►
From YouTube: House Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources Meeting, February 15, 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
We'll
call
this
meeting
to
order-
and
this
is
the
ag
committee
first
meeting
of
the
budget
session
and
I
think
we'll
do
roll
call
first
and
then
we'll
do
the
housekeeping
things.
D
A
Michael
there,
it
goes
here
so
we'll
start
out.
Our
secretary
had
a
few
things
to
say
and
then
then
I
will
to
kind
of
go
over
ground
rules
and
things
refresh
everybody's
memories.
A
B
Our
speak
there.
Now
our
speaker
system
is
working.
As
you
know,
I'm
carol
and
I'm
with
you
again
this
this
year,
there's
coffee,
hot
water
and
snacks
available
in
the
room
over
there
in
your
folder
you'll
find
a
plastic
sleeve
and
it's
got
black
or
blank
absentee
votes
on
one
side
and
then
on
the
other
side.
B
Is
the
committee
protocol
and
procedures
there's
a
salmon
intern
request
form
in
case
we
do
have
interns
this
year
in
case
you're
interested
in
that
there's,
a
small
notebook
to
take
notes
and
the
pencils
and
the
bills
to
be
discussed
for
the
day.
I'll
always
have
extra
pencils.
Pens
paper
clips,
if
you
need
any
of
that,
I
have
a
small
jar
of
cough
drops
and
hard
candy
on
the
counter
in
case.
A
Okay,
thank
you
carol
so
committee.
I'm
I'm
gonna
refresh
our
memories
on
how
the
meeting
is
supposed
to
be
run,
and
I
realize
that
a
lot
of
what
we
do
is
very
unnatural
from
our
our
usual
way
of
doing
business
so,
but
we'll
try
to
stick
with
it.
The
the
people
talking,
including
the
committee,
will
will
go
through
the
chairman
and
the
reason
we
do
that
is
it's
a
more
orderly
meeting
in
it.
A
It's
a
good
way
to
avoid
chaos.
It
can
happen
at
a
public
meeting.
I'll,
have
public
comment
and
there's
a
there's,
an
order
here
and
I'll
try
to
stick
with
that
order.
I've
got
committee
members
can
try
to
help
me
stay
with
that
orders.
A
She
can
we'll
close
public
comment
and
we
I'll
ask
for
a
recommendation
by
the
committee
and
you
can
move
and
second
to
bill,
and
we
work
on
amendments
and
discussion
on
amendments
with
seconds
and
discussion
on
the
bill.
Both
of
those
will
really
go
together.
A
So
you
can,
if
you've
got
bills,
you've
got
to
present
and
you
need
to
need
to
be
absent.
You
already
know
how
you're
going
to
vote
on
the
bill.
You
can
leave
an
absentee
vote,
one
of
the
difficulties
we
run
into.
If,
if
you
leave
and
it's
amended,
your
vote
will
count
as
it
is.
So
if
you
didn't
like
the
amendment,
that's
the
problem
with
not
being
at
the
meeting,
but
I
realize
you've
got
other
bills.
A
You
have
to
testify
on
and
and
so
that's
how
the
absentee
voting
works,
we
don't
it,
it
won't,
be
it'll,
be
voted
on.
However,
it
comes
out
of
committee
if
it's
amended.
A
E
A
I'm
surprised
on
that
and
see
I
thought
it
was
by
the
rules
was
called
by
the
by
the
chairman,
okay.
Well,
I'm
I'm
pretty
sure
this
must
be
correct.
So
if,
if
you
don't
vote,
it's
an
I
vote,
your
present
secretary
will
announce
the
result
of
the
vote
and
motion
to
table.
A
A
Question
the
chairman
is
not
obligated
to
to
halt
discussion.
You'll,
hear
people
hollering
question
a
lot
of
times,
but
we're
not
done
and
more
than
likely.
I
won't
call
for
the
question
if
I
believe
the
committee's
not
done
discussing
things-
and
I
think
that's
a
personal
preference
on
my
part,
but
I
think
it's
a
courtesy
to
representatives
to.
A
We
were
asked
by
the
governor's
office
to
work
on
this
thing
and-
and
it
was
worked
on
last
year
and
at
the
at
the
end
of
the
deal
there
were
concerns
about
about
the
bill
and
it
was
vetoed
even
though,
even
though
we
thought
we
had
it
hammered
out,
we
have
some
tweaks
in
the
bill
that
hopefully
will
make
it
more
palatable
and
and
won't
be
vetoed.
So
my
sherman
clawson
will
we'll
present
the
bill.
You're
ready
on
erin.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Our
old
friend
house
bill
3
state
land
preferences.
This
bill
is
in
regards
to
when
a
chunk
of
state
land
that
state
land
lease
is
abandoned
by
its
current
leasing,
and
there
are
other
landowners
close
that
would
like
to
lease
it
gives
a
press
gives
a
press
prince
to
the
landowners
that
are
close
works
on
the
problem
of
scattered
parcels
that
someone
leases
that
doesn't
have
any
access
to
it.
F
They're
far,
far
far
away,
that
he's
fencing,
if
you
guys
have
heard
this
bill,
I
don't
know
how
many
times
I'll
breeze
through
it.
But
if
there's
questions
let
me
know,
but
I
say
this
is
our
fifth
or
sixth
time
through
this
committee,
but.
F
Page
four:
before
accepting
applications,
the
lease
director
should
provide
notice
section:
a
is
the
definition
of
preference.
F
Like
I
said
that
it's
fairly
simple,
we've
heard
it
a
lot.
If
there's
any
questions
I'll
I'll
go
from
there.
A
G
I
woke
up
about
two
o'clock
this
morning
and
thinking
about
this
bill,
and
my
I
guess
my
biggest
concern
is
if
somebody
leases
in
the
middle
of
a
ranch
already
existing,
that
this
school
section
is
on
and
it's
vacant.
F
F
It
gives
a
preference
to
the
landowners
that
are
adjacent,
so
so
they
can
basically
match
the
bid
to
to
avoid
that
very
scenario
where
someone
has
to
fence
it
out,
but
I
believe
it
was
the
lee
c
that
has
to
fence
it
out,
but
I'm
not
sure
you
may
have
to
ask
agency.
A
H
A
A
Do
we
have
any
more
copies,
so
some
of
the
copies
are,
and
I
should
have
brought
that
up
when
we
started
it?
How
many
of
you
only
have
two
pages
here
yeah
I
saw
that
thing
and
I
thought
where
the
rest
of
yeah.
Okay,
you
have
a
computer.
I've
got
a
computer,
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
share
this
copy
down
there
and
I'll
I'll
pull
this
up
on
the
computer
and
go
through
with
that.
I'd,
rather
probably
rather
have
notes.
A
We
don't
have
any
other
copies.
Do
we
okay,
yeah,
go
ahead
and
use
that
one?
I
should.
I
should
have
checked
that
beforehand,
because
I
I
was
up
in
the
chambers
and
I
grabbed
a
paper
copy
and
it
was
missing
some
of
the
pages
and
I
don't
know
what
happened
with
the
with
the
copying
of
it.
So
it
kind
of
brings
up
the
other
representative,
fortner
and
committee.
