Energy providers wasted no time last year asking the Trump administration to rescind 2024 federal standards for coal ash disposal.

Five days before President Donald Trump returned for a second term in the White House on Jan. 20, 2025, 10 power suppliers, including Duke Energy, fired off a letter urging Lee Zeldin, Trump’s then-nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, “decline to defend these unlawful rules.”

Now the EPA is proposing to revise federal regulation for coal ash disposal, a move that would relax the Biden-era national standards for inactive, often unlined basins designed to store a sludgy mix of watered-down fly ash and bottom ash.

Here in North Carolina, where comprehensive coal ash legislation was pioneered, proposed changes at the federal level are not expected to affect, at least for the time being, the state’s robust coal ash management law.

Nor would the proposed federal revisions impact the terms of a 2019 settlement agreement between the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Duke Energy, and public interest groups that set closure schedules and monitoring requirements for the power company’s remaining coal ash basins.

“None of that is going to be changed by what EPA is trying to do now at the federal level,” Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Nick Torrey said.

But Torrey cautioned that sites where coal ash has been removed may still contain residual groundwater contamination.

“The federal regulations require monitoring and corrective action for that pollution,” he said. “If utilities can get exceptions and exemptions from those things, that’s potentially concerning. Fortunately, we do have a state process as well that’s dealing with groundwater issues, but it was never meant to be a substitute for the federal standards. There’s more vulnerability that coal ash contamination could be allowed to persist. So, we’ll have to be watching that very closely as things go forward.”

Coal ash, referred to in regulation and industry as coal combustion residuals, or CCR, is the byproduct created when coal is burned for electricity. It contains toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead and radioactive elements, according to the EPA.

In early February 2014, some 39,000 tons of coal ash slurry discharged from a collapsed pipe at Duke Energy’s retired Dan River Steam Station near Eden into the river. The spill spread as far as 70 miles downstream.

In the fall of that year, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act, or CAMA.

CAMA (not to be confused with the Coastal Area Management Act) initially set deadlines for Duke Energy to close a group of basins at four of its power plants by certain deadlines.

EPA in 2015 finalized the federal CCR rule under the Obama presidency. The Biden administration strengthened those regulations in 2024.

By that time, DEQ had finalized a basin closure schedule for all 14 of Duke Energy’s facilities in North Carolina. Following litigation and a settlement agreement between community and conservation groups, DEQ and Duke Energy, a 2020 consent order was approved to govern the cleanup process for the remaining sites.

Duke Energy anticipates officially fully excavating the 12th of its 32 coal ash basins in North Carolina by year’s end. Both coal ash impoundments at the Sutton Steam Plant in Wilmington were excavated by July 2019.

Duke Energy spokesperson Bill Norton confirmed in an email earlier this week that the excavation of ash at its W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant in Lumberton is complete, well ahead of schedule. The company is in the process of working through the basin’s clean closure certification, a process expected to be completed later this year, Norton said in the email.

“Not yet counting Weatherspoon, we have completed excavation at 11 North Carolina basins and are making strong progress at the remaining 20, with well over half of our basin ash safely excavated in the states,” he stated. “All sites remain on or ahead of schedule for basin closure deadlines as shown here.”

Norton said the EPA’s proposed rule changes will not impact Duke Energy’s proposed coal retirement dates.

“We continue making progress on coal retirements while balancing our regulatory approvals and increased load growth – regulators have made clear that replacement generation must be online and serving customers prior to further coal plant retirements,” he said. “While the potential EPA CCR rule changes have no impact on our proposed coal retirement dates, we appreciate prior changes to in the federal regulations that provided flexibility for our coal facilities, enabling us to maximize the value of existing generation by extending the operational life of these assets to help meet load growth at the lowest possible cost to consumers. Retirement dates are subject to regulatory approval.”

Coal-fired operations at Belews Creek Steam Station in Stokes County are expected to be shut down no later than Jan. 1, 2040. The retirement of that plant’s coal combustion operations will mark the end of Duke Energy’s coal-fired power generation in the state.

“We are making tremendous progress on meeting all obligations agreed to years ago in our North Carolina settlement with state regulators and environmental groups – that commitment is unchanged, and state regulators have confirmed our plans are protective of public health and the environment,” Norton said.

Beneficial reuse units at the company’s Buck Combined Cycle Plant in Salisbury, Cape Fear plant in Moncure, and H.F. Lee Energy Complex on the banks of the Neuse River in Goldsboro have been reprocessing coal ash at those sites to make it suitable for use in concrete since 2020, he said.

Katherine Lucas, DEQ’s Division of Waste Management public information officer, stated in an email that the agency “is evaluating the proposed changes to determine any potential impacts on ongoing excavation and remediation activities at Duke Energy facilities.”

“In the absence of an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-approved state permit program, utilities must comply with both federal and state requirements. North Carolina remains a national leader in coal ash management, both in establishing comprehensive regulations and in the scale and pace of closure and remediation efforts. DEQ believes the state’s regulatory framework is at least as protective as federal requirements and does not anticipate that federal changes would reduce existing environmental and public health protections.”

