Skip to Main Content



^ Back to Top

NCLM and State Environmental Government Meetings & Events


^ Back to Top

NCLM News & Political Report

Reaction to the Duke coal ash spill continued to dominate environmental headlines and discussions this past month, setting the stage for a legislative session that would likely leave little room for considered debate over other environmental topics. The legislature returns to Raleigh for its Short Session May 14, and we expect to see most of the public debate over environment issues to focus on ways to prevent such a spill from happening in the future.

Fifteen months of media coverage built up to this moment. Since January 2013, regulated entities such as cities and towns have experienced the McCrory administration trying to figure out its comfort zone on the continuum of environmental regulation. The administration has tried to balance a desire to provide both certainty and regulatory flexibility when writing permits, promulgating rules, and making other regulatory decisions with economic and environmental consequences. Of course, in the process, McCrory's N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) engendered intense negative media coverage of its actions, helped along by a state legislature that continued significant budgetary cuts to the agency and directed a wholesale reorganization of the agency's water quality programs. The charge: that DENR leadership, in deciding to weigh the impacts to the state's businesses and taxpayers more heavily when making environmental regulatory decisions, abdicated its federal and state responsibilities for environmental protection.

So it was not surprising that when a stormwater pipe broke and sent over 30,000 tons of coal ash into the Dan River February 2, that environmental disaster played perfectly into this well-developed media narrative. As a result, regulators and legislators alike saw renewed scrutiny of their past actions. They also faced significant pressure to respond with tighter laws and regulatory decisions that tilted that scales less toward those undertaking regulated activities and more in favor of the natural environment experiencing the effects of those activities. To specifically account for its actions related to Duke's coal ash ponds, DENR continued to report on its responses on this webpage.

Going forward, any new laws passed by the legislature or regulatory approaches adopted by DENR will not affect just Duke Energy. While not necessarily the target of such decisions, municipalities will also likely become subject to a new set of norms as a result of any changes, such as with a proposal to shorten the time for reporting unauthorized wastewater spills.

To add another layer of complication to this issue, the judicial branch also has an opportunity to pass judgment on how DENR should enforce the legislature's environment laws. Cities and towns were also swept into that case, a court battle involving Duke that began over a year before the coal ash spill but that has become woven into the overall controversy. Just last week, N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper filed a motion to defend the state's decisions in an appeal of that case. Ultimately in this case, the courts must decide how quickly certain regulated entities must clean up groundwater contamination. Potential clean-up sites could be coal ash pits and other industrial sites, or they could be lands onto which residuals from municipal wastewater treatment operations are applied. (Read more about this case in "Judge's Decision Upends Law for Land Application Sites' Groundwater Contamination," March 2014 EcoLINC).

In an indication that this public debate has not nearly hit its peak, over the weekend, WRAL launched a new series called "DENR Watch." Described as "an occasional series on the evolution of the state's role in protecting natural resources while promoting business growth," the series grew out of the ongoing coal ash controversies. The lead article in the series explored the classic tension between regulators and the regulated community that exists within any regulatory agency, pointing out that this tension went back nearly a century.

So as our state decision-makers grapple with a response to this modern-day environmental problem, the fundamental values they must balance are as old as regulation itself.


^ Back to Top

EPA Decides Against National Post-Construction Stormwater Rule

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in late March that it did not plan to propose a national stormwater rule or make any other regulatory changes to its stormwater program; instead, EPA said it would update its stormwater strategy "to focus now on pursuing a suite of immediate actions to help support communities in addressing their stormwater challenges."

Since 2010, EPA discussed plans to propose a national stormwater rule to reduce stormwater discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites. Instead of that rulemaking, EPA stated it would:

  • Provide communities with incentives, technical assistance, and tools to encourage the implementation of strong stormwater programs;
  • Leverage existing requirements to strengthen municipal stormwater permits; and
  • Continue to promote green infrastructure as an integral part of stormwater management.

EPA stated it believed "this approach will achieve significant, measurable, and timely results in reducing stormwater pollution and provide significant climate resiliency benefits to communities." 