A
A
Those
were
two
of
the
issues
that
came
up
who
fences
we
had
a
case
where
a
person
got
the
lease
and
wanted
to
just
turn
his
cattle
loose
on
the
on
the
land,
the
ranch
and
use
the
other
guys
facilities
and
and
water
that
doesn't
work
out
very
well
either
so,
hence
the
bill
was
brought
forward.
One
of
the
questions,
my
first
question
when
I
saw
this
bill
because
I'm
new
to
the
to
the
ag
committee
was
vacant
lands.
A
It
just
doesn't
happen
in
in
my
neck
of
the
woods
as
far
as
state
lands
go,
the
lease
just
continues
on,
and
but
apparently
there
are
some
problems
that
happen
in
the
states
and
and
what
have
you
that's?
What
happened
with
both
of
these?
The
land
was
in
in
in
a
state
and
somebody
hadn't
paid
the
lease
and
it
became
vacant.
A
A
I
think
it
it's
been
in
there
a
long
time,
and
I
think
we
have
done
that
anybody
have
any
history
on
that.
F
Have
to
have
the
agency
on
that
one.
Okay,
part
in
the
old
days,
part
of
the
state
lands
were
reserved
for
like
for
veteran
military
purposes.
Is
that
you
know
very
little
about
it?
I
I'm
not
yeah.
I
don't
know
enough.
A
No,
I
think
I
think
we'll
leave
it
in.
I
I
think
maybe
we
had
some
world
war
ii,
not
sure
what
happened
in
the
case
of
heart
mountain.
Do
you
know
euro
okay,
it
wasn't
state
land,
then
there
maybe
we
need
to
leave
that
alone.
A
A
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
My
name
is
jason
crowder,
I'm
the
deputy
director
for
the
office
of
state
lands
and
investments
with
me
at
holly,
dyer
she's,
the
assistant
director
for
our
trust,
land
management
division.
Director
scoggins
censored
regrets
for
not
being
here
to
address
you
today.
She
is
in
appropriations
discussing
arpa
funding
at
the
moment,
so
you
get
the
b
team
and
I
apologize
for
that.
But
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
board
or
the
committee
has.
I
We
as
representative
claussen
mentioned,
have
worked
this
bill
or
this
idea
for
quite
some
time.
So
we
have
a
lot
of
history
related
to
it,
which
is
brought
up
a
lot
of
questions.
A
lot
of
in
the
weeds
type
questions
we'd
be
happy
to
to
answer
anything
that
you
would
have,
but
to
address
the
issue
that
the
bill
attempts
to
rectify.
First.
Mr
chairman,
I
would
I
want
to
clarify,
just
as
you
did,
that
that
these
are
vacant
lands.
I
I
They
went
vacant
for
a
very
specific
purpose.
They
didn't
just
happen
that
way.
Either
somebody
didn't
pay
the
bill
on
purpose.
They
let
it
go.
They
relinquished
it
back
to
the
board
on
purpose
or
something
happened.
A
piece
of
paper
got
filed
under
another
piece
of
paper
on
somebody's
desk
and
they
missed
the
very
specific
deadlines
that
are
outlined
within
statute
and
it
went
vacant,
so
they
didn't
pay
their
bill
on
time.
I
The
statute
is
very
prescriptive
in
how
leases
are
to
be
managed
on
the
part
of
the
board,
as
well
as
the
part
of
the
lessee,
and
there
is
a
performance
measure
within
those
prescriptions
that,
if
lse
doesn't
perform,
doesn't
pay
their
bills
on
time
doesn't
submit.
An
application
does
not
submit
a
complete
application
within
the
deadlines
mentioned
within
the
statute,
then
the
the
lease
goes
vacant.
So
there
is
a
very
specific
reason.
I
These
have
gone
vacant
and
for
whatever
reason
they
are,
and
mostly
it's
lack
of
payment,
for
whatever
reason
like
I
said
so
that
that
leads
us
down
the
the
road
of
the
conversation
that
if
these
are
vacant
for
a
very
specific
purpose,
are
they
truly
integral
in
somebody
else's
ranch?
Are
they
in
the
middle
of
somebody
else's
ranch?
I
I
I
think,
no
surprise
to
this
committee
that
the
current
statute
is
a
little
bit
hard
to
interpret,
and
the
office
has
done
its
best
over
time
to
try
to
apply
the
preference
where
appropriate,
as
well
as
inert
to
the
greatest
benefit
of
the
beneficiaries,
which
is
also
in
the
statute,
and
that's
the
fiduciary
responsibility
that
the
office
and
the
board
of
land
commissioners
hold
dear,
and
so
that's
how
we
have
historically
interpreted
it
that
we
will
apply
leases
or
review
applicants
for
parcels
of
vacant
land
based
on
their
attributes
to
the
best
benefit
of
the
beneficiaries.
I
And
then,
if
we
need
to,
we
can
reach
in
and
find
a
preference
and
apply
it
appropriately
moving
forward
and
that's
a
historic,
pref,
historic
stance
that
the
office
has
taken.
It's
stood
the
test
of
time.
It's
been
reviewed
by
the
office
of
administrative
hearings
several
times
and
has
been
upheld.
The
board
of
land
commissioners
has
obviously
ratified
those
of
that
interpretation
going
forward
as
well
as
we've
discussed
this
issue.
It
has
taken
some
time
and,
and
the
ultimate
result
last
year
was
unsuccessful,
build
in
senate
file
114.
I
However,
we
do
have
a
backlog
of
vacant
leases
out
there,
quite
a
substantial
backlog.
Actually,
it's
it's
reaching
over
70,
possibly
100,
separate
leases
that
need
to
have
this
process
so
that
we
can
move
forward
and
place
a
lease
on
those
properties
to
have
them
used
appropriately
to
ensure
that
they're
generating
revenue
and
that
we
have
a
good
steward
on
the
land.
I
The
board
of
land
commissioners
initiated
a
rule
making
process
last
year
to
try
to
get
that
backlog
whittled
down
to
give
the
office
some
guidance
on
how
to
use
the
preference
as
it
was,
I
interpreted
within
the
statute
and
really
just
move
forward
with
that
backlog
and
move
forward
with
the
process.
So,
on
august
5th
2021
the
board
approved
an
amendment
to
their
chapter
4
rules
which
are
the
grazing
and
agricultural
leasing
rules.
I
It
was
later
signed
by
the
governor
and
approved
by
management
council
on
september
23
of
2021,
and
they
are
in
place
now
through
that
rule
making
process.
Obviously
we
reached
out
for
public
comment,
really
only
received
one
public
comment
from
the
stock
growers:
association,
all
good
comments
and
things
that
we
considered
as
we
were
riding
the
bill,
and
I
know
they're
in
the
audience
today
and
they
can
provide
comments
to
the
way
the
rules
are
have
been
drafted
and
how
they're
employed
right.
I
Now
we
have
four
parcels
that
went
through
this
process
that
have
just
really
finalized
or
were
finalized
through
the
process.
At
the
board's
february
third
meeting,
I
believe
the
board
ultimately
awarding
leases
in
that
process,
but
the
way
the
the
rules
are
written
is
that
we
offer
a
parcel
of
vacant
land
for
lease
we
advertise
it.
We
accept
bids
through
a
sealed
bid
process.
If
more
than
one
bid
is
received.
We
consider
those
to
be
conflicting
bids.
