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 | August 26, 2014 | Committee Room | Enviroment

Full MP3 Audio File

…meeting to order. Let’s hold the racket down. We’re coming to order. Let’s hold it down back there. That’s better. First order of business, I‘d like to recognize our Sergeant of Arms today, Marvin Lee, Young Bay, Joe Cook , Martha Ferris. Thank you for being here and getting us set up to go. Today we will introduce the pages. I would like for them to stand up, tell us their name and who their sponsors are. [Speaker Change] ?? [Speaker Change] Thank you. [Speaker Change] ?? [Speaker Change] Thank you for being here. [Speaker Change] ?? [Speaker Change] Thank you for being here. We have another page. [Speaker Change] Back in the back [Speaker Change] Introduce yourself and tell us your sponsor. [Speaker Change] ?? [Speaker Change] Thank you for being here. The first bill we are going to take up today is Senate Bill 372, Senator Davis. We have a PCS for that and Representative Millis moves the PCS to be before us. All in favor say aye. All oppose no. The ayes have it. The bill is properly before us. Senator Davis. [Speaker Change] Thank you Chairman West and members this Senate Bill 372 is a companion bill to a House bill that was passed out of this committee in April. There are just a couple of changes to that. The Senate added section 2-1 which clarifies that the new and formal bid amount applies to contracts awarded to disadvantaged business enterprises. Also the PCS clarifies in section 1 that the notice to county commissioners requirement only applies to solid waste not liquid waste, and I would be glad to entertain any questions you may have. We have representatives from the NCACC here as well to help, and I would like for your favorable report sir. [Speaker Change] Any questions from the Committee? Representative Lucas. [Speaker Change] On the point you just mentioned about liquid waste not being included any longer in the bill, what’s the rationale for that please? [Speaker Change] I’ll defer to the NCACC. Joanne with the Chairman’s [Speaker Change] Joanne if you would like to answer that question. State your name for the record. [Speaker Change] Yes sir. Thank you. Joanna Reese with the County Commissioners’ Association. The goal of our association, the request that came from our membership was just for a notice for bio-solids, sludge, for that notification. And we added a request from another local government, that we clarify that it was only solids and not the liquids. [Speaker Change] Thank you. [Speaker Change] Any other questions from this committee? If not, Representative Hager is recognized for a motion. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Make a motion for a favorable as to the PC, unfavorable to the original. [Speaker Change] You have heard the motion. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it and the bill will be so reported. Thank you Senator Davis. [Speaker Change] Thank you ?? and Chairman West. [Speaker Change] The next bill we’ll take up will be Senate Bill 151 the Coastal Policy Reform Act. Representative Catlin and Representative Millis, I think, are going to explain the bill. And there is a PCS before us. Representative Hager moves the PCS be before us. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it and the bill is properly before us. Would you like for staff to go through the bill first or do you guys want to take it on? [Speaker Change] We’ll take it on. [Speaker Change] Okay, Representative Millis has the floor. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee I believe that Senator Rabon was possibly going to be here, but we will go ahead and roll with this without his presence. But what we are doing to today is submitting a full fledge PCS to address some of the concerns in the original language of Senate Bill 151. In the part that I am mostly referring to is the Part 2 of the bill which is to amend the Terminal Growing Construction Law. I will briefly go over with you what we actually have addressed in the original Senate bill. And that is as you see there on page two of the bill, or if you are looking at your summary, we actually have amended the definition of terminal growing. And the purpose of this is to truly restrict the definition of terminal growing to the types of terminal growing we want to see present here in North Carolina. We are very explicit about there is a lot of differences of opinion about what a terminal growing is and what it’s not. And there’s a lot of misconceptions with that and this amended definition is to alleviate the concern and take away a lot of the misconception about what people view terminal growing is. Also too, to make…

You have any notes about the propsed changes/ As we have also uh.. on page 4 of the bill section 8 we have.. the senate bill 151 previously had this part stricken. We have unstricken this part about the taxpayer protections and we also on line 40 we have brought the cap of terminal groins back down to 4. The intent is that we are gonna have the 2011 legislation was a quiezop? program that was designed to function and the performance of these terminal groins we wannna keep that intent with this revisiion and to continue to move in that direction that way the public and legislators are comfortable with the direction we are headed with terminal groins and uh whatever may need to happen will happen but we wanted to reinstate that cap. I would like to give the floor to the rep catelyn thank you rev thank you mr chairman you all have my handout and there were a lot of confusions and I wanted to be sure those were