^ Back to Top

Legislators Recommend Suite of Environment Bills

Among other proposals, the Environmental Review Commission (ERC) recommended lifting a de facto moratorium on local government environment ordinances as part of its final suite of environmental bills approved last week for introduction in the upcoming Short Session. The League members argued in favor of lifting the moratorium, pointing out the numerous unintended consequences of restricting local authority to enact environment ordinances.

The legislature and Governor put the moratorium in place in August, reacting to complaints that local governments over-reached their authority when passing environment ordinances. But since last spring, the League membership informed legislators of the severe ramifications of any law that would restrict local governments' ability to enact these regulations. The comments continued with testimony at a January committee meeting and a February public hearing on the issue. Read specifics about the points made by the League and its members in "League, Local Officials Brief Legislators on Environment Ordinances" (February 2014 EcoLINC).

Other Recommended Legislation

Since last fall, the ERC, an interim legislative oversight commission, conducted numerous studies contained in legislation from last year's long session. Importantly, as a result of those studies, the ERC proposed bill language for introduction in the Short Session that begins May 14. Most of the ERC's recommended legislation stemmed from four interim study groups on which the League participated over the past six months. In addition to the proposal to eliminate the environment ordinance moratorium, the committee also voted to advance legislation that would:

  • Study interbasin transfers
  • Study incentives for water system interconnection
  • Shorten the time period for notifying the public about unauthorized wastewater spills
  • Clarify how state law treats non-paved surfaces for stormwater purposes
  • Relax isolated wetlands mitigation requirements
  • Standardize procedures for State and local development plan reviews, when those plans were designed by a professional engineer

Read the full text of these proposals here. With the exception of the proposal regarding engineering plan reviews, none of the ERC-approved proposals differed from drafts circulated last month. The League reported on these proposals in depth in last month's edition of EcoLINC ("Pair of Studies Would Incentivize Water System Interconnection," "Draft Bill Tightens Wastewater Spill Notification," and "Legislators, Regulators Take Dueling Actions over Gravel Provisions,").

The ERC's vote did not include any significant legislation in response to the Feb. 2 coal ash spill on the Dan River; the ERC scheduled a separate meeting for April 22 to discuss that topic in-depth.


^ Back to Top

ERC Approves Refined Proposal to Standardize Review of Engineering Plans

The Environmental Review Commission (ERC), an interim legislative oversight committee, approved a refined proposal last week to standardize State and local review of engineering plans such as stormwater, sedimentation/erosion control, and water and wastewater system designs.

The recommended legislation, first unveiled last month, contained numerous suggestions for improvement made by the League. For example, the original proposal would have required state and local agencies to remove the word "engineer" from all job titles of plan reviewers when the person performing the job did not hold a Professional Engineer license. The League suggested a change, which was accepted by the ERC, that would instead distinguish between job titles used for position classification purposes and the "working job titles" used by plan reviewers to explain their job to the public.

Other concepts from the ERC-approved language remained similar to the draft proposal from last month and included bill language that would:

  • Standardize review procedures so that comments were clearly separated into those required for approval and those that were mere suggestions
  • Require a plan reviewer to identify the particular statutory or regulatory authority when conditioning plan approval on a change
  • Provide for PE review of any “innovative design” by either the local government or delegating state agency (designer must pay for consulting PE review services if jurisdiction did not have a PE on staff)
  • Spell out an internal review process for circumstances in which the plan reviewer and designer disagreed about required changes and/or the legal authority under which required changes were being required
  • Study two programs in the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources -- the pretreatment and stormwater programs -- to determine if those programs contained appropriate oversight of activities that constituted the practice of engineering
  • Report the results of the above requirements annually to the ERC until January 1, 2019

The proposal came in response to concerns by the Professional Engineers of North Carolina, an advocacy trade group, that state and local reviewers often exceeded their authority in requiring changes to these plans. Before ultimately deciding to simply study the issue, legislators last year considered other proposals such as one that would have required review of plans by a licensed Professional Engineer and a seal by that Professional Engineer. Because a seal transferred liability for the performance of that device from the designing engineer to a plan reviewer employed by a local government, the League opposed this proposal.

