Updated April 12 at 6:45 p.m. after being voted on in committee.

Nevada lobbyists made major amendments on Monday to the controversial bill that proposed limiting brew pubs to two locations and shrunk the amount of beer they could sell at retail.

No vote was taken on Monday, but it was voted out of committee Wednesday with the new changes. The original bill received more than 700 online "against" comments and four "for" comments on the Legislature's website after the RGJ wrote a story about it last week. Citizens can still register their for or against comments for the new proposals.

Original bill:Legislator, backed by big beer, proposes limits to Nevada's brew pubs

Lobbyists for Nevada breweries and distributors said they were happy with the compromises added to the legislation on Monday. A representative for the Nevada Brewers Association — which represents most craft breweries in Nevada — said his members were also happy with the changes, but did not elaborate.

No brewers spoke publicly at the meeting, as many were at a beer conference in Washington D.C. and not available to comment.

Letter:Nevada brewery bill is 'bad for good beer': Richard Bednarski

Assembly Bill 431, which got a committee hearing in the Legislature on Monday, no longer limits brew pubs to two locations, giving them the potential to open an unlimited number of locations statewide.

The bill also raises the volume cap — or the amount of beer craft brewers can make each year — from 15,000 barrels to 40,000 barrels per year and ups the retail limit from 2,000 barrels to 5,000 barrels a year, despite there being no current limit on retail sales.

The bill also added a major provision allowing brewers, wineries and distillers to sell beer at farmer's markets, something they've all wanted for a long time. However, it limits that to 20 days per year with the use of a special permit.

"It's an arbitrary number," said Alfredo Alonso, a lobbyist representing many Nevada liquor distributors.

He said 20 farmers markets represents about two per week during market season but that otherwise had no deeper consideration.

The amended bill's intention was to strike a compromise between the needs of the brew pubs and needs of the local distributors while still protecting Nevada's distributors from being influenced by Anheuser-Busch InBev, MillerCoors or other major big beer companies, said Alonso.

He said his major reason for crafting the bill is to strengthen laws that separate breweries, distributors and retailers in Nevada. In Nevada, breweries make beer, distributors buy it from them, then sell it to retailers. Customers buy most beer from retailers. Brew pubs can sell beer on tap or in to-go bottles, cans or growlers at their locations only.

Alonso said the compromise maintains that tiered system for his distributor clients.

Brewery lobbyists Mike Draper and Paul Enos represent separate groups of brewers. Draper drafted the new amendments with Pigeon Head, The Depot and The Brewer's Cabinet. Enos represents the rest of the breweries in the state. Both of them said they were happy with the amendments.

For distributors, stronger language was added to fortify them against breweries meddling in their internal management and marketing efforts. The provision prevents breweries from interfering with distributors' staffing or management. It also prevents them from asking for financials or marketing information for other breweries.

Alonso repeatedly referenced anti-trust law administered by the U.S. Department of Justice that prevented AB-InBev and SABMiller from merging to create a monopoly. He said their combined power could strong arm distributors into overpowering the marketplace with domestic beers, pushing out little distributors and little brewers.

He said the amended legislation prevents that, while still allowing everyone to sell fairly in Nevada. And, if AB-InBev or MillerCoors wants to buy out a small brewery like they've done in other states, the law still allows them to do that.

The AB-InBev lobbyist, Michael Hillerby, with lobbyists for MillerCoors and the Distilled Spirits Council, said these limits are already enforced at the federal level and that adding it to the state law would cause overlap in enforcement and unnecessary complexity. Hillerby said Nevada needs more Department of Taxation enforcers, not more laws to enforce.

Lesley Pittman, lobbyist for MillerCoors, said the provisions would lead to unnecessary litigation.

Hillerby said beer generates $52 million in Nevada, so the state should "take some of that money to pay for more enforcement agents."

Alonso agreed that Nevada needs more liquor law enforcers, but still insisted that the added provisions protect distributors from pushy big beer companies.

Most of the bill's provisions, excluding beer production limits, also apply to wineries and distilleries in Nevada.

Committee members did not comment directly on the bill's language, but did ask many questions clarifying the amendments. The bill passed committee on Wednesday and will now go to the full Assembly for debate.