addressed. And youll see the first picutre it the goin field and most people thought thats what we were doing and that is something I will take ot my death because that is not somethign we want in NC and that is not allowed on this bill. The second is the misconception of the gettys. Gettys do often trap sand and require bypassing but that is not the case here with the terminal goins. The terminal groins is the las tpicture and is designed as permeable and porous but do not extend out and hold sand. They stop erosion onthe beach but they do not stop the sand from being eroded. Its important to understand these differences. I have been on the coast for some time as a geologist and an engineer but for the last 20 years I have been chairman of the porch waterways and the NOrth Carolina water resource congress and what has happened over the years is we have had federal money to be able to do maintanence and beach renourishment and we used to match that federal money with state moeny but since federal money stopped the state money stopped. So the cost is on the backs of the local citizens and we need these tools in place. The pilot program is a great place to test these tools. I think all these protections are in place and the permit requirements are in place and I urge your support and will answer any quesitons. Have you considered in a new term to mention this to the public and they go what? So maybe just rethinking the term and coming up with something good. I do want to make a comment to first thank you bills ponsors for cleaning up this bill. I just want to make a comment to which you dont need to respond. THere is a lot of commentary from some how awful it is the federal budget is so large. I think its important to recognize what the rev just said. The federal gov thas cut back, so the burden shifts to state and local govt. This needs to be seen on the record because its easy to talk about how awful the fed govt is, but we see the fed govt does a lot of good things for us. I am not asking you to comment or to agree or disagree I think its just important to recognize. Rep ?? Thank you mr speaker I think its important to recognize the bill sponsors.

Representative: …fought this fight for several years and I think it is a great step forward, and it makes it impossible to maybe possible. So, thank you very much. Speaker: Representative Harrison? Representative: Thank you Mr. Chair. A series of questions, if I may. I will echo my compliments to you too for fixing a very troubling senate bill. It seems like we are weakening any protections we put into place. NC is one of the two states in the country that did not allow [xx] until last summer. It is well that we were able to work out a compromise that allows for protections for the taxpayer and for the natural resources that are at stake with the construction of these terminal [xx]. It appears to me that we are expanding the definition now of terminal groin so that it could include groin fields, because it looks like it could be a number of structures. Am I interpreting that accurately? Speaker: No, it has to be at the terminus of the aisle. By the way, if I could change the name of ‘terminal groin,’ I would, but that is a technical engineer name. it does not allow groin fields at all. Representative: Thank you, I appreciate that. It sounds like it is one of structure but I could be… I appreciate… we have been back and forth, Representative Kaplan and I on this, because it sounds like that each stops the sand and keeps it from downward transport; sea wall drops the sand – it seems like this is a hybrid of the two, because ‘terminal groin’ does not create damage on either side, either by trapping sand or by causing property erosion. Representative: What happens is that there is erosion of the beach at the end. It erodes at an angle, up the beach. What you get is beach erosion all the way down. The terminal groin restores the original coastline and then it is prefilled before. So it is literally filled with beach sand and all the sand movement goes around the end of it. so it does not trap anything or stop any sand movement. Representative: I would like to add too Senator, that the terminal groin does not jut out past the beach shore line. Again, the definition is very explicit about that, i.e. that there cannot be a jette. Again, what we are doing is anchoring the end of the aisle, and anchoring the inlet, providing us with some certainty as to the end of migration. What this does is, as Representative Caplan has alluded to, is that it allows the good sand to bypass and the sand that needs to be there to anchor the inlet as well as to prevent the inlet from migrating, is actually held in place. Again, it is something that is not blatant to the eye. We are not talking about a parallel structure of a hardened structure, like the Jersey Shore. We are not talking about a jette, that goes miles beyond the inlet. We are talking about something that is contained in the aisle, actually, at the end of the aisle, in the inlet. This definition is very explicit. It does not broaden the term or definition, but restricts it to make sure that we have the delivery of a terminal here in this state, that we want, and not those other terminal groins that have a kind of marred reputation as to what these can be. So, hopefully that answers some more of your questions and, hopefully, Representative Caplan’s handout provides some more insight there. Representative: Two more? Two items, I believe Caplan mentioned to me, is one on a financial insurance piece. I think that there are many that felt like the protections that were in place in last year’s jette – I mean terminal groin bill, had protected the tax payers from exposure. I know that those financial insurance changes are made in this bill. Could you just… no? Representative: I will ask you to flip to, within the bill, page 4, line 42, that is the taxpayer protections you are speaking about. They are not stricken from this bill. They are actually in place. So those three provisions, the financing mechanisms, to bond its cover, these terminal groins for monitoring, maintenance and for mitigation measures, are still held in place. Those three provisions are not removed. Representative: Last question. I really appreciate that you

