away a seething again, put it back, the five apartments in the ms is any other things, to help people in the front end of the people in the people in the thanking the center said revenues on table to racial favorable 24) essentially all those tables say out 95557 baking taken care of them makes a move two of senate bill 7-8 and Saturday was outside of the smoke from that of a question about or spoken intermediate care of the than five prepare for and PCs that the fed ex-adoption the PCs to put the fuselage and they will stay out there should take us Chairman Ali and that the artifact could have gone away as standard PCs Systems, and you are going to put this full of good PCs that PCs is next couple of minor technical changes from the first edition five changes that the second of the war ??.....

…to B2 on line 18 of page two and on page three around line 22 it simply said, “That a community college board of trustees is prohibited from adopting a policy that is more restrictive.” It’s been corrected to say “more restrictive than state law.” Thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Members of the committee, the bill essentially is what the title is. Basically what we’ve got is a situation around the state where a number of localities and other institutions are trying to take this legal product and say you can’t consume it outdoors. I just personally find that objectionable. I think if you’re walking down the sidewalk you ought to be able to consume a tobacco product. I think if you’re in a park, outdoors, I think you ought to be able to consume a tobacco product if that’s what you choose to do. I certainly think if you’re on a windy beach in southeastern North Carolina you ought to be able to consume a tobacco product. Now I can understand municipalities wanting to have a high fine for littering, I think that’s reasonable. But I just find it ridiculous that we can’t be outdoors and have somewhere for people who choose to smoke to smoke. And so I’ll be happy to answer any questions. One other point if I could. I think it’s important for the consuming public to have some sense of uniformity. You know if you come from out of town and you go out to the beach and you’re a smoker you might not realize that some city has it illegal and they’re going to turn you into a criminal because you smoke outside on a breezy beach. I just think it’s ridiculous. I think we ought to have some uniformity and I hope you’ll support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill and maybe to ask a question. One of my main concerns when I think about this in outside sources is now a lot of our towns, I know in my area, have outdoor family events. We have an outdoor film series, outdoor music entertainment, a lot of families come, children, babies. And I’m concerned that even if you’re outside with 500, 1,000 people outside and people smoking anywhere throughout that area, and it appears to me from this they can’t designate a smoking area or anything, they can’t make any restrictions, so it’s going to really be inhibiting and dangerous for our families and children. It is uncontroverted that second-hand smoke exposure to anyone, but particularly to children stunts their educational processes. We have so many children now with asthma and other kinds of conditions that you can’t even bring your family to an outdoor event that’s sponsored by the city or town and feel safe for your children. That’s just a major concern. I know our community colleges in my area have contacted me. They’re concerned about the success they’ve had with the no-smoking policies they’ve implemented with the support of their local boards, the protection it provides for students, employees, et cetera, on the campus. Plenty of other opportunities for people to smoke before they get there and when they leave with no complaints. I just have concern. But I’d ask the sponsor has he had any thought about or input on the impact of this in these public spaces outdoors particularly where children and families would be involved? Is he open to any compromises in that regard? That kind of thing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Bryant, I may be wrong and if I am wrong I hope staff will correct me, I don’t believe that the state law, and that’s what this bill does is make it all uniform, I don’t believe the state law would prevent there being set aside a designated smoking area. I might be wrong about that but I don’t believe the state law requires that. If it does, I’ll say this. If you’re talking about an outdoor public event, like an outdoor band or something like that, a concert series in a Downtown Live kind of thing, I personally think we have to smell diesel exhaust and I think people can move their children to another spot if this is really a problem. I get it when you’re in a sports stadium and you’ve paid $200 or something to see the Panthers play and the guy next to you has got a big fat cigar or keeps smoking cigarettes. I kind of get that. But if you’re at a free public event where you’re free to move around…