The EPA is accepting public comments on the proposed rule changes through June 12.

The agency is hosting an online public hearing at 9 a.m. on May 28. 

SURF CITY – Kerri Allen acknowledged early on what was also obvious to her audience.

“I do not need to tell anyone in here we have a really high density of leases,” the North Carolina Coastal Federation’s coastal management program director said. “In our public trust waters, when you have that many users, there are going to be conflicts.”

Several people sitting inside the Surf City Municipal Complex’s town council chambers that April 14 afternoon nodded in agreement, eager to share their thoughts on the subject.

With either temporary or permanent shellfish leasing moratoriums in North Carolina waters to its north and south, Topsail Island’s waters have become a hot commodity for oyster growers.

There are now nearly 190 shellfish leases in the waters behind the 26-mile-long barrier island from the New River and its adjacent estuarine waters south to Topsail Sound.

That’s a roughly 46% increase from the collective number of leases in 2018 in Onslow and Pender counties.

The squeeze put on the waters around Topsail Island has prompted ongoing calls for a temporary moratorium on new shellfish leases in the area.

The Topsail Island Shoreline Protection Commission, or TISPC, which is composed of elected officials from each of the island’s three towns – Topsail Beach, Surf City and North Topsail Beach – initiated a request for a temporary pause on leases more than a year ago. Commissioners in Onslow and Pender counties did the same.

Shellfish lease moratoriums in the state may be enacted only by the North Carolina General Assembly.

On April 10, 2025, Rep. Carson Smith, R-Pender, introduced legislation requiring a statewide study on shellfish leasing and the current lease moratorium.

House Bill 841 made it no further than the Senate’s Rules and Operations Committee.

“If there is a temporary moratorium, we don’t feel that’s unreasonable,” Allen said last week.

A pause would give the Coastal Federation and North Carolina Sea Grant more time to talk with those who live along and use the waters around the island and come up with suggestions to help shape future policy that would protect the industry, make it sustainable long term, and ease user conflicts, she said.

Additional focus groups, including one for shellfish growers, will be scheduled this fall.

Meanwhile, a temporary moratorium that has been repeatedly extended since it was first enacted in New Hanover County in 2019 is set to expire in July.

“It’s very reasonable to say if we were able to open up some of these other areas that could help alleviate the pressure that this area is seeing,” Allen said. “A lot of the oyster growers that we work with in this region live in New Hanover County and they would love not to have to drive up here to take care of their farms. We are actively trying to get New Hanover to not extend their moratorium. I do not have a good feel, one way or another, how that’s going to go yet, but we are having those conversations.”

Surf City Mayor Teresa Batts said officials on the island do not intend to wait for a decision before asking for a temporary moratorium.

“I know you’re going to go through the procedural steps, but the TISPC, we’re not going to sit back and wait,” she said. “If we see that New Hanover County is trying to extend their moratorium, then we’re going to try to slide in there on their session and piggyback on their moratorium.”

The Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, and North Carolina Sea Grant teamed up last year to launch a Geographic Information System, or GIS, database pinpointing areas where leases may or may not be suitable in the waterways behind Topsail Island. The GIS database is anticipated to be published next year.

Recommendations shared with the organizations will help shape the North Carolina Strategic Plan for Shellfish Mariculture, a plan commissioned by the General Assembly in 2017.

This document is effectively the state’s roadmap for a sustainable shellfish industry. It’s not meant to be a fixed document, rather one that evolves as the industry evolves and conditions change, Allen explained, adding, “which they very much have changed since 2017.”

In the years since, the state has seen a shift where shellfish farmers are using floating gear to grow oysters in the water column, a method that allows them to maximize the spaces in which they grow their product.

Unlike cages that are placed on the waterbed, those in water column leases poke up from the water’s surface.

And, as more water column leases have been granted, complaints have mounted about their impacts to the viewsheds of waterfront properties, boating and kayaking access, and infringement on popular fishing spots.

Fishing guide Capt. Ray Brittain offered to take Allen and N.C. Sea Grant Extension Director Frank López on his boat, and on his dime, to show them how the leases affect his business.

“There’s so many PVC pipes out there,” Brittain said. “You don’t need a thousand PVC pipes to mark,” a lease area. “We can’t fish in those. I mean, mark your outer edge to show people where it is, but a lot of it is just unnecessary stuff.”

Brittain was among nearly 30 attendees at the April 14 meeting, where participants were asked to break into two groups to discuss concerns and recommendations that will be documented and shared with local elected officials, legislators, and state agency officials.

Those at the meeting in Surf City last week touched on a host of issues, raising concerns related noise associated with shellfish farming activities, nighttime navigation around shellfish leases, the density of leases around Permuda Island Reserve, and linear placement of leases along estuary island shorelines blocking anglers from following fish.

Some asked for shellfish farmers to be required to carry liability insurance, while others suggested the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries create a more robust public notification system announcing lease applications that would include property owners whose land is within and adjacent to the viewshed of a proposed lease.