I
If
we
get
conflicting
bids,
we
immediately
determine
if
one
of
those
parties
is
eligible
for
the
preference
and
the
preference
is
identified
within
the
statute.
365
105b
and
it
has
several
pieces
of
criteria
related
to
what
you
need
to
have
in
order
to
be
eligible
for
the
preference,
and
I
know
that
we're
going
to
discuss
this
in
in
the
amendments
to
the
bill
for
the
amendments
that
are
provided
by
the
bill.
But
basically
you
need
to
be
a
citizen
of
the
state
of
wyoming.
I
You
need
to
have
actual
necessary
use
of
the
land
or
you
need
to
be
eligible
to
transact
business
in
the
state.
You
have
to
offer
at
least
the
fair
market
value
for
the
parcel.
I
Those
things
in
our
mind
and
in
our
interpretation
are
all
part
of
the
preference
criteria,
not
just
that
as
the
bill
indicates
owning
or
controlling
adjoining
land.
So
we
determine
that
from
the
very
beginning.
If
an
entity
does
qualify
for
the
preference
and
they're
not
the
highest
bidder.
In
that
initial
sealed
bid
process,
then
we
allow
for
a
secondary
bidding
process
to
occur
and
that
process
is
determined
by
the
director.
She'll
make
a
determination
based
on
the
specific
attributes
of
the
parcel.
I
How
many
adjoining
landowners
are
there?
Is
there
access
via
county
or
some
other
public
road?
Is
there
a
identified
market
for
that
parcel,
like
several
individuals
have
reached
out
to
us
desiring
to
use
it
to
lease
it
from
us,
or
is
it
something
that's
completely
isolated
within
an
adjoining
landowner's
piece
of
property?
Is
it
completely
isolated
by
the
blm
or
one
individual
based
on
that
bit
of
criteria?
I
We
could
either
go
into
a
live
auction
or
we
could
do
a
secondary,
sealed
bid
or
any
of
the
mixture
of
of
anything,
but
really
whatever
the
the
situation
determines
we'll
enter
into
that
process
and
from
that
we
determine
who
the
best
lessee
might
be
based
on
the
bids
that
have
come
in.
So
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
the
preference
as
the
board
of
land
commissioners
rule
approved
rules
is
is
employed.
Is
that
that
preference
holder
gets
to
participate
again
if
they're
not
the
highest
bidder,
if
they're
the
highest
bidder.
I
Obviously,
then
they
win
that
first
process.
We
don't
go
into
the
second
one,
but
if
they
don't
win,
their
preference
is
to
participate
again
and
that's
how
we
blend
the
preference,
the
individuals
having
all
of
the
criteria
within
365
105b
and
the
requirement
to
inert
to
the
greatest
benefit
of
the
beneficiaries.
I
A
E
Mr
chairman,
thank
you.
So
do
you
have
amendments
that
would
get
the
bill
kind
of
into
what
the
what
they
approve
for
rules?
It's
there.
Oh
yeah,
guys.
That's
the
question:
does
the
bill
match
that.
I
Mr
chairman,
representative
larson,
it
doesn't
directly
match
it
right
now
and
we
can
work
on
amendments
to
to
pull
the
two
together
when
we
went
into
the
rule-making
process.
It
was
back
in
july
august
of
last
year
and
the
draft
bill
as
it's
currently
written
was
not
anything
that
we
could
draw
from.
We
had
to
draw
from
conversations
with
each
individual
board
member
and
the
conversations
we
had
with
with
all
the
legislators
and
the
committees
through
the
senate
file.
114
process
tried
to
pull
all
that
together.
I
I
I
believe
that
allowed
the
board
to
have
some
discretion
that
if
a
preference
was
deemed
necessary
by
the
board,
then
it
would
employ
it
in
a
specific
way,
but
if
it
wasn't
deemed
necessary
and
that
it
may
not
inert
to
the
greatest
benefit
of
the
beneficiaries,
the
board
can
make
a
separate
decision
and
and
not
utilize.
The
preference.
J
Representative
heiner,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
deputy
director,
crowder
for
being
here
as
you're
aware,
when
these
bills
come
to
the
legislature,
the
the
lso
office
prepares
a
fiscal
note
for
us
to
be
able
to
determine
the
impact
fiscally
that
that
bill
would
have
on
revenue,
and
their
fiscal
note
on
this
bill
indicates
that
there
will
actually
be
a
decrease
of
revenue
for
state
lands.
Could
you
explain
that
for
me?
Please
absolutely.
Thank
you,
mr.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
So
as
I
understand
it,
the
the
role
of
the
state
lands
office
is
to
maximize
our
revenue
from
these
state
lands,
and
so
with
this
preference
right,
someone
that
has
that
preference
could
actually
sit
back
and
wait
and
then
just
match
the
highest
bid
without
act
without
actually
determining
what
the
value
of
that
parcel
is
for
his
branch
or
his
property.
He
could
just
sit
back
in
the
process
and
be
assured
of
getting
the
bid
at
the
end.
Is
that
correct.
A
A
I
Deploying
those
plans
into
a
vacant
leasing
process,
because
there
wasn't
a
statute
that
we
could
follow.
The
statute
where
there
wasn't
a
a
new
statute
provided
to
us
by
the
legislature.
And
it
was
clear
that
the
intent
of
the
legislature
was
to
provide
us
better
guidance
and
employ
that
process.
But
at
the
board
of
land.
I
Having
approved
new
rules
and
feeling,
as
though
they
have
done
so,
with
the
intent
of
the
legislature
in
mind,
we
are
moving
forward
with
those
at
this
time
I
mean
there
is
a
certain
amount
of
leases
each
year
that
go
vacant
because
people
miss
the
deadlines,
because
people
miss
the
payments
and
so
the
longer
we
go
without
a
process
or
without
employing
a
process.
Those
vacant
leases
have
have
stacked
up.
I
A
G
You,
mr
chairman,
go
ahead
representative.
I
guess
my
question
is:
why
haven't
you
done
your
amendments
on
here
before
you
brought
it
to
us
in
this
committee
beforehand,
instead
of
gonna?
Do
it
later?
I
I
I'd
have
to
be
voting
no
today,
just
on
just
on
the
few
things
that
I
heard
that
that
needs
to
mend
it.
We've
had
this
happen
in
ag.
Before
he's
going
to
get
stuff
amended,
then
we
get
to
the
floor
and
it
hasn't
happened.
G
So
we
ended
up
voting
on
a
bill
that
the
intentions
was
there,
but
it
never
but
they're,
not
there
in
front
of
us,
so
we
have
to
vote
it
down.
So
I'd
have
to
vote
no.
Today
on
this.
Just
on
that
simple
reason,
you
know
there's
amendments
that
need
to
be
added.
We
should
have
added
them
prior
to
this
meeting.
A
I
can
reply
to
that
if
you'd
like
so
what's
happened
here,
representative
fortner
is
we.
We
brought
this
this
bill
after
they
had
their
rules
meeting.
It
was
in
august
this
summer
and
then
we
we
brought
it
later
so
we're
going
to
try
to
it's
not
unusual,
to
mend
things,
because
we
as
a
committee
have
ownership
of
this
bill
and
and
if
we
can
amend
it
so
that
it
works
in
a
way
that
won't
be
vetoed
in
a
way
that
state
lands
can
then
lease
out
these
these
parcels.