The local programs that would be subject to this legislation included those operating an approved or delegated program from a state agency such as the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the N.C. Department of Transportation, and the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services. To fall under the proposal's requirements, those delegated programs must also grant permits, licenses, and approvals of development plans.

Read the previous discussion of this proposal in "Recommendation Standardizes Review Processes, Increases Reporting" (March 2014 EcoLINC).


^ Back to Top

Administration Proposes Rule Clarifying Jurisdictional Reach of CWA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) released a long-awaited proposed rule in late March regarding the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act (CWA). With this proposed rule, EPA and USACE hoped to clarify which wetlands and smaller waters were considered "waters of the United States" and therefore "jurisdictional," or subject to federal permitting and other regulatory actions. The jurisdiction issue has long been in dispute and uncertain because of competing U.S. Supreme Court tests and conflicting EPA guidance.

Despite EPA's assurances that the proposed rule did not protect any new types of waters nor broaden the coverage of the CWA, critics feared the proposed rule would result in default jurisdictional determinations for waters that were previously unregulated.

Jurisdiction is an important issue to cities because it triggers CWA programs, such as permitting, that apply to projects cities undertake such as road-building and construction of water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure. In addition, if a municipal project affects jurisdictional waters, the city must undertake mitigation measures to compensate for any disturbances to those waters. Finally, cities often implement programs when overseeing development practices at the local level that depend on jurisdictional determinations for disturbed waters.

The Washington Post reported that "all ephemeral and intermittent streams, and the wetlands that are connected or next to them, will be subject to federal oversight under the proposed rule."

Clarification Needed

In a recent press release, EPA and USACE stated that "determining Clean Water Act protection for streams and wetlands became confusing and complex following Supreme Court decisions" and that "for nearly a decade, members of Congress, state and local officials, industry, agriculture, environmental groups, and the public asked for a rulemaking to provide clarity."

The agencies' press release explained that the proposed rule clarified protection for streams and wetlands by proposing definitions of waters that would apply to all CWA programs. Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Jo-Ellen Darcy stated that the "rulemaking will better protect our aquatic resources, by strengthening the consistency, predictability, and transparency of our jurisdictional determinations. The rule's clarifications will result in a better public service nationwide."

In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in Rapanos v. United States and issued a plurality decision that set two tests for determining if waters are jurisdictional. The first test was authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, who ruled that only "relatively permanent" waters holding a "continuous surface connection" to a traditionally navigable water of the United States can be considered jurisdictional. The second test was authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy in a concurring opinion where he ruled that waters that shared a "significant nexus" with jurisdictional waters can also be regulated under the CWA.

The agencies stated in the proposed rule that the court precedent has resulted "in the agencies evaluating the jurisdiction of waters on a case-specific basis far more frequently than is best for clear and efficient implementation of the CWA. This approach results in confusion and uncertainty to the regulated public and results in significant resources being allocated to these determinations by federal and state regulators."

Proposed Rule Specifics

The proposed rule was similar to Justice Kennedy's approach above because it discussed "significant nexus" -- specifically that all (1) tributaries of traditional navigable waters and interstate waters and (2) adjacent water bodies were automatically jurisdictional because they shared a "significant nexus" to navigable waters. The proposed rule relied on EPA's draft study: "Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence," which suggested that all streams, ponds and wetlands located in floodplains and riparian corridors have "connectivity."

In the proposed rule, the agencies defined the following as jurisdictional “waters of the United States”:

  • Traditional navigable waters;
  • Interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
  • Territorial seas;
  • Impoundments of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, including interstate wetlands, the territorial seas, and tributaries (as defined) of such waters;
  • Tributaries (as defined) of traditional navigable waters, interstate or the territorial seas; and
  • Adjacent (as defined) waters, including adjacent wetlands.

The agencies emphasized that categorizing tributaries and adjacent waters as jurisdictional was based on a determination that the “nexus, alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, is significant based on data, science, the CWA, and case law.”

In addition to the waters above that would be classified as jurisdictional by rule, the agencies proposed that “other waters” could be determined to be “waters of the United States” through a case-specific showing that they had a “significant nexus” to a jurisdictional water. The proposed rule defined “significant nexus” not as a scientific term, but as “the relationship that waters can have to each other and connections downstream that affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity" of another jurisdictional waters. The agencies also requested comment on alternate approaches to determining whether “other waters” are similarly situated and have a “significant nexus” to a jurisdictional water.