Other recommendations included an implementation of buffers by moving leases further from shorelines based on specific locations within a waterbody, potentially increasing lease fees, decreasing the length of time a lease is valid, and the possibility of commissioning studies on the impacts of floating cages on the ecosystem.

The Coastal Federation and Sea Grant are accepting comments online through the Stump Sound shellfish mariculture planning – stakeholder input form through Aug. 1.

Second and final in a series

As the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission’s Science Panel studies the effects of permanent beach erosion control structures such as seawalls and jetties, a critical aspect of the analysis will be looking at the lessons learned.

The commission banned hardened structures on the ocean shoreline in 1985 because of the down-shore erosive effects on the beach. Still, there are numerous examples of such structures in place along different parts of the coast, with varied degrees of effectiveness.

Erosion is not only more severe and longstanding on the Outer Banks, which are more exposed to the power of the open ocean and coastal storms than other parts of the North Carolina coast, it is the most dramatic and unforgiving, especially on Hatteras and Ocracoke islands. But coastal erosion is a statewide issue. To that point, federal beach nourishment projects in North Carolina began in 1965 at Wrightsville Beach and at Carolina Beach, and nourishment at both locations has been done in recent years.

When development and tourism took off on the Outer Banks in the 1980s, it didn’t take long before beach cottages began lining ocean shorelines.

Still, the forces of erosion had no mercy, and Kitty Hawk began losing beachfront properties. After the commission issued a variance to the hardened structures ban in 2003, permitting sheet-piling along N.C. Highway 12 in the beach community, then-Sen. Marc Basnight strongarmed the state’s ban into legislation.

Then in 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a law that permitted four “test” terminal groins and has since expanded the permissible number of groins to seven. To date, four communities submitted permit applications: Figure Eight Island, Ocean Isle Beach, Bald Head Island and Holden Beach. Holden Beach has since withdrawn its application.

Long before the ban, numerous attempts were made to shore up the beach oceanward of the 1870 Cape Hatteras Lighthouse in Buxton. By 1930, the nation’s tallest brick lighthouse was a mere 98 feet from the ocean.

According to National Park Service records, interlocking steel sheet-pile groins were installed in the 1930s on the beach near the lighthouse and reinforced a few years later. Over the years, dunes were built, grasses were planted, the beach was nourished, revetment and sandbag walls were installed.

In 1969, the U.S. Navy installed three reinforced concrete groins to protect its base, which was adjacent to the lighthouse at the time. But the erosion continued. More sandbags were put in place; more beach nourishment was done. The Navy left in the 1980s. While the National Park Service officially gave up its beach nourishment and dune stabilization efforts in 1973, it continued trying in ensuing years to protect the lighthouse from the sea with rip-rap, artificial seagrass, sandbags and a scour-mat apron.

Finally, after much study and public debate, with the ocean lapping at its foundation, in 1999 the lighthouse was relocated about a half mile from the beach.

Fast-forward a quarter-century and, since September 2025, 19 unoccupied beach houses near that same beach in Buxton have collapsed into the ocean.

Escalating beach erosion along the state’s entire coast, but especially in Buxton, has put difficult discussions about lifting the hardened shorelines ban back on the table. The few existing permanent erosion-control structures built over the years on North Carolina beaches have yielded mixed results.

Oregon Inlet

One of the most successful examples of a terminal groin doing what it was intended to do, and with relatively minimal harm, is the 3,125-foot terminal groin and 625-foot revetment built in 1991 to protect the N.C. Highway 12 tie-in at the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, which has since been replaced and renamed the Marc Basnight Bridge. The $13.4 million groin is substantial — ranging from 110 to 170 feet wide at its base and 25 feet wide at its landward end, and 39 feet wide at its seaward end — and was built to withstand waves as high as 15 feet, according to an analysis done by the state Division of Coastal Management, “North Carolina’s Terminal Groins at Oregon Inlet and Fort Macon,  Descriptions and Discussions.”

Located on the south side of Oregon Inlet at the north edge of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge land, the groin placement encouraged sand buildup, or accretion, landward, resulting in a wide expansion of 50 acres of sandy property on the inlet side of the historic state-owned Oregon Inlet Life-Saving Station. The building is vacant, but has been weatherized to preserve it for future use.

The groin site and surrounding beach have been regularly monitored by state and federal coastal scientists. Studies have shown that the structure has likely increased shoaling of a spit on the Bodie island side and deepening of the channel. Yet, the groin has cause little if any destructive downstream erosion while adequately protecting the highway and bridge infrastructure.

But the report warned that within the next 20 years or so, the continued southward migration of the Bodie Island spit could push the inlet’s main navigational channel up against the terminal groin structure itself.

“If this were to occur, the result would be severe scour and an increase in the maintenance necessary to preserve the threatened integrity of the structure itself,” according to the document.