A
That's
got
to
be
a
lot
of
money
for
the
for
this,
in
this
case,
mostly
schools.
So
we'll
that's,
why
that's
happened
so
we
we
worked
the
bill
after
after
the
fact
and
and.
F
Go
ahead
vice
chairman
clausen
go
ahead,
mr
chairman,
so
state
lands
had
a
few
oops
is
on
some
leases
was
that
before
or
after
your
new
rules
have
taken
place
and
has
that
been
corrected
and
the
situation's
all
rectified,
I
guess,
and
could
you
go,
could
you
kind
of
give
us
an
explanation
of
what
happened
there
and
how
this
bill
would
apply
and
maybe
the
new
rules
how
they
swoop
dinner
while
we're
having
this
conversation,
what
make
sure
everything's
everything's
caught
there.
I
Yes,
we
we
suffered
some
problems
through
the
covet
time
period
in
getting
leases
renewed
appropriately,
and
our
communication
with
people
who
place
conflicting
bids
on
those
existing
leases
and
those
existing
leaseholders
as
well.
I
That
is
a
problem
that
we
are
trying
very
actively
and
with
high
priority,
to
get
to
the
bottom
of
it's
relatively
isolated
to
the
last
two
years.
So
we're
concentrating
our
efforts
on
on
those
this
bill
wouldn't
support
that
effort.
That
effort
was
a
simple
staff
problem
office
problem
in
managing
what's
currently
in
statute.
As
far
as
renewing
existing
grazing
and
agricultural
leases,
I
feel
like
we
are
nearing
the
end
of
that
cleanup
period.
I
It
hasn't
been
fun
and
hasn't
been
pretty,
and
every
situation
is
very
unique
and
and
demands
a
lot
of
attention
to
ensure
that
it's
corrected
appropriately,
but
to
your
question,
this
bill
necessarily
doesn't
solve
that
problem.
That
was
an
office
problem,
not
following
the
statute
and
a
different
piece
of
the
statute.
E
Representative
larson,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
with
the
number
you
have
on
that
need
to
be
taken
care
of
these
leases.
How
quick
can
you
get
that
cleaned
up
and
how
how
often
does
slip
meet?
I
probably
should
know
that
the
slip
board.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
representative,
larson,
that
that's
a
great
question.
Each
one
takes
time.
Each
one
takes
a
field
visit
to
understand
the
attributes
on
the
ground,
the
forage,
the
carrying
capacity,
the
type
of
improvements
that
are
out
there
in
those
conditions,
as
well
as
the
access
to
the
parcel.
I
We
have
some
of
that
information
in-house,
but
some
of
it's
rather
dated
maybe
back
to
the
70s.
So
we'll
do
an
assessment
to
see
if,
if
somebody
needs
to
actually
visit
that
property
or
we
can
look
at
an
aerial
photo
and
get
the
same
information
and
move
forward
with
it,
but
obviously
that
takes
a
little
bit
of
time
for
each
one
we'll
get
into
the
bill
in
just
a
minute.
I
But
we
do
have
a
lot
of
discretion
currently
to
determine
how
these
leases
are
advertised
and
depending
on
its
situation,
and,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
if
it
has
an
identified
market,
if
it
has
access,
if
it
has
a
lot
of
adjoining
land
owners
or
if
it's
completely
surrounded
by
one
land
owner
I'll,
determine
the
length
of
time,
we
need
to
advertise
that
parcel
so
that
that
would
change
it.
The
board
of
land
commissioners
meets
every
other
month.
They
just
had
one
in
february
their
next
one
is
in
april.
I
So
it's
a
little
difficult
to
hit
that
perfectly
with
the
advertising
period
and
the
analysis
period,
so
it
it
could
take
on
at
least
probably
four
to
six
months
to
get
in
front
of
the
board,
depending
on
when
we
hit
the
board
meeting
cycle
each.
One
of
those
leases,
as
I
said,
takes
a
varying
amount
of
time
to
understand
and
I
don't
believe
we'll
clean
them
all
up
this
year,
it's
going
to
take
a
little
while
to
get
that
done.
I
Mr
chairman,
representative
larson,
we
have
identified
that,
however,
as
something
we
need
to
work
forward.
We've
addressed
staffing
needs
and
and
re-prioritizing
staff
within
the
agency
to
be
more
concentrated
on
it.
However,
we
have
other
jobs
to
do
at
the
same
time.
So
it's
a
little
bit
hard
to
reprioritize
everybody.
A
So
if
the
committee
is
ready,
I
think
we'll
get
back
to
representative
larson's
question
on
how
we
conform
our
statute
to
what
has
been
determined
to
be
best
by
state
lands
and
rules.
So
can
you
go
ahead?
Is
the
committee
ready
to
hear
some
suggestions
for
amendments?
Okay,
go
ahead,
mr
crowder,
when
you're
ready
for
either
of
you.
I
And
it
and
mr
chairman,
I
I
don't
know
that
I'm
prepared
to
say
these
are
actual
amendments
that
need
to
be
placed
into
the
bill.
I
think
they're
worthy
of
conversation,
and
I
know
that
individuals
behind
me
are
happy
to
talk
to
these
points
as
well,
and
perhaps
out
of
that
we
can
identify
some
amendments
and
provide
them
to
the
committee.
I
But
just
to
begin
with,
there
is
a
deviation
in
the
beginning
on
page
two
line,
one
from
historic
practice,
and
that
has
been
that
the
office
has
interpreted
all
of
the
items
within
that
first
paragraph.
On
page
two
to
be
the
preference
and
the
statute
or
the
the
draft
bill
changes
that
to
be
qualifications,
so
they're
no
longer
preference
items,
they
are
qualifying
items
to
lease
vacant
land
and
we
would
just
like
to
point
out
that
there
are
already
qualifications
to
hold
a
lease.
I
Those
are
within
36,
5
101
and
this
seems
to
be
a
secondary
set,
a
more
stringent
set
of
qualifications
to
lease
vacant
lands
and
we're
talking
about
the
same
lease
here,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
committee
is
aware
of
that.
Double
qualification
situation
there
to
further
define
that
365
101
requires
that
any,
but
you
cannot
hold
a
grazing
agriculture
release
unless
you've
reached
the
age
of
majority
or
you're
a
s
and
you're
a
citizen
of
the
united
states
or
declared
declared
an
intention
to
become
one.
I
This
draft
bill
indicates
that
you
need
to
be
a
bona
fide
citizen
of
the
state,
not
just
the
united
states
to
lisa
parcel
of
vacant
lands.
I
36
5101
also
says
that
you
can't
hold
a
lease
unless
you
have
complied
with
all
of
the
laws
in
the
state
and
that
you're
authorized
to
do
business
in
the
state.
That's
found
within
the
draft
bill
as
well.
However,
there's
an
addition
that
you
have
actual
unnecessary
use
of
the
land.
So
that's
that's
an
above
qualification,
that's
not
found
in
365
101.
E
Mr
chairman,
thank
you.
So
I
guess,
are
you
saying
that
maybe
the
changes
we
made,
maybe
the
they
shouldn't
be
there?
Is
that
yeah?
I
don't
know.
B
I
I
It
for
conservation,
we
have
another
vehicle,
another
leasing
vehicle
for
that
and
we
don't
deem
them
to
be
eligible
to
hold
a
grazing
agricultural
lease.