I thank you for pointing that out there. The last result was on this, the sort of mitigation maintenance piece. Could you just be a little bit more specific about how it's changed in the bill there? Thanks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, exactly. If you go and stay on the same page 4 and you go up to line 1, this is the aspects of the financial assurance. So this is what the financial assurances must cover. These items here, in terms of the maintenance, the monitoring, as well as the mitigation measures and the removal of the terminal groin, those are all going to be provided as a part of those financial assurance persistent to the inlet management plan. If you back up a few pages, the inlet management plan outlines what is required to permit and to receive permit for these terminal groins. So basically we're constraining the design of the engineering within the purview of the inlet management plan and therefore, we're actually making sure that financial assurances are in place so the inlet management plan is actually able to be executed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate that and thanks for pointing out that page, because I see a new line in here that says the inlet management plan is not required to address sea level rise. Is that new language? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That was new language that was entered into the original Senate Bill 151 and ours kept that same language. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Harrison asked my question about who's responsible for maintaining them, so that's good. I appreciate that answer. My second question was who owns, if it's occurring at the end of the island, does the State own the sand that's within the terminal groin? I mean, is it private property? Is it public property? Is that even a reasonable question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It depends on where you are. I mean, if you're on a private island, then yeah, it's not State owned. But if it's... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can I give a follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Maybe I should give an example of what I'm thinking. The north end of Topsail Island, which has had a lot, a lot of problems with that inlet shifting. If this were to take place in that location, how would that affect ownership? Would the State be responsible and own that property or would it be private? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton, my understanding if the local government pursues putting the terminal groin in that location you're speaking about, if the local government pursues putting a terminal groin in the location you're speaking about, it would be under the purview of the local government and all the responsibilities, the permitting, the bonding, everything would be under their purview. And of course, if it's any relationship to public property, that all those aspects, legal as well as easements, would be attained and handled that way. But just to let you know that of the four that are currently out there to be permitted, north Topsail inlet, or north Topsail Beach, by my knowledge is not one of those four. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Last follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may, Mr. Chairman. There's a statement of credited, accreted sand belongs to adjacent property owner. Is that in the bill? Just a policy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You might have to ask Representative Harrison. I don't know what you're referring to. Especially, I don't remember reading anything that, about bill. That may be a really a deep coastal law issue. And again, that's definitely above my head and above my pay grade. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill does not speak to that. It doesn't say anything about accretion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I could make one point just so we're keeping perspective here. What we're doing is we're actually refining and defining further the 2011 legislation to allow these four that you all allowed here in 2011 to be able to be permitted, to be able to be designed and to be able to be bonded. And that's the perspective here. I think that this is a polishing effect on what was in 2011. It's no ways lowers the bar, but really further defines it to make sure that we are achieving those good groins and good taxpayer protections along in the same manner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me a second time. I want to follow up what Representative raised, and that is that it seems like, and I guess this is really a question, but it appears that on page 3 some of the, it seems to be kind of a watering down of the responsibilities to ensure environmental protection. And I mean as an example of that, and I don't know if this is a sentence that you added or whether this came over from the Senate, but at lines 38 through 40 it says the inlet...