Beaufort Inlet/Fort Macon

Since Fort Macon was constructed in 1834, about 25 erosion-control structures adjacent to Beaufort Inlet have been built, including groins, breakwaters, timber cribbing, sand-fencing and seawalls, as well as multiple beach nourishment projects, according to the terminal groin report.  The first phase of the terminal groin project began in 1961 and included a 530-foot seawall, a 250-foot revetment and 720-foot long, 6-foot-high terminal groin. Phase II, beginning in 1965, extended the groin 410 feet oceanward, and another groin was built west of the revetment to address extensive soundside erosion, while 93,000 cubic yards of sand was placed on the ocean beach.

The third phase, started in 1970, extended the terminal groin another 400 feet, to a total of 1,530 feet long. A 480-foot-long stone groin was built to stabilize the beach fill, and another 100,000 cubic yards of sand was placed on the ocean beach. Total costs for the three-phase project was $1.35 million.

Effects of the project include increased wave energy along the Fort Macon State Park and Bogue Banks area, and continued increases in wave energy were predicted. A sediment deficit has created erosion on the inlet’s western shoreline. Meanwhile, the sand spit at Fort Macon has migrated into the western bank of the navigation channel, indicating that the terminal groin has become inefficient at trapping sediment.

“Without constant beach nourishment, the terminal groin would no longer perform as observed historically and potentially fail altogether,” the report concluded.

Buxton

Dare County is planning a nourishment project in Buxton, as well as restoration of one of the Navy’s three abandoned reinforced sheet-pile groins that had been installed in 1969. According to the recent application to repair the southernmost groin, which is 50% or more intact, that groin had been lengthened in 1982 on the landward side by 300 feet, and armor stone was added two years later. New sheet piles and additional scour protection were added to the structures in 1994. The other two groins in the original groin field are too damaged to qualify under the Coastal Resources Commission’s “50% rule” that permits repairs.

Dare County Manager Bobby Outten has said publicly that the county is under no illusions that the project planned for this summer will solve the erosion issue for good. But the hope is that it will serve as a Band-Aid long enough to find a more permanent solution to erosion that is now so severe it is threatening the livelihoods of community residents and the island’s tourism economy, as well as N.C Highway 12.

Retired East Carolina University professor and veteran coastal geologist Dr. Stanley Riggs, who has studied the Outer Banks since the 1970s, agreed that the fact that the lighthouse had to be relocated to save it illustrates why Buxton’s erosion is not going to be easy to tame for long, with or without groins. When the first coastal survey from Virginia to Ocracoke was done in 1852, the original 1802 Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, which was destroyed, had been 1,000 feet from the shoreline, Riggs recently told Coastal Review. All told, the shoreline has receded 3,000 feet, or about two-thirds of a mile, at the cape, he said.

“And it’s been constant,” Riggs said. “It oscillates a little bit, but the main direction has been constant.”

As Riggs explained, offshore just north of the motel area in Buxton, there is an underwater rock structure that is set at an oblique angle relative to the barrier island. Similar “old capes” are also off Avon and Rodanthe, he said. The rocks are under as much as 50 feet of water, and they dictate how the waves refract there.

“And so, if you fly over it, and you get the right angle down there, what you see is a series of cusps, and one side of that cusp will be stable, the other side will be highly erosional,” he said. Groins will only make the eroding side erode faster. And when there are permanent or semipermanent structures along the beach, the shore face — the part that is under water — starts to erode and gets steeper and steeper, he said. And the steeper it gets, the more severe the overwash and the more difficult it is to hold the sand in place. That’s a big reason why beach nourishment is having to be done more frequently.

Not only does the Outer Banks stick out farther into the Atlantic, there is also a narrower continental shelf, which allows the bigger waves to come ashore from the open ocean without the wider “speed bump” needed to dissipate the power.

There’s no negotiating with the ocean, Riggs said. Considering the combination of coastal dynamics at play in Buxton, efforts to control erosion will continue to fail.

“It’s that land-sea-air interface that is really the highest energy place that we’ve got on our planet,” Riggs said. “And there’s some things you can do there. There’s some things you shouldn’t do there, you can’t do there, and it’s a matter of understanding how that system works.”

Ocracoke Island

A persistent erosion hot spot on the north end of the island along N.C. Highway 12, the only road between the Hatteras Ferry Docks and Ocracoke Village, has been patched on and off for decades by increasing numbers of ever larger numbers and size of sandbags.

But even the type of large, new, trapezoidal bags permitted at Ocracoke, Pea Island and Mirlo Beach have not held up as expected, according to a presentation provided by Paul Williams of the North Carolina Department of Transportation at the February Coastal Resources Commission meeting.

Williams presented details at the meeting of NCDOT’s revised request to increase the base of the sandbags from 20 to 30 feet and the height from 6 feet to 10 feet, to better protect them from being undermined by waves.

The newer bags have open ends at the top, which proved to be a problem at Pea Island, Williams told the commission. The Pea Island Refuge at the Visitor Center, he added, faces similar risks now to that seen at Mirlo Beach in Rodanthe in the years before the hotspot was bypassed with completion of the Rodanthe “Jug-Handle” Bridge.