But
in
your
what
you,
in
the
situation,
you're,
alluding
to
the
definition
of
actual
unnecessary
use,
is
rather
broad
and
not
defined
and
could
be
a
variety
of
different
things,
not
just
cattle,
sheep
and
horses.
It
could
be
something
very
small,
very
exotic
for
a
very
short
period
of
time.
A
Okay,
so
so
within
the
statute,
we
have
because
we're
working
off
statute
here,
bonafide
resident
citizen
of
the
state
qualified
under
the
provision.
A
A
I
A
A
How,
how
would
you
like
to
what's
underlined
is,
is
what
we're
changing?
What's
not
underlined
is
already
in
statute.
A
I
D
D
Really
love
to
vote
yes
on
this
bill,
but
the
way
it
is
right
now,
with
all
the
things
I'm
hearing,
I
would
have
a
hard
time
voting,
yes
or
even
helping
us
get
out
of
the
floor
of
the
house
with
all
the
questions
that
are
here.
So
why
did
the
governor
vote
veto
it?
Last
time
are
we?
Are
we
pushing
back
on
that
or
what
are
we
doing?
I
mean
we
talked
about
this
during
the
interim.
We've
had
plenty
of
time.
A
I
guess
a
question
I
have:
would
we
be
able
to
you're
not
prepared
with
amendments
right
now.
I
The
day
that
any
mr
chairman,
I
I
do
believe
there
are
other
people
in
the
audience
who
will
okay,
support
that
or
or
speak
to
this
point
specifically,
and
we
can
offer
amendments
based
on
those
conversations
as
well.
Okay,.
I
I
got
just
real,
quick,
okay,
a
few
other
things
throughout
the
rest
of
the
bill.
Page
two
lines:
twenty
through
twenty
three,
I
believe,
are
the
changes
that
representative
blackburn
were
talking
about
out
of
the
september
meeting,
which
does
provide
broader
discretion
to
the
board
of
land
commissioners
to
make
decisions
on
lessees
or
the
previous
bill
required
them
to
lease
to
specific
individuals
having
specific
qualifications.
I
And
then
again
on
page
four
lines,
one
through
five:
it
discusses
how
the
office
will
advertise
these
parcels
for
lease
when
they're
vacant
and
currently
in
the
within
the
rule.
We
just
the
board
has
told
us
just
to
do
it
by
advertisement,
giving
some
discretion
to
the
actual
situation
that
the
parcel
presents.
So
if
it
needs
to
be
broad
and
wide
advertisement
or
just
very
narrowed
and
focused,
we
have
that
ability
to
determine
what
that
parcel
needs.
I
As
far
as
advertisement
and-
and
we
appreciate
that
discretion,
because
each
situation
is
different
and
and
there
could
be
a
situation
where
we
do
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
for
not
much
gain
here.
If
we're
very
prescriptive
and
and
how
we
advertise
these
parcels.
F
That's
a
quick
question:
it's
just
says
this
seems
to
be
not
a
very
high
bar
so
before
accepting
applications,
directors
should
provide
notice
on
the
website
or
the
office
or
and
by
mailed
each
joining
private
land
owners,
and
then
any
other
means
so
that
to
me
that
just
says,
you'll
tell
the
joining
landowner
and
that's
not
super
prescriptive
and
it
leaves
you
enough
room
to
do
whatever
needs
to
be
done
after
that.
But
anyway,.
I
Mr
chairman
representative
claus
and
I
think
that's
a
that's
a
fair
statement
and
we
do
a
lot
currently
that's
already
identified
within
that
paragraph.
I
I
There's
there
to
be
a
difference
there,
however,
the
word
preference
has
been
problematic
for
us,
so
we
we
greatly
appreciate
that
the
difference
between
preference
and
preferred
right
and
then
quickly,
mr
chairman,
that
that
is
all
the
comments
I
had
to
the
proposed
bill.
But
to
representative
fortner's
question
about
fencing.
It
is
a
fence
out
state,
so
any
lessees
on
state
land
are
not
required
to
fence
the
border
of
their
state
leases.
If
there's
private
land
adjoining
it,
it
is
the
private
landowner's
responsibility
to
fence
a
state
lessee
out
of
their
property.
I
It's
also
true
that
if
a
a
cow
or
a
horse
or
a
sheep
wanders
off
of
private
land
onto
state-
and
it's
there
for
some
period
of
time,
that
we
may
consider
that
to
be
a
trespass
and
that
the
lessees
are
not
necessarily
required
to
fence
those
private
people
off
of
the
state
land
or
to
protect
their
lease,
there's,
not
a
provision
within
rural
statute
or
the
lease
terms
that
provide
for
that.
So
there
is
a
very
weird
situation
there,
where
a
state
lessee
is
not
necessarily
required
to
fence
that
boundary.
I
However,
they
are
encouraged
to
do
so
and
encourage
to
be
good
neighbors,
and
we
do
that
encouragement
on
a
daily
basis
and
that
we
have
identified
situations
where
trespass
is
occurring
where
folks
are
coming
onto
state
land
and
and
we've
addressed
that
situation
through
trespass
laws
and
haven't
had
to
go
go
too
far.
Other
than
to
just
raise
notice
to
the
issue
and
neighbors
are
quick
to
rectify
those
situations.
So.
A
K
Winner,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
My
question
is:
is
there
a
statute
at
the
present
time
that
allows
you
to
trespass
these
horses
that
are
on
private
land
and
state
land?
A
G
Thank
you
chairman
on
page
5
lines
12
through
20.
It
talks
about
the
process
of
of
the
bid
and
receiving
payment.
G
Then,
given
your
15
day
notice,
I
know
in
campbell
county
my
home
county
people
has
got
noticed
that
that
their
school
sections
is
up,
they
pay
their,
they
paid
their
lease
and
then
there
was
one
guy
come
down
and
he
was
told
that
if
he
didn't
in
15
days
sign
the
sign
the
actual
notice
of
of
I
guess,
I
guess
it
was
a
rental
notice.
I
don't
know
he.
I
haven't
seen
it
yet,
but
anyhow
it
sort
of
talks
about
it
in
here
and
my
question
is
pretty
much
throughout
the
state.
G
I
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
I'll
attempt
to
I'm
not
sure
that
I
fully
understand
the
question.
I
will
say
that
it
is
the
office's
practice
that
any
funds
received
in
the
mail
or
or
hand
delivery
or,
however,
are
immediately
deposited
in
the
bank.
Account
we
don't
like
and
and
have
internal
protocols
that
prohibit
having
checks
just
lie
around
in
the
office.
They
need
to
be
tracked,
they
need
to
be
secured
and-
and
we
don't
want
them
falling
in
the
wrong
answer
or
lost.
I
A
L
Go
ahead.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Let's
grab
on
page
five,
I
want
to
say
on
line
11.
It
says
the
director
shall
grant
the
lease
to
the
applicant
holding
title
to
lands
nearest.
The
lands
applied
for
if
osli's
charter
is
to
generate
maximum
revenue
on
behalf
of
beneficiary
shouldn't
that
be
changed
to
whoever's
willing
to
pay
more.
In
that
scenario
versus
proximity.