Managing plan monitoring medication requirements must be reasonable and not impose requirements. Now that was not etcetera. Now that wasn’t in last years bill or last session’s bill. Why is that in there? Has there been some evidence that people are being unreasonable in terms of what their doing? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke thank you for that question. It is my understanding that this language actually came over in the original Senate bill. And what was actually the purpose for that, by my meetings with the department, was the aspect of trying to put a fence around what we’re actually trying to do within in the purview of the inlet management plan and what actual the impacts could or could not be per the ??. You can think about this as the butterfly effect. If it shutters its wings, does it cause a tree to fall? Or whatever analogy you want. And that is, we really have to define is that, what is the effect of the tremble groin and if something did happen downgradient or upgradiate, was that because of the tremble growing or not? What were trying to do is, we’re trying to have engineering and science really make these decisions about this and really put that fence around it and this is what that language is intended to do. And this language has been, as for bother department in order to allow them to do their role in a way that is achievable versus an open ended discussion that could leave their rear end exposed tremendously if one of these ever goes installed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question for staff on page 4, line 38, number 3. What are those financing contracts? Staffs recognize. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry could you give me the page and line number? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Page 4, line 48, paren 3. It’s talking about financing contracts and are they eligible. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What are those? [SPEAKER CHANGES] My understanding and working with the finance committee staff last session on this particular provision are the three types of financing that are listed here are all the types of non voted debt that are available to local governments. So I don’t really know anything about the specifics of these different types of financing mechanisms but my understanding the three that are listed here are the only types that are available under current law for local governments to use. And this say’s a local government can’t use non voted dept for ?? but I’m sorry I can’t really speak to any specifics of the three types of mechanisms. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis, do you know what those financing ?? are? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m actually trying to pull the email now. I actually asked the same questions from a fiscal staff cause I had no idea what all three of those were. So in response to that and I will try to read off this little phone here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I know what the first two are but just… That other one is a reference to GS number and I can find it out. I just thought somebody might have it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s right. From my understanding here, these financing contracts, it’s not something, from my understanding. I’ll give you this email too from the staff here. From my understanding is that, this has to do with local governments being able to have the ability to finance this against the property. It says the property is public in terms of these inlets and these beaches most of the time then really, that can’t be entered in by a local government. So that’s the reason why its no…from my understanding there’s nothing lost by basically saying this can be forbidden because it probably won’t be utilized anyway in the first place. I’d be happy to pass this to you. It’s a very lengthy response and I didn’t want to bore the committee but if you want me to read it I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I’m used to being bored in the finance committee so I’ll get an answer. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I wanted to just follow up a little bit on some questions that have already been asked. If you look at page 4, line 19 and then page 3, section 1 also starting on page 19. The eminently threatened that other structures are impractical. That language has been taken out. I only commented on that before but if you can explain that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that question. What we’re really doing is we’re really trying to define the language with something that is actually practical and achievable for what these ?? will be used for. The aspect of intimately threatened as well as the non-structural approaches. It’s one of those things that’s about.