“The performance has not been what we anticipated,” he said, describing how they were flooded at the top, which caused the sandbags to deflate. “This product, there may be some modifications that can be made to make them more resilient.”

Some of the new bags were also installed along with traditional sandbags at Ocracoke, and they’re still covered, Williams said, but roughly 1 mile of sandbags along N.C. 12 are at risk of being undermined during the next big storm.

“So it’s basically to give us more latitude on different products, to try to protect the roadway out there better than traditional sandbags have,” Willams told Coastal Review after the meeting. “We’ve used them for decades out there, and especially Mirlo, they really got tossed around during storms. We were looking to find a more resilient product, and we’re working on evaluating other options out there.”

The new sandbags with an opening at the top are quicker to fill, he said. They’ve worked at other areas, but conditions elsewhere are not as fierce.

“When you’re on the Outer Banks, you’re under constant pressure during some of these storm events, because we’ll have a storm set up on the coast and grind for days at a time,” Williams said. “And every tide cycle is just steadily pulling sand out of the bags, and we need to have some way to stop that.”

Even though many of the traditional sandbags without the troublesome opening are still in place at Ocracoke, Williams said that about half of them, or about 1,000, have been exposed and need to be replaced. Another issue on the island is the limited amount of sand available to cover.

Sandbags, which are considered temporary erosion-control structures that are permitted parallel to shore to protect imminently threatened roads or structures, have rules about color and size, but those rules have been notoriously abused with regard to the “temporary” part, with extensions often adding up to decades at a site, making them “hardened structures” in everything but name.

Before Nags Head in 2011 started nourishing its eroded beaches in South Nags Head, for instance, even battered and torn sandbags weren’t removed for years, and property owners often successfully sued the state to keep longstanding stacked rows of protective bags in place in front of their oceanfront homes on the eroded beach.

As sea levels continue to rise, storms intensify and erosion accelerates, even sandbags as fallbacks in the absence of other impermissible erosion-control structures are becoming less effective, as evidenced by photographs of huge piles of sandbags lined up against undermined houses at North Topsail Beach.

Ocean Isle Beach

Responding to the state legislature’s repeal of the ban on hardened erosion-control structures on the coast, Ocean Isle Beach in 2011 began the planning process to pursue permits to install a terminal groin at Shallotte Inlet to stem erosion that for decades had chewed away at the island’s east end. Five years later, state and federal approval was in hand to build a 750-foot-long terminal groin, but environmental groups in 2017 filed a lawsuit to stop the project. A ruling in March 2021 in the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the project alternatives were properly considered. By April 2022, the $11 million terminal groin was completed.

Today, a diminished beach remains in front of multi-million-dollar homes that were built after the groin was in place. Rows of sandbags block the surf from reaching some of the oceanfront homes, and several lots remain vacant because there is no longer enough property left to meet setback requirements.

In November, the Coastal Resources Commission allowed the owners of eroding vacant oceanfront lots to use larger sandbags to protect their properties.

Interest in future terminal groins

The Village of Bald Head Island, the first community to build a terminal groin after the “test groin” law passed, was issued a permit in October 2014 to build the erosion-control structure, which was completed in 2015.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality monitoring of the project after its completion did not turn up significant issues requiring corrective measures, according to its January 2024 report.

“While ongoing post-construction monitoring performed by the permittee has not identified any significant issues that would require corrective or mitigative measures, the Village performed a maintenance beach nourishment event, received nourishment from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ regularly scheduled Wilmington Harbor maintenance project, and is currently seeking permit authorization for a second Village-sponsored maintenance nourishment event,” according to the document.

Six other communities have expressed “varying degrees” of interest in building a terminal groin project, including North Topsail Beach and Figure Eight Island, as noted in the report.

Construction and other projects expected to affect waters or wetlands will now be vetted through a newly implemented state process.

Depending on a its impacts to streams and wetlands, some projects will get to bypass a 30-day notice as part of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources Clean Water Act 401 general certifications updates that took effect March 15.

The new certificate of coverage process is anticipated to apply to “many project” currently requiring individual Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certifications, according to a DEQ release.

Applicants must still apply to the division through the new process, but those that meet thresholds and conditions under the general certification will receive a letter of concurrence, which will allow the project to proceed without a 30-day notice.

Project located in sensitive areas, those with a significant quantity of impacts to waters or wetlands, or those that cannot meet the general certification conditions must still go through the process of a 30-day public notice and project-specific decision letter to obtain individual 401 water quality certification.

The state’s update reflects corresponding U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Nationwide Permits, which have been modified following a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that changed the definition of “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS.

That same year, the North Carolina General Assembly passed session law directing the state Environmental Management Commission to adopt a rule that aligns the state’s definition of wetlands to those of the federal definition.

The latest definition excludes noncontiguous wetlands, or those that are not connected to navigable waters.

The Corps has extended a one-year grace period to projects it has approved for permitting to complete impacts to waters outlined under their existing federal permit. New certifications will not be required for those projects.

DEQ advises permittees to check with their Corps representative to confirm whether the grace period is applicable to their projects.