I
Mr
chairman
representative
western
this
statute,
365-108
talks
about
a
very
specific
situation
where,
if
alessi,
who
has
the
preference
desires
not
to
meet
it
or
somehow
determines
is
determined
not
to
be
eligible,
and
there
are
even
bids
in
a
bidding
process,
meaning
it's
already
been
out
in
the
open
market,
and
we've
received
all
the
bids
that
we're
likely
going
to
receive
for
that
parcel.
I
This
is
the
tiebreaker
that
the
board
is
to
determine
who's
the
closest
closest
to
joining
landowner
and
that
individual
be
awarded
the
lease,
but
we
feel
like
it's
already
been
in
the
market.
It's
already
likely
received
its
highest
bid,
and
this
is
just
a
situation
where
there's
even
bids
and
the
existing
lessee
is
desired,
not
to
exercise
his
preference
to
match.
L
Mr
chairman,
follow
yeah,
follow
up.
Thank
you,
mr
truman,
but
if
your
mandate
is
to
drive
maximum
rather
on
behalf
of
the
beneficiary,
wouldn't
it
be
fair
to
say
you
guys
are
at
even
right
now,
we'll
give
it
to
whoever
pays
the
most
in
this
foregoing
opportunity
to
generate
more
money
on
behalf
of
the
beneficiary.
I
Mr
chairman,
representative,
western
it
could,
we
are
always
happy
to
introduce
a
competitive
or
multiple
competitive
situations
to
derive
the
the
highest
bid.
We
also
want
to
make
sure
it's
the
appropriate
bid,
it's
a
responsible
bid
and
it's
a
sustainable
bid.
So
if
the
committee's
desire
is
to
change
that
language
to
something
different,
we
can
absolutely
help
you
identify
what
an
appropriate
change
would
be.
A
I
guess
a
scenario
I
might
bring
up.
This
is
there's
a
fairly
we've
got
it
with
federal
lands,
but
there's
a
landlocked
piece
of
of
state
land
somewhere
that
somebody
leases
and
they
have
absolutely
no
ice
access
to
it
and
they
have
to
buy
a
helicopter
to
all
their
cows
with.
I
guess,
I'm
just
not
sure.
I
I
believe
that
you
guys
have
some
rules
that
will
help
you
decide
what's
an
appropriate
policy
that
him
and
it
may
not
be
the
highest
bid.
A
Okay,
I
would
like
to
have
other
other
testimony
and
move
on,
and
you
guys
what
I
guess
I
would
like
for
the
two
of
you
to
do
is
see
if
you
can
form
at
least
an
idea
how
we're
gonna
fix
bb
on
page
two,
how
we're
gonna
fix
those
conflicting
statutes
because
they're
already
conflicting
they're,
not
really
something
we're
creating
here.
H
H
I'll
just
make
a
couple
of
brief
comments
and
and
move
on
with
a
couple
of
amendments
that
I
will
suggest
we
would
be
supportive
of
this
bill
as
it
is
written
and
I'll
discuss
primarily
the
lines
one
through
thirteen
on
on
page
two,
which
have
been
the
subject
of
discussion,
and
we
feel
very
strong
and
we
feel
it's
supported
by
the
history
of
state
lands
that
those
items
are
not
preferences.
Those
are
absolute
requirements
to
lease
land,
the
one
about
being
a
state
citizen
or
qualified
dubins
in
the
state.
H
I
suppose
that
one
could
be
debated.
Do
we
want
to
require
that
or
not,
but
the
others
that
they
are
have
actual
necessary
use
for
the
land
that
language
was
inserted
in?
H
H
Not
less
than
fair
market
value
is
determined
by
36.5101.
That
needs
to
be
a
requirement
or
someone
could
come
in
and
acquire
state
lease
paying
less
than
what
everyone
else
pays
just
based
on
the
annual
rental
determination.
So
we
we
support
the
bill
with
this
language,
as
it
is
we'd
be
amenable
to
looking
at
the
residency
requirement.
If
that
was
the
choice.
But
if,
if
all
of
these
are
changed
to
be
preferences,
then
overwhelming
stockholders
will
be
strongly
opposed
to
this
bill,
because
that
was
not
the
purpose
or
the
legislative
intent.
H
Turning
down
to
the
language
on
line
15
through
18.
That
says
that
they
have
to
be
in
good
standing
with
the
board
that
broad
language
concerns
me
if
you've
never
leased
state
land.
How
do
you
have
any
standing
with
the
board
if
you're
a
current
lessee
and
maybe
you're
you're
your
lease
renewal
or
payment,
was
received
five
days
late?
Do
you
have
good
standing
or
don't
you
have
good
standing?
F
H
Covered
or
you
think
it's
something,
mr
chairman
alexander,
I
I
think
it
still
raises
question
whether
for
anyone,
how
do
you
determine
that
they're
in
good
standing
with
the
board?
They
may
be
the
current
less
eu,
as
I
say,
who's
a
few
days
late
on
a
payment,
it
may
be.
The
owner
of
adjacent
lands.
Who's
never
dealt
with
the
board
before
so
it
just
seems
to
me
that,
and-
and
I
could
go
on
and
on
about
some
issues-
we're
addressing
trying
to
work
with
them
with
the
office
of
state
lands.
H
A
So
your
language
would
be
at
the
end
of
that
sentence.
Occupants
of
adjoining
lands
who
have
not
been
found
to
be
in
goods
have
not
been
found
who.
H
H
All
right
going
on,
mr
chairman,
the
the
preference
criteria
that
are
laid
out,
the
scenarios
a
b
and
c.
We
think
these
have
been
improved
significantly
from
what
was
in
last
year's
bill.
They
were
very
confusing
then,
and
at
this
point
I
think
there
is
value
in
providing
that
guidance
to
the
office,
so
we
would
be
supporting
of
that
with
one
exception,
mr
chairman,
and
that
is
on
page
three
line
12,
which
calls
for
a
live
auction.
H
Our
people
are
used
to
live
auctions
where
they're
buying
bulls
or
something
but
a
live
auction,
for
something
is
serious,
and
that
needs
serious
thought
like
this
to
get
to
competing
bidders
on
a
phone
or
something
and
just
have
them,
go
back
and
forth.
We
think
is
not
a
responsible
way
to
deal
with
this.
We
would
heard
that
if
the
as
in
be
two
or
more
applicants.
H
Have
bid
the
same
amount,
you
put
it
up
for
another
written
bid
and
in
a
rare
occasion
they
have
to
do
that
more
than
once.
But
I
think
in
most
cases,
if
both
of
the
or
any
number
of
applicants
know
what
the
previous
high
bid
was
they're
going
to
calculate
their
own
bids
and
one
of
those
is
going
to
end
up
being
the
high
bid.
H
So
we
just
we
just
think
it's
it's
not
a
good
practice,
particularly
where
we
have
young
people
getting
involved
in
the
industry
and
they're
anxious
to
move
forward
that
on
a
on
a
live
bidding
process
where
you're
you're
actually
committing
what
you're
going
to
pay
for
10
years
for
a
state
lease
that
it's
it's
just
too
easy
for
someone
to
get
carried
away
and
offered
a
bid,
an
amount
and
then
two
years
down
the
road,
the
finances
for
their
operation,
which
weren't
given
enough
thought,
does
not
able
them
to
enable
them
to
continue
to
to
meet
their
commitment
on
those
state
leases.