...prevention versus reaction. And to actually say "Well this is intimately threatened" is that how long do you have to wait before it's intimately threatened? And since these growings have to go through an environmental permeating process that takes six years, that's some notion, is one of these things where, if we want to use these as a tool of prevention from a benefit cost savings aspect, in a way that is environmentally sound, in this language, if it's not [??] it really removes that from being a tool it's a reactionary measure instead of a pro-action measure. So I hope that explains that. It's really just refining the language to be a little better. That's just a policy aspect. It's not watering down or lowering the bar, but really just polishing it to something that can be achievable and practical at the same time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hold it just a second, we've got a couple more questions to be asked. We're going to vote on this bill at 10:30 so you might want to make your comments short. The nonstructural approaches, we've been doing that for a long time, I support those but we've lost the funding for it. Representative Harrison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Quick question. Thank you, Mister Chair. And thanks again to you too. I think you both as coastal engineers. North Carolina is the third most vulnerable state sea level rise. We had the USDS study that came out last year that showed us that and our sea level rise hot spot. Does it make any sense to take out the requirement that you factor in sea level rise? Are you all, as engineers, is that good practice to be factoring in sea level rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm comfortable with it. I've been evaluating the sea level issue for a long time and I approach it based on historic trends and not the hundred year projection. And historic trends indicate that it's a manageable issue. It's moving very slowly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starns is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chair. As a Committee member I've been very excited to see that we have environmental and a civil engineer and hopefully we can fix these [??] issues so I won't be back dealing with this next year. And the [??appropertirement], I'd like to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's appropered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chair. I'd like to make a motion for a favorable report to Senate Bill 151, proposed committee substitute, unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've heard the motion. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The aye's have it. The bill will be so recorded. Thank you, gentlemen. Next bill we'll hear, gonna be Senate Bill 341. Senator Rabon, can you do that one quick? We have a PCS for this, Representative Starnes moves it be before us. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The aye's have it. The bill is properly before us. Senator Rabon, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman. I would love to see the PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'd like to see it also. Good job. Everybody have copies? We're ready any time you are, Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen.. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Override, sit down. Go ahead, Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. As you've probably seen in your bill summary, the thinking behind this bill is threefold. The portion that I'll bring before you first will be the coastal portion, and I'll give you a little history if you don't mind. People on the coast get their water a little differently than people in other parts of the state. Historically, North Carolina in the old days when we were first settled, the people on the coast settled near the rivers because we used the rivers for commerce, of course. And we took our water from the rivers and of course from the groundwater very close by, from shallow wells or dug wells. As we migrated inland, people settled along ridge lines and then headwaters of rivers. So they had a little different method of getting their water. People upstream get their water from reservoirs and from aquifers. When you get to our neck of the woods down, because we get surface water only. So we take our water from certain rivers. Regardless of where we put it back, it goes to the ocean. When the tide changes, it comes in and out where we live. So we don't have the same problems, if you will... [SPEAKER CHANGES]

[Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] ...water that we use and where it's going to go, it's all going home to the Atlantic Ocean and going there pretty quickly. What we're attempting to do on the coast, is just make the...we're not making the rules any less stringent but we're trying to expedite the process by which we take ...get our ability to take water say from the Cape Fear River and put it back into the ?????? River Basin rather than going back to the Cape Fear River Basin because there's no one downstream. We're not stealing anyone's water, if you will. We're using our own water and our water is going offshore quickly. That's a synopsis of just what we're trying to do on the coast...and we're trying to amend this law, if you will. This can be done in a quick fashion. Currently it takes three to five years and three to five million dollars to permit this process. This bill would allow us about half a million dollars worth of money and about six to eight months to get this process done. It is a...it doesn't lighten the restraints or constraints in any way, it just gets rid of a little paper work and speeds up the process and that's what we're trying to do. And, as we meet today, ??????? County is trying to finish up a process that they've been in for over five years. [Speaker changes.] Representative Hager is recognized. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chairman...there's very rarely a time that my seatmate to my right and I agree on issues such as this, and I know he's got an amendment but I would like to...love to make a motion on behalf of Representative McGrady at the proper time. [Speaker changes.] If you'll hold that, we'll recognize you at the proper time. Representative McGrady is recognized to send forward an amendment. [Speaker changes.] This is an amendment to...to get the line...it's on page 2, line 46, simply changing the five million gallon number to three million gallons. I've spoken to the department. The effort that they're trying to address is fully addressed with this number. I just don't want it...this thing to grow into something bigger and I think it's a friendly amendment. The department is fine with it and would urge your support. [Speaker changes.] Senator Rabin/Rabon????? is recognized to comment on the amendment. [Speaker changes.] Thank you. That amendment would have little or absolutely no effect on us, where I live. I would ask Senator Barringer if she would like to comment on that or the department if they would like to comment. It is my understanding that the reason this was changed originally is that the two million gallons per day is not monitored on a daily basis but monitored on a monthly basis, and just so people would not be out of compliance, the department thought we should raise that and they wouldn't be issuing non-compliant orders because people had slightly exceeded the two million gallons a day. Senator Barringer, if I... [Speaker changes.] Senator, you're recognized. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chair. This is very important to the municipalities that have already gone through the IBT process. It took ?????? thirteen years and about thirteen million dollars to get to where they could have an IBT and what this does is allow modifications to go in a much more expedited manner but in a way that will not adversely effect the environment. ??????, I understand, is fine with this amendment and so, we do see it as friendly. Thank you. [Speaker changes.] Representative Iler, were you wantin' to talk on the amendment or the bill? [Speaker changes.] On the bill. [Speaker changes.] Representative Millis, were you wantin' to talk on the amendment or the bill? [Speaker changes.] I just have a quick question regarding this amendment...and not to take up time. I just wanna make sure...I know the big picture of this is really to get the intent that the Senators have expressed but I just wanna make sure this amendment is not gonna' have unintended consequences and that is that...like for the department wants to weigh in on this and maybe we can take care of it before it goes to the floor but, Representative McGrady, my understanding is that the ?????? has a ???????? factor of two and a half so the reason why they took this average flow into have a max a day flow of five million is that, if you do the math, the two and half times two is five...and that was the reason why they came up with that and is that, over a month monitoring period, you're still gonna have two million gallons but in a single day, you may have five. I just wanna make sure that even tho...the main intent is to get this bill forward...is that we don't ???????? the department and have a statute that is unachievable for them to be able to fully do their job and I was just...it's a friendly question... [Speaker changes.] Secretary Gillespie, would you like to comment on that?

Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm Tom Reiter with the Division of Water Resources. What Representative Millis said is exactly correct, however, the three million gallons a day won't actually impact the overall intent of the Bill, so we're fine with three million gallons a day. The idea is just to add some additional flexibility for municipalities that are trying to stay under the IBT threshold and that still is accomplished with the three million gallons a day. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: You've heard the amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. The aye's have it and the amendment is docked and we're back on the Bill and Representative Iler is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chairman and Senator Mixon of my favorite County, Brunswick, and they've been through quite a whole process, as I describe it and it appears that some of the IBT lines on the map were just that, lines on the map and this isolated river basin idea and the other things on the coast make an awful lot of sense and if somebody didn't already offer to make a motion I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Luebke is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm questioning we've had so many of these Bills first in the 90s about interbasin transfer law and then they just been through the years and Senator you mentioned with respect to Carey that it took 13 years and what do you estimate with this Bill how will it affect the timeline. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: You're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you. My understanding is for modifications not for new IBT but for modifications for the organizations, the municipalities that have already gone through this laborious process that it would be probably no more than a year and we would like to think perhaps six months and about a million dollars worth of investment to prove that it is an appropriate step. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: And maybe you know and maybe the league can be here to comment on it but does the league municipalities support this legislation? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Yes, they do. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE]: Representative Insko is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would just like to put in a good word for being cautious about interbasin transfers. I know that it makes a lot of sense when you have a growing community that needs water to get the water there as fast as possible, but it also makes the assumption that the river basin you're taking it out of won't need it sometime in the future when growth might happen there. That's been a problem before. Thanks. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Catlin. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I urge your support of this Bill. Being from the coast the interbasin transfer rules on the coast just don't make any sense. If New Hanover County wasn't grandfathered in, we would not be able to take water treated from the river and pump it over to the beach. So ?? take sewage from the beach and pump it back over to the treatment plant on the river, so this is a very good solution. I support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Hager is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I move for a favorable on the PCS as amended. I'm favorable to the original and the PCS roll into a new PCS ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: You heard the motion. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. The aye's have it. The Bill will be so reported. The next Bill we have is going to be Senate Bill 205. Representative Brisson will be. Rather PCS Representative Hager moves that it be before us. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. The aye's have it and the Bill is properly before us. Representative Brisson. Just as soon as they hand it out. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chair and Committee. This Senate Bill 205 it came to our Agriculture Committee. It's kind of a simple Bill. It's just changing soil samples from once every year to once every three years, and the NCDA didn't have a problem with it and Gaynor didn't have a problem it. I'd be glad to answer any questions you have. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Dixon. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: For motion at appropriate time, Mr. Chair. It seems to be the appropriate time. Nobody...Mr. Chair I move that we give a favorable report to the PCS, unfavorable to the original Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: You've heard the motion. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. The aye's have it. The Bill will be so recorded. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Brisson. Nothing else before the Committee. We stand adjourned.