The division has included a list of frequently asked questions online for general information.

Dare County officials invite residents, business owners and others with a stake in the unincorporated areas to participate in a brief survey to help inform the development of a resiliency strategy.

Through funding from the North Carolina Resilient Coastal Communities Program, which is administered by the N.C. Division of Coastal Management and supported by the N.C. General Assembly and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Dare County is assessing vulnerabilities and identifying priority actions to address both short-term and long-term risks. This planning effort provides a roadmap for future investments that strengthen safety, equity and environmental protection.

“As a low-lying coastal community, Dare County faces growing challenges from flooding, hurricanes, erosion and sea-level rise,” according to an item in the county’s February emailed newsletter. “A resilient future means reducing these risks while protecting homes, businesses, infrastructure, natural resources and economic assets that are central to the county’s identity.”

Officials define resilience as a community’s ability to prevent, withstand, respond to and recover from disruptions caused by natural hazards.

Dare County is home to six municipalities: Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk, Kill Devil Hills, Nags Head and Manteo. Unincorporated areas include Avon, Buxton, Colington, East Lake, Frisco, Hatteras, Manns Harbor, Martins Point, Mashoes, Rodanthe, Salvo, Stumpy Point, Wanchese, Waves and areas just outside of municipalities.

Officials said the plan for unincorporated areas of the county builds on the resilience strategy that was completed for Hatteras Island in 2022.

Officials said that community participation is essential to the process. “Local experiences and perspectives help ensure the resiliency strategy reflects countywide priorities and positions Dare County to pursue future funding for implementation.”

Those who want a say in unincorporated Dare County’s resilience are encouraged to complete the survey by the end of March.

For more information, contact Dare County Grants and Waterways Administrator Barton Grover at Barton.Grover@DareNC.gov.

Millions of dollars have been marked for coastal freight rail upgrades and improvements to include tracks, trestles, culverts and port infrastructure.

The projects are part of a total $16.3 million to go toward freight rail infrastructure improvements to a dozen short-line railroads and at the state Port of Morehead City, North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division officials announced Thursday.

The Morehead City port will see $177,500 for a rail scale installation and $844,860 for rail replacement and upgrades on the property.

The Wilmington Terminal Railroad will receive $627,000 for rail and switch improvements along its mainline corridor.

“These projects deliver significant benefits to North Carolina’s freight rail network,” said Rail Division Director Jason Orthner. “By working closely with our railroad partners, we are strengthening reliability and resiliency, supporting businesses across the state, and reinforcing the rail infrastructure that drives North Carolina’s economy.”

Other funded coastal projects include $1.23 million to the Carolina Coastal Railway for rail and bridge improvements along its Belhaven and Norfolk Southern Railway lines in Beaufort, Greene, Washington, and Wilson counties, and $712,801 for the Chesapeake & Albemarle Railroad’s bridge and track improvements along its mainline corridor and Edenton sidetracks in Camden, Pasquotank, Perquimans and Chowan counties.

NCDOT officials said the division’s $16.3 million contribution is funded through the Freight Rail and Rail Crossing Safety Improvement program, which the state legislature established in 2014 to support “the health, safety and performance of the state’s rail infrastructure while establishing partnerships to meet the growing demand for rail service.”

In total, the projects will upgrade more than 95 miles of track and eight railroad bridges and culverts in North Carolina to support an anticipated increase in freight rail traffic statewide.

The Rail Division said its grants are matched by investments from participating railroad companies and the North Carolina Ports Authority. The partnerships are putting $41.5 million into projects that improve North Carolina’s freight rail network.

Other awarded projects and NCDOT’s contribution to each include the following:

• Aberdeen Carolina and Western Railway — $4,845,392 in funding for rail replacement and improvements along its Piedmont Division in Cabarrus and Mecklenburg counties.
• Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad — $771,397 for track upgrades and continuity of service on its mainline in Hoke County.
• Alexander Railroad Co. — $381,797 for track and corridor upgrades near the Alexander Industrial Park in Alexander County.
• Alexander Railroad Co. — $495,026 for track and grade-crossing upgrades on the mainline rail corridor in Iredell County.
• Atlantic & Western Railway — $690,440 for corridor improvements and rail track upgrades on the Jonesboro branch in Lee County.
• Great Smoky Mountains Railroad — $1.68 million for track improvements and bridge repairs along its mainline corridor in Jackson, Swain, Macon and Cherokee counties.
• North Carolina and Virginia Railroad — $979,813 for rail replacement and improvements along its mainline corridor in Northampton County.
• Raleigh & Fayetteville Railroad — $999,586 for rail corridor improvements to the Norfolk Southern and VF lines in Wake and Harnett counties.
• Winston-Salem Southbound Railroad — $1.11 million for rail improvements along its W line in Davidson County.
• Yadkin Valley Railroad — $754,700 for track upgrades and rail corridor improvements along its K and CF lines in Yadkin, Surry and Stokes counties.