The proposed rule also defined additional terms:

  • Adjacent means bordering, contiguous or neighboring. Waters, including wetlands, separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are “adjacent waters.”
  • Neighboring, for purposes of the term “adjacent,” includes waters located within the riparian area or floodplain of a jurisdictional water, or waters with a shallow subsurface hydrologic connection or confined surface hydrologic connection to such a jurisdictional water.
  • Riparian area means an area bordering a water where surface or subsurface hydrology directly influence the ecological processes and plant and animal community structure in that area.
  • Floodplain means an area bordering inland or coastal waters that was formed by sediment deposition from such water under present climatic conditions and is inundated during periods of moderate to high water flows.
  • Tributary means a water physically characterized by the presence of a bed and banks and ordinary high water mark, as defined at 33 CFR § 328.3(e), which contributes flow, either directly or through another water, to a jurisdictional water. In addition, wetlands, lakes, and ponds are tributaries (even if they lack a bed and banks or ordinary high water mark) if they contribute flow, either directly or through another water to a jurisdictional water.
  • Wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.

What's Next

Many had hoped that EPA would wait to propose the rule until after the Science Advisory Board (SAB) completed its review of the EPA's connectivity study, and critics expressed concern that the proposed rule would allow for default jurisdictional determinations for many waterbodies that currently may not be subject to regulation under the CWA.

EPA scheduled calls on April 28 and May 2 for the SAB to discuss its recommendations for improving EPA's draft study. Members of the public can comment on the proposed rule for 90 days once it is published in the Federal Register. However, EPA assured that "the rule will not be finalized until the final version of this scientific assessment is complete."


^ Back to Top

Minimum Design Criteria Team Begins Work

The Minimum Design Criteria Team, a workgroup that will develop the minimum "criteria," or standards, for stormwater control devices, met late March for the first time. At the meeting, the team approved the workgroup's charter and discussed the process for reviewing the thirteen commonly-used stormwater controls listed in the state's Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual.

Design criteria guide private consultants when designing stormwater controls, and they also assist the state and local government professionals reviewing those design plans. This stakeholder group was a result of Fast Track Permitting legislation, which mandated the creation of minimum design criteria (MDC) for certain stormwater devices in an effort to speed up development plan approvals.

The stakeholder team included four League members, industry experts, engineers, environmental consultants, and university faculty (listed in this workgroup charter). The team's purpose was to provide the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) advice in developing MDCs that encompassed all requirements for siting, design, construction and maintenance of stormwater BMPs. The common BMPs discussed by the workgroup included:

  • Level spreader & vegetated filter strip
  • Stormwater wetland
  • Wet detention basin
  • Sand filter
  • Bioretention
  • Disconnected impervious surface
  • Swales
  • Infiltration devices
  • Dry detention basin
  • Permeable pavement
  • Rainwater harvesting system
  • Green roof
  • Proprietary systems

In addition, the team discussed the timeline for creating MDCs and developing a fast-track permitting process for issuing state stormwater permits. The law required that DENR submit its recommendations regarding the MDCs to the legislative Environmental Review Commission by September 1, 2014. However, Tracy Davis, Director of the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) stated that DENR would request an extension of time so that only a report would be required on September 1, 2014, and the final MDCs would be submitted in September 2015.

Next year, the team will also provide recommendations to the N.C. Environmental Management Commission, which must adopt a rule regarding this fast-track permitting process by July 1, 2016, addressing:

  1. A process for permit application, review, and determination
  2. A process for ensuring compliance with the MDCs
  3. A specification for the types of professionals that were qualified to prepare a permit application and the types of qualifications such professionals must have
  4. A process for establishing the liability of a qualified professional who prepared a permit application for a stormwater management system that failed to comply with the MDC

Read more background on the formation of the MDC team and fast-track permitting. The MDC Team will meet next April 28.