H
Mr
chairman,
representative
blackburn,
I
think
this
is
not
a
frequent
occurrence
and
we
would
prefer
that
it'd
be
a
written
written
bit.
I
mean
those
they
could
be
submitted
electronically,
but
not
two
people
beating
against
each
other
electronically
written
bid,
or
certainly
the
electronic
mechanism
could
be
utilized
to
submit
a
bit.
Thank
you
all
right.
Go
ahead.
Mark.
H
Be
all
mr
chairman,
as
I
say,
I'm
working
on
some
of
these
issues
with
the
office
of
state
lands,
and
there
is,
I
know,
representative
heiner
mentioned
or
representing
western
maximizing
the
revenue,
and
I
think,
there's
an
important
distinction
that
this
committee,
the
joint
ag
committee
a
number
of
years
ago-
and
I
don't
know
they
got
written
in
the
statute.
They
had
quite
a
discussion
and
provided
direction
to
state
lands
that
it's
not
about
maximizing
it's
about
optimizing
and
what
that
really
means.
Is
you
don't
just
look
at?
H
I
get
the
biggest
dollar
today,
but
you
look
and
say,
what's
in
the
best
interest,
to
assure
over
time
that
we're
going
to
get
the
best
return
on
these
investments,
because
they're
they're
permanent
investments
to
the
state
they're,
not
one-time
investments.
So
I
I
always
like
to
bring
that
up,
because
I
think
it
is
significant.
H
There's
also
language
that
in
some
wyoming
supreme
court
decisions
it
recognizes
that
it's
it's
appropriate
for
borderland
commissioners
to
consider
not
not
that
they
should
forego
getting
the
highest
revenues,
but
to
consider
the
impact
of
their
decisions
on
the
integrity
of
ranches
and
on
the
ranching
business
in
the
state.
I
think
it's
important
over
time.
We've
kind
of
lost
some
of
that.
We
keep
that
in
mind
that
we
can
do
this
job.
H
We
can
do
it
to
get
great
benefit
for
the
beneficiaries,
but
we
shouldn't
ignore-
and
someone
mentioned
this
earlier
often
parcel
of
state
land
is
an
integral
part
of
a
wrenching
operation
has
been
for
100
years
in
many
cases,
and
that
needs
to
be
kept
in
mind
when
we're
looking
at
making
some
choices
here,
leasing
it
to
someone
else,
then
it
raises
a
fencing
issue
which
can
be
a
huge
issue
and
the
person
who
has
that
an
integral
part
of
their
operation
certainly
should
have
to
meet
the
high
bid,
but
they
ought
to
be
given
every
opportunity
to
do
that.
E
H
Mr
chairman,
representative
larson,
I
wouldn't
say
we're
happy
with
it.
We
we
would
grant
that
they
went
as
far
as
they
could,
given
the
current
wording
of
the
statutes,
they
didn't
go,
get
things
the
way
we
think
they
should
be,
but
in
fairness,
they
were
limited
in
this
very
section
by
the
current
wording
of
the
bid
of
the
statute,
which
the
confusion
between
what's
a
preference
and
what's
a
requirement
and
a
couple
of
items
I
mentioned
here
that
we
view
as
requirements
not
preferences.
E
Represent
larson
follow-up,
mr
chairman,
I
don't
know
if
we
have
time
to
deal
with
this
today.
I
wonder
if
we
shouldn't
table
the
bill
until
we
have
some
amendments
that
that
we
can
work
with
hey.
I
just
I
mean
we're
all
shooting
in
the
dark
here.
A
A
A
No,
let's
it's
we're
not
going
to
have
more
testimony
if
we,
if
we
vote
to
table
it
until
the
next
meeting,
which
was
the
motion
you
had
that
motion
second
committee,
all
those
in
favor
say
I
opposed
okay,
the
motion
passes
and
we
will.
We
will
hopefully
have
something
that
will
make
the
bill
easier
to
work
for
the
next
meeting.
A
C
If
they
have
amendments
that
they
would
like
to
see
brought
forth,
they
bring
that
next
meeting.
So
right
we
actually
have
those
amendments
ready,
so
we
can
either
include
them
or
not,
because
I
know
there
were
some
as
mentioned.
There
may
have
been
some
in
the
audience
that
would
have
liked
to
provide
a
testimony.
I
guess
if,
if
they
have
amendments
they
would
like
to
see,
I
would
say
it's
appropriate
for
the
committee
to
make
that
request,
determined.
B
Mr
chairman,
if
they,
if
they
would
send
them
to
me,
I
can
make
copies
of
them
so
that
you
have
them
available
even
tomorrow
if
they
can
get
it
done
just
so,
it's
not
just
right
at
the
time
of
when.
C
B
C
A
Okay,
all
right
committee-
well
that'll,
be
the
plan
and
people
with
with
recommendations
have
them
in
writing.
I
think
I
understood
them,
but
I'm
not
sure
how
we're
gonna
fix
something
that's
broken
before
we
start,
but
we'll
work
on
that
and
that's
that
conflict
of
statute
on.
Oh
well,
let's
move
on
to
the
next
bill,
so
committee.
The
next
bill
for
consideration
is
water
permits,
livestock
on
federal
lands
and.
A
A
I
believe-
and
this
would
make
joint
ownership
of
that
water
right
between
the
the
lesia
of
the
land,
the
grazer
in
most
cases
and
and
the
federal
government,
and
then
it
has
other
provisions,
and
I
guess
I
would
like
to
start
by
just
bringing
the
if
the
committee's
okay,
with
this
we'll
try
to
up
we're
gonna
be
short
on
time,
but
I'd
like
to
bring
the
state
engineers
office
up
and
and
see
what
what
they've
got
to
say
about
it.
O
And
good
morning,
mr
chairman,
I'm
david
schroeder,
member
of
the
wyoming
board
of
control
and
superintendent
of
water
division
ii.
A
A
I
N
I
believe
superintendent
smith
at
that
time,
but
I
do
believe
that
david
has
had
been
involved
behind
the
scenes
and
is
up
to
speed
on
this
bill.
A
All
right
well
go:
go
ahead,
go
ahead
with
your
presentation
on
how
we
get
this
to
conform
with
what
what
we
actually
do
in
the
state
engineers
office
and
what
we
need
to
do
to
get
the
bill
to
conform
with
state
law
and.
N
The
rules,
mr
chairman,
I'll
I'll
start
off
by
saying
that
we
we
currently
have
just
renewed
an
ongoing
mou
between
the
state
engineers
office
and
the
usda
forest
service,
the
rocky
mountain
and
intermountain
regions.
N
That
mou
spells
out,
among
other
things,
but
particularly
what's
in
this
bill
and
allows
us
to
operate
with
with
what
this
bill
generally
does.
One
of
the
things
with
this
new
mou
that
was
just
signed
in
december
executed
in
december
for
another
five
years
is
we,
we
included
a
provision
in
the
new
mou
in
anticipation
of
this
bill
that
that
puts
in
there
that,
if
state
law
requires
a
grazing
permit,
holder
needs
to
be
a
joint
or
a
co-applicant
for
a
water
right
on
federal
lands.