Aileen - suits, because I just had a string that your ability to consign on the tobacco product if you're over ATM and so 45 allegation and criminal flick for doing it wrong, and a modem to discussion of compromise is all about the let's not the course we think the people who go to community colleges I think there'll be a place where they can legally smoke a cigarette outside the classroom away from everybody , I still see what the big guy with any of the half dollars to collect anything that was not going back this is not only from everybody is endemic it was away from it and(SPEAKER CHANGES) I need some fifth at the Akita Supply giving outside designated area on the premises by the fact that they can even make it a day by day the staff can confirm that populace can be regulated beyond recognition from this to abide by the understanding is that home state of the grounds there's not a restriction on smoking column and this would bring local governing grounds and community college campuses in compliance with state Gov't grounds on to my understanding is that there's not a restriction there for good things for the issue has questions for, for Stanford the idea studies of the scientific evidence that's sad schmoke has custody and two in the military money from the department that could address that unload the city's law and Sarah Lawrence their 40 lifts a look of a nature that usage and have unfettered by received a letter from a community colleges say they do like this deal because they like being able to regulate prompts the DL said (SPEAKER CHANGES) to have some ability to use on me my question is -not sure whether state law is so if they have noticed the same now if you can't smoke outside of the worship of all these people congregating right from the door smoking cigarettes and setter, and now they have a policy that they came from working in that they like a list that with a simple piece gift of this rule exchange that said if they can't regulate people congregating in 15 trips and clicking cigarette unable to happen if it passes the test, two are not proficient in question and then and this is for mysterious wearer column beyond the attention to try to work and conversely, Salem a main concern is visit the commute college not saying you can't smoke anywhere out the worst owner keeps data were 257 on the bottom of the 32 college, said,(SPEAKER CHANGES) but still did not pick up folks would assert for good class that is something the community college should be looking for them at a hitter: L. Cardin of the war where people it almost smell it might have to weave their way through one to smokers and that the windows area four were at the pump into triumph of simple, compromise put one really try to dress is the blanket name and the turning into approval before using a legal product that of PM at a worse really should the assumption that the data from a podium and allocates a bad thing I think we've come a long way in the state and relatively short period of me when I was again a school and become an old filly had a smoking section of the school that we will have a source link small killing ½ as good, but you have a still think it's a legal product and we shouldn't make it so impossible for people who choose to consume that they're adults to be only do so and an understudy won't work for money on Friday to Corvallis text of this witness chair (SPEAKER CHANGES) should I do see if this bill passed be at the concept of the campus three smoke you could have you can have a campus for each other across the creek and critics were shown that the jury that that would be when I would object to the finger on behalf of the smoking area available just good stead cell division to get there?? from off campus ago for Ron between classes Becerra, not yet tried to shield the people who know was stolen from having it be overly intrusive boat ??.....

From ?? semifinalists in the truck and smoke and the party line I just got a letter stating why that is saw such a big deal felt that if this is so much additionally I have no release complaining about the current wall in the savory happy with that and some innocence you're taking away rights from the local areas in local schools to determine policy means they're happy with full with the way it is in line for hopeless that one of a strange and yesterday, as the smokers unhappy with the coming sooner and all other state in LME Care can leave what I'm really not released a study to me was that if they make you can (SPEAKER CHANGES) assimilate the beach and smoked cigarettes and an end to download me people of-use in the news and you're in the state with Leslie H is implementing the accord is today and I just had this look at all and my attention and are realizing that was the one owned a lot of different places; strong that we have some uniformity like a seven people were visiting the idea that the college campus model their situation and because this example used if for no good if you're visiting the jail more work for, jail and a good PDT on this surely as soon they're gonna be breaking goal is to start a share on Beecher Walden someone your signal for each bottle think you should assume the man down as one of which converts full of the list in a landslide price-chip from bill emission and that the mission, modular maybe should distinguish between palm beaches and community college campuses have said that 1,000,000-dollar complex set of the happy too often too, were(SPEAKER CHANGES) home store cosmos amendment: all news from 51 else tried to have come forward and what to say the uniform policy it was solved the mystery much easier two to get hold of divisive money around the idea of just saying your words can be more restrictive than what the state law is one of which would and would we have a state?