^ Back to Top

Public Enterprise Committee Probes Limits of Officials' Actions

In an agenda item titled "Overview of Municipal Corruption Investigatory Practices," House members last week explored circumstances under which local officials' actions could rise to the level of criminal corruption. The discussion, in a meeting of the Committee on Public Enterprise Systems and Use of Funds, tracked previous committee debates about whether sufficient oversight and accounting controls existed to monitor the financial practices of public enterprise systems such as water and wastewater systems.

Specifically, committee co-chair Rep. Tim Moffitt referred to systems' practices of allocating costs -- such as human resources or legal services -- between an enterprise fund and a local government unit's general fund as a "slush fund" for local officials. He questioned the special agents presenting on behalf of the State Bureau of Investigation about whether they would consider such practices corruption or acceptable accounting practices.

Rep. Moffitt's questions built upon information presented at a previous meeting of this House committee. In that meeting, committee members learned about the common financial practice of cost allocation, though they expressed doubts that proper oversight of local officials' actions existed. Previous committee discussions also focused on:

  • Whether municipal officials should retain discretion regarding whether to provide water and wastewater services outside their jurisdictional boundaries
  • Utility system directors' salaries
  • The purposes for which fees collected through stormwater enterprises could be spent.

Last week's meeting was the second in a series of four meetings the committee was authorized to hold. The committee will continue its work throughout this year and may make recommendations for legislation in the 2015 Long Session. The committee's charge was modeled on 2013 legislation sponsored by Rep. Moffitt. That legislation, however, went beyond this study's listed tasks by including language emphasizing that excess revenues accumulated by public enterprise systems should be used to lower rates, pay off debt service in advance, and make investments in the system.


^ Back to Top

League Announces Regulatory Joint Action Program, REG-TAF

The League is excited to announce the formation of the Regulatory Technical Assistance Fund (REG-TAF). REG-TAF is a voluntary joint action program created to protect N.C. municipalities’ collective interests by hiring external technical support for water quality and electric regulatory issues. The League membership asked the League to organize this annual voluntary joint action program after the success of two previous League member-supported joint action programs -- the Municipal Environmental Assessment Coalition (MEAC) and the Municipal Energy Group (NC-MEG):

  • In 2010, the League formed MEAC, a coalition comprised of more than 130 cities and towns, to accurately analyze data on the state’s proposed limits on wastewater discharges and increased stormwater regulations. MEAC commissioned a study that estimated the cost of complying with the proposed standards at $2 billion statewide. Based on this study, the League successfully pushed the state to implement alternative policies that minimized the financial impact of these regulations so that most cities will not need to pay for expensive wastewater plant upgrades and stormwater program expansions.
  • In 2013, the League formed NC-MEG, a coalition of more than 100 League members, to hire specialized outside legal counsel in the League’s interventions in both the Progress Energy Carolinas (PEC) and Duke Energy Carolinas (DEC) rate cases before the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC). The League’s interventions reduced the financial burden of rate increases on municipal budgets, particularly in those cities and towns providing services such as water and wastewater treatment, street lighting, traffic signals, and recreational facilities. The NCUC issued an order in the PEC rate case in May of 2013, and the overall rate increase to municipalities was less than 5%, a reduction of 50% from PEC’s original requested rates. The League’s involvement in the DEC rate case is ongoing; however, the League’s intervention minimized the impact of DEC’s initial rate increase proposal on municipal operations and the League continues to press DEC for an LED streetlight rate for cities and towns that would make it financially feasible for them to swap out old streetlight technologies for more energy-efficient technologies.

REG-TAF will be a continuing program comprised of annual voluntary contributions. In some years, the funds will support both water quality and electric regulatory issues, and in other years, funds may only be spent on one issue. Funds will be expended at the direction of an oversight committee comprised of members of the League’s Board of Directors with suggestions from all REG-TAF participants.

The suggested voluntary contribution depends on the potential benefit a municipality or authority will receive from joint regulatory technical assistance, given its electric consumption, wastewater generation, and stormwater controls. The REG-TAF proposal provides more information about the program and the voluntary suggested contribution. If you have any questions, please contact League Regulatory Affairs Associate Sarah Collins.