N
So
that
there's
no
issue
there
that
that's
the
same
as
what
this
law
is,
the
one
discrepancy
and
I'll
let
david
take
it
over
the
one
discrepancy
between
the
mou
and-
and
this
has
to
do
with
the
wording
of
obtain
consent
or
seek
consent
and
I'll
turn
it
over
to
david
to
collaborate,
go
ahead
and
give
us
the
page
number
in
the.
O
O
Generally,
the
change
in
use,
change
in
place
of
use
or
amended
certificate
statutes.
The
water
right
cannot
be
changed
without
the
consent
of
valid
raising
lessee.
Now
the
mou
state
seek
the
consent
and
there's
a
important
difference
there.
The
state
engineer
and
the
board
of
control
have
the
statutory
responsibility
to
evaluate
injury
with
respect
to
modification
of
water
rights
with
the
stronger
language
contained.
In
this
specific
passage,
it
prohibits
the
estate
engineer
or
board
of
control
to
evaluate
any
injury
concerns
by
amending
that
passage
to
seek
the
consent.
O
A
O
Mr
chairman,
I
I
wouldn't
phrase
it
as
a
concern
but
farther
down
on
this
same
page
under
line
22.
It
talks
about
updating
the
names
on
the
permit
and
specifically
again
on
line
22
filing
for
a
name
change
with
the
state
engineer's
office.
O
G
Over
here
on
would
be
page
two
and
it
goes
down
to
line
15
all
the
way
down
to
22
and
it
talks
about
a
defined
stock,
everything
other
than
basically
wild
horses,
but
there's
quite
an
advocacy
group
out
there
if
there's
water,
to
be
available.
How
what's
our?
What's
the
mechanism
in
this
bill
to
keep
keep
the
wild
horses
out
of
these
water
holes
or
is
there?
Is
there
any
intent
to
keep
them
out?
G
I
know
when
I
was
working
on
the
desert
from
from
the
colorado
border
all
the
way
up
to
basically
cody.
You
know
the
wild
horses
they
had
destroyed
all
the
water
holes
that
the
sheep
was
watering
in
at
one
time.
They
was
constantly
rebuilding
those
those
water
holes
for
the
sheep.
What
mechanisms
are
going
to
be
in
place
to
to
prevent
that?
G
This
is
sort
of
pretty
wide
open
right
here
it
lays
it
lays
the
ground
stick
to
for
stock.
It
tells
what
stock
is,
but
it
doesn't
really
say
how
how
we're
going
to
keep
the
horses
out
of
the
water
this
these
guys
is
paid
to
develop.
O
O
You've
heard
testimony
previously
by
former
director
lanning,
I
would
say
when
the
state
engineers
office
has
delineated
beneficial
use,
it's
simply
stated
as
stock
use,
and
I
don't
know
that
we
differentiate
between
different
forms
of
stock,
so
I
don't
know
that
I
can
address
your
concern
as
far
as
this
bill
is
concerned.
G
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is:
is
the
guy
goes
out
and
he
puts
a
lot
of
money
into
into
developing
water?
N
G
Oh
man,
no
I'm
talking,
I
know
we're
talking
water
rights
which
establish
a
water
right,
so
they
could
develop
water.
So
we
get
past
that
point.
We
got
the
water
developed.
G
A
A
We
also
have
the
issue
we
developed
these,
these
tanks
wells
whatever
they
are,
and
wildlife
use
utilize
them
as
well,
and
I
don't
think
anybody
argues
that
that's
a
beneficial
use
the
horses
have
become.
You
know
they
they're
an
issue
that
we
have
to
deal
with
separately
and
our
state
engineer
probably
just
can't
answer
your
questions.
A
A
P
P
P
P
E
P
P
A
I
think
it
did
I
I
thought
it
did
anyway.
So
if
we're
on
line
22
and
give
me
committee,
if
I'm
cutting
anybody
off
but
that
federal
land
by
filing
for
and
we
take
away
a
name
change
for
permanent
assignment
with
documentary
evidence
and
then
then
and
for
a
name
change.
So
we
do
have
the
provision
for
the
new
leasing
to.
I
think
so.
A
P
A
Well,
I'm
not
sure,
but
I
think
some
of
the
water
laws
may
be
different.
The
state
engineer
might
address
that,
but
when
you've
got
a
a
use
agreement,
a
lan,
a
water
use
agreement
in
place
with
a
state
engineer's
office-
it
usually
is
specific
for
livestock
and
domestic
irrigation.
Whatever
okay.
A
Okay,
any
no
questions.
So
thank
you!
A
M
I
thank
you,
mr
chairman
brett
moline
wyoming
farm
bureau
federation
sitting
in
support
of
this
bill.
I
do
have
on
first
blush,
I
believe
the
the
ch
the
changes
will
still
work
within
my
members
policy.
I
think
it's
extremely
important
to
get
the
grazing
permit
these
names
on
these
permits
on
these
water
uses,
but
there
was
a
couple.
A
comment
made
a
couple
of
times
how
the
mou,
how
the
state
law
has
to
agree
with
the
mouss
and
the
rules,
and
I
guess
I
look
at
that-
a
little
bit
different.
M
M
A
Committee,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Any
other
public
comment
come
on
up
state,
your
name
and
while
she's
coming
up,
do
we
have
anyone
virtually
online
for
this
bill?
Okay,
you
know
if
they
show
up.
Let
me
know:
hi
welcome
to
our
committee.
Q
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
amy
hendrickson
wyoming
wool
growers
association
and
I
just
wanted
to
express
our
support
for
this
bill,
and
I
think
that
the
concerns
that
were
raised
by
mr
mcgagne
and
that
and
the
change
the
amendments
that
were
suggested
would
address
those
concerns,
and
I,
except
for
any
questions.
As
mr
moline
would
say,
committee
questions.
E
Can
I
ask
if
the
state
engineers
office
would
like
to
comment
on
some
of
the
questions.
O
I
think
I
can
address
mr
mcgagne's
concern
and
I
preface
this
with
I'm
not
an
expert
in
colorado,
water
law,
but
I
know
there's
chief
differences,
but
in
general,
if
something
like
that
occurred
in
wyoming,
where
say
a
federal
permit
for
stock
water
was
contemplated
to
be
changed
to
another
use
without
prejudging
anything
coming
in.
I
think
there's
a
clear
injury
there.
O
A
Okay,
any
other
questions
for
the
state
engineer's
office.
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
your
input
now
committee.
What's
your
pleasure,
I'll
move,
the
the
bill?
Okay,
moved
by
representative
larson
seconded
by
blackburn,
was
it
it
was
okay
yeah.
We
have
to
recognize
voices
around
here
so
discussion
on
the
bill.
F
Go
ahead,
mr
chairman
line
14
after
without
insert
seeking,
and
I
may
need
some
help
with
the
language
and
on
line
22
permanence.
A
O
O
A
So
it's
been
been
moved.
Did
we
have
a
second
on
the
seconded
by
larson,
moved
by
clawson?
Do
you
have
those
down
carol?
What
we've
done
okay
committee
ready
to
vote?
Okay
on
this
amendment,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye,
aye
opposed,
okay,
any
other
any
other
changes
to
the
bill
or
discussion
on
the
bill.
J
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
everybody
and
we
will
probably
our
first
order
of
business
thursday
morning
will
be
to
get
back
on
the
bill
we
started
on
we'll,
hopefully
have
some
clarifications
there.
Anything
to
add.