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) and that's that it clearly is 12 people estate and will legislature this point and on-the number of things are as follows to play storm and that the mambo open the two are trying to create some accommodation for the whole community colleges about this I will say for the commission of 10) said I would not be a potential blanket ban on community college of the oven two in the hand you a smoking area since the fourth inning critic of Muslim men said four of the vagueness chairman, senator idea of the Kingdome is 9:49, Scott said it is a novel approach anybody wanted to consumers tobacco policy that would kill himself would have liked to do that by shrub with the fact that few people to stop and concept because the problem worse than that of HM in which each Al play the same day, when full set of clubs believe that they could have played with the best text box four concerned about the product is itching to control the letter with this project is listless misunderstanding is opened and then you will eat up and talked almost too calm the commissary littering and the toxicity producer of tobacco products that will be to some of these limitations Mr. the public can't leave the plane,(SPEAKER CHANGES) the question from elks stemming from Ventura opera should come as star four from the justices said the board insisted that produced by the Ira or not designed for delivering they can do that effectively deliver more tests and liberals national interest at all to the top issues, like sincere abortion from older folks on wall Peter M truck up somehow not oppose two restrictions that would go out of control the littering the senate should watch, well, with a healthy sign for that'll have a problem with that been prevented from that this thing could then go home to effective if this letter was sent to smoke a cigarette is collecting their ballots are a few of the seven bell building at the source of the life and your paycheck and when to quit lows mostly in one direction and HM invasion of self and if it were smoking in two events rather single family palm units could sell or move a few CD of the strain of fat release issued along that this money: seven operations, so the Malik ??...........

…that, I just think we ought to draw the line somewhere. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bingham [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Newton and I actually introduced something prior to your bill and Senator Jackson’s aware of this at ?? community colleges. I had a change of heart on that and the reason being the community colleges, I got a lot of push back on this issue because of the board, the students. They’ve taken a lot of time and effort in making a decision on whether to make this a smoke-free campus and in fact they did and Davidson… and it’s worked very well. Also even went to the trouble of talking to some students that smoked and they didn’t find it as a great inconvenience. That would be the reason for me to…your other arguments are very strong but I do certainly couldn’t agree with you on the community college campus aspect of this. I just wanted you to know that upfront. So anyway, thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rabin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I share many of the concerns expressed by Senator Ford and Senator ??. I’m getting a lot of push back. I think the best thing to do would be to move toward some sort of accommodation for designated areas in some of the places, like the schools. I don’t like to home in on just the schools. The beaches same thing. It’s not so much a case anymore of everybody knowing the health risk and choosing to die, it’s that the self-discipline to police yourself. Nobody knows how it feels to strip a cigarette anymore. It’s an old army term where you had to rip them down, ball them up and throw them away so there was no litter. I think there’s room in here to negotiate a little bit and get into a place where you don’t have just open carte blanche because it’s almost an unaffordable thing in some places to keep cleaning up after people who won’t clean up after themselves anyhow. I think we have to consider that part of it and I would work with you on trying to figure out some words for it. I have no problem with prohibitions or letting people do what they want. It’s simply a case of what’s practical and what opens the door to things that are way out of bounds for what we want to happen any place that we go, crunching through cigarettes or Canadian geese or whatever. Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill will have a serial referral to state and local government so it’s not the only stop before we get to the floor. So we can take another look at it when you’re looking at the types of things that you’re working on. Senator Newton, I have just one question. If these people do declare to go smoke-free, is there any way that we can remove any type of excise tax for tobacco taxes that go to those areas that want to be smoke-free? Or you want to work on that amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I certainly would be interested in working on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m not sure yet how that can be done but I think that would be reasonable. That could be a good logic instead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’re going to vote on this bill today but we’ll have to come back and take up the rest of the bill some other time. They’ve got to use this room and our staff. They’ve got somewhere else to go to so they’re tired of us already but Senator Jackson moves for a favorable report on senate bill 703. All those in favor will say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. We’re adjourned.