^ Back to Top

Future of Jordan Lake Rules Remains Uncertain

With little indication of additional changes that could be proposed for the Jordan Lake Rules nutrient management strategy, the legislative Committee on Jordan Lake meets tomorrow for the last time before the Short Session that begins May 14. The public will have the opportunity to comment at this meeting, the fourth and final interim study meeting regarding the Jordan Lake Rules (JLR). This JLR study, authorized in the omnibus "Legislative Research Commission" group of interim studies, came as a response to legislation last session that delayed portions of the Rules and any recommendation from the committee would be eligible for introduction as legislation in the upcoming Short Session.

Presentations in March

At the third committee meeting in March, committee co-chairs Sen. Rick Gunn and Rep. John Faircloth invited major wastewater dischargers in the Jordan Lake watershed, including League members from Burlington, Durham, Greensboro, and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, to present. Each discharger's presentation focused on efforts to comply with the Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy and the costs associated with that compliance. Legislators asked specific questions regarding whether the cost of upgrades included costs the utility would incur regardless of the limits on nitrogen and phosphorus eventually required by the rule, and although the answer varied depending on which discharger was asked, the incredible financial commitment made or planned by each utility to comply with the rules was clear.

In addition, committee members received a presentation from N.C. Division of Water Resources (DWR) Director Tom Reeder regarding alternative options for managing nutrients in the lake and the viability of each option. DWR planned to test "Solarbee" aerators in some of the most impaired areas of the lake; these devices were included as a provision in last year's state budget bill. Committee members asked whether the "Solarbee" aerators were the best pilot program to apply to Jordan Lake and expressed interest in trying alternative technology options for pilot studies -- if cost effective and practical. None of these technologies have been used on the scale as large as Jordan Lake. (Read more from the News & Observer.)

Federal Assessment of Solarbee Project

However, the future of the Solarbee pilot program depended on whether U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) granted the state a license to place the devices in the lake. USACE released an Environmental Assessment (EA) in March and the thirty-day public comment period closed April 6. This EA resulted from the inclusion of these devices as a provision in last year's state budget that specifically required N.C. Division of Water Resources (DWR) to establish a solar in-lake circulator demonstration project for the management of algal blooms and chlorophyll-a in the Haw River and Morgan Creek Arms of Jordan Lake.

DWR was required to request the use of waters for the Solarbee project from the USACE because the lake is federally managed. And because the requested use did not fall within the scope of the State’s lease of the lake, a USACE real estate license was required. In order to issue the license, USACE had to complete the EA to evaluate the environmental consequences of issuing the license, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Although the EA was completed and public comment has now closed, USACE has not yet granted or denied the license.


^ Back to Top

Regulatory Briefs

DWR submitted the draft 2014 303(d) list to EPA and released a response to the 30 public comments it received, including comments from Charlotte, Durham, Fayetteville, Wilmington, and several other local government organizations...In May, the state will hold three workshops regarding low-impact development, where participants will learn to use the new Storm-EZ Tool...Those workshops complemented an effort by the state to bolster the technical standards for several new low-impact development tools that it incorporated into the State BMP Manual...Meanwhile, the IRS reportedly decided to require local stormwater systems to inform private property owners with publicly-installed green infrastructure on their properties that they must pay federal income taxes on that infrastructure, if its value exceeded $600...Charlotte officials announced a new discovery of illegal PCB dumping into its sewer system, though its treatment plants removed the chemicals before discharging treated wastewater...SWIA reported it approved $140 million in state revolving loan project funding and approved priorities for all funding programs...Because those SRF projects must use iron and steel products made in the United States, EPA released guidance to assist local systems in complying with this requirement...In addition, the N.C. Rural Infrastructure Authority approved $8.1 million in grants to local governments for projects that included water and sewer projects...As part of the legislature's new rule review process, the 60-day public comment period opened March 17 for the EMC’s classification of the state's water quality rules...Rose Acre Farms asked a federal court to overturn a 2013 N.C. state court decision that allowed DENR to issue a stormwater permit for the CAFO facility's discharges of dust and feathers...EPA continued its green infrastructure push, issuing a guidance manual for incorporating the techniques into managing CSOs.


^ Back to Top

NCLM and State Environmental Government Meetings & Events