Recreational fishermen, as of Monday, must report when they harvest five fish species, and commercial fishermen must now report their entire harvest, whether or not they sell it to a seafood dealer.

The North Carolina General Assembly established the new rules through a 2023 law and charged the Division of Marine Fisheries with enforcing the requirements that went into effect Monday.

The recreational harvest of red drum, spotted seatrout, striped bass, weakfish and flounder must be reported to the Division of Marine Fisheries using the online Mandatory Harvest Reporting webform or a Paper Report Card once the fishing trip is complete.

For commercial fishermen, all harvest of finfish, shellfish and crustaceans must be reported through the North Carolina Trip Ticket Program using a licensed seafood dealer.

If the catch is sold, the dealer reports it as usual. The new rules require that any commercial catch that is not sold, such as kept for consumption, it must be reported through a dealer, who will mark a trip ticket as an “unsold harvest.” The harvest must be reported through a licensed seafood dealer within 48 hours of landing for a commercial fishing operation.

Officials said Monday that the Mandatory Harvest Reporting program will not replace the Marine Recreational Information Program, or any of the other creel surveys the division conducts. Information collected through the new program will be used in conjunction with data collected by existing surveys to better inform fisheries management.

More information, including a Frequently Asked Questions webpage, can be found in the Mandatory Harvest Reporting section of the Division of Marine Fisheries website.

This report was updated Nov. 25 to include information on arrangements.

Former North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Willis Padgett Whichard, one of four individuals widely credited for securing passage of the state’s Coastal Area Management Act, died Monday in Chapel Hill, sources close to the family confirmed this week.

A 1962 graduate of the University of North Carolina, Whichard left Chapel Hill three years later with a law degree. He served two terms as member of North Carolina House of Representatives from 1970 until 1974, when he was first elected to the state Senate. Whichard served three Senate terms and, in 1980, Gov. Jim Hunt appointed Whichard to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. In 1986 he became an associate justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, serving until he retired in 1998.

“While a sitting justice, he somehow found time to earn his doctorate of systematic jurisprudence from the University of Virginia,” according to a Carolina Alumni article about his General Alumni Association Distinguished Service Medal citation. “That is the top degree possible for a legal scholar—one that very few lawyers and judges possess.” The citations are read aloud during the annual alumni luncheon and then presented to recipients.

Author, musician and UNC professor Bland Simpson called Whichard “an almost legendary man of many superlatives, and one of the most important of his legion of accomplishments was helping move the Coastal Area Management Act through the legislature in 1973-74.”

In an email Monday, Simpson told Coastal Review that he and Whichard spoke of the fight for CAMA on numerous occasions, “and he always said there were four individuals key to making this all-important bill into law.” Those individuals were then-Gov. James Holshouser, Milton Heath, who was a professor at UNC’s Institute of Government and wrote the bill, Sen. Bill Staton of Lee County, and Rep. Whichard from Durham County, who Simpson said carried the bill through the House.

“When CAMA passed the legislature, it was widely seen as the most comprehensive, progressive, protective coastal legislation become law in the nation,” Simpson said. “Whichard was a giant, a visionary, and the last surviving member of the quartet that gave us CAMA.”

Author, photographer, conservationist and attorney Tom Earnhardt told Coastal Review in an email Tuesday that in summer 1970, he worked a student clerkship with the Powe, Porter and Alphin law firm in Durham.

“E.K. Powe and others in the firm were well known North Carolina lawyers,” Earnhardt said, adding that the lawyer who taught him the most Whichard, then the youngest lawyer with the firm. “Bill always made the time to read and give a quick edit to anything I prepared. Always a mentor, he was exactly the same Bill Whichard I’ve known for the last 55 years — humble, patient, compassionate, and brilliant.”

Earnhardt said that, years later, he worked with Gov. James Holshouser to secure legislative funding for Cape Lookout National Seashore. He said that Whichard, then a House member, quickly took up the cause.

“After I had gotten several emphatic rejections from more senior officials, Bill assured me he’d help find the money. I still remember his political assessment of the North Carolina General Assembly at the time: ‘You’ve got to remember that in the General Assembly there will always be Members who will vote against the Creation to preserve the pre-existing darkness!’”

Earnhardt said that in each of Whichard’s roles, he “was always the brightest light in the room. No one has served North Carolina better.”

That sentiment was shared in the Campbell Law Review’s spring 2006 edition, which noted that, Whichard had served in both the legislative and judicial branches of government, “and in so doing, he has the distinction of being the only person to serve in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the North Carolina General Assembly and on both of our appellate courts, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of North Carolina. In each of these significant areas of service, Willis Whichard has established records of lasting import.”

Born in 1940 in Durham, Whichard was an adjunct law professor at UNC from 1986 until 1999. He was dean and law professor at Campbell University from 1999 until his retirement in 2006.

From 2006 to 2013, Whichard practiced as a partner with the Moore & Van Allen law firm’s Research Triangle Park office.

In 2013, Whichard joined the Chapel Hill law firm, Tillman, Whichard, and Cagle.

In 2019, Whichard and Raleigh attorney Scott Miskimon were presented Friend of the Court awards for their service to the Judicial Branch and work on the Supreme Court’s bicentennial exhibit at the North Carolina Museum of History. Whichard led the effort to create the North Carolina Supreme Court exhibit, “Law and Justice: The Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1819-2019.”

The News & Observer reported Nov. 24 that Clements Funeral & Cremation Services of Durham is handling the arrangements, and a public memorial service is planned for January.

A new steel manufacturing company’s plans to open a factory in Hertford County will be “transformational” for the area, according to a state senator who worked behind the scenes to help land what is anticipated to be a nearly $1 billion investment project.

Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, said he expects an official announcement from U.S. Forged Rings Inc., “coming very soon and it will be a very large event.”

“There’ll be folks from (Washington) D.C. coming down for this event,” he said.

USFR did not respond to requests for comment.

Hanig spoke to Coastal Review in a telephone interview a few days after the General Assembly on Sept. 23 advanced to Gov. Josh Stein a bill to appropriate $51 million to construct a public dock with access to the Chowan River and another $11 million to build a public road “capable of accommodating industrial loads” to the dock.

Stein signed House Bill 358 into law on Tuesday, stating it “makes helpful investments across the state” and that it “supports the state’s broader economic efforts.”

The bill does not specifically name the business for which the dock and road would be constructed, but states the company “is a manufacturer of steel forgings and large diameter steel fabrications” that would be required to invest a minimum of $947 million in the project site and create no fewer than 835 new jobs.

USFR on its website advertises itself as the country’s “only integrated One-Stop-Shop Manufacturer of Steel Forgings and Large Diameter Steel Fabrications.”

“What it’s going to do for Hertford County and all of northeastern North Carolina is transformational,” Hanig said. “This is going to be probably the biggest economic development project in decades. What’s happening here with these folks coming to town and this dock and barge … it’s going to explode into a major economic area. It really is.”

Hanig called what he said was a teamwork effort that included Hertford County commissioners, the county’s Economic Development Director Kelly Bowers, and state Rep. Bill Ward, a Republican who represents Camden, Gates, Hertford, Pasquotank counties, “magnificent.”

“We’ve been laughing, we’ve been crying, we’ve been yelling,” Hanig said. “You name it, every emotion over the last couple of years to get this thing to happen.”

Hertford County officials did not respond to requests for direct comment, instead issuing a statement by Andre Lassiter Sr., chairman of the county’s board of commissioners.

“Hertford County officials are excited at the prospect of a major industrial company considering locating a manufacturing facility in the county,” Lassiter stated. “Discussions with the company, and state and federal lawmakers and officials, have been occurring for more than a year, and are ongoing. The $51 million appropriation by the N.C. General Assembly, and the assistance and cooperation of the Economic Development Partnership of N.C., the N.C. Department of Commerce, and the Office of the Governor of North Carolina, all have been and remain critical to this endeavor.”

According to its website, USFR aims to operate three plants, including a piping facility, a fabrications facility and a forging and ring-rolling facility, all by the end of 2029.

“We are developing a state of the art Atlantic Coast based heavy industry components manufacturing hub with three co-located facilities,” the website states.

The fabrications facility, which the company plans to have up and running by the second quarter of 2028, will produce annually up to 100,000 metric tons of steel cylinders and shells up to 26 feet wide and up to 200 feet in length.

“The factory will have direct access to a wharf for shipment of large sections directly to end users or downstream fabrication yards,” the company website states. “It will support the energy & infrastructure sectors, supplying critical shell components and containment vessels for a wide range of applications.”

USFR has a supply chain partnership with Charlotte-based Nucor, a steel production company that has a plant in Hertford County near Cofield, a small village off the Chowan River.

Nucor’s Hertford County mill has been in operation since September 2000 and employs some 500 people. According to a recent WRAL report, Nucor has purchased hundreds of additional acres in the county this year.

Nucor did not respond to a request for comment.

Hanig said the General Assembly fund-appropriated dock will be utilized by more than one company and that “multiple companies” are inquiring about nearby property.

“There will be an agreement with USFR that they use it a certain amount of time and then other businesses will be able to use it as well,” he said. “That’s what is attracting other businesses to the location. As soon as this project starts it’s going to fill up so fast it’s going to be incredible. This is just a springboard to what’s going to happen over the next several years in Hertford County. I just can’t even put it into words how excited I am for everybody involved.”

An overwhelming majority of litter captured over the course of three years by in-stream traps set up in watersheds throughout the state was plastic waste, according to a recently published study.

About 96% of litter North Carolina waterkeeper organizations and their volunteers removed from trash traps between June 2021 and November 2024 consisted of plastics, said Dr. Nancy Lauer, lead author of the paper published in the journal Community Science.

“Plastic is lightweight, it’s buoyant, it floats easily,” Lauer, a staff scientist and lecturing fellow with the Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic, said in a recent telephone interview. “The plastic items, they can very well make their way through the stormwater system, through the stream and end up in the trash trap before they are ever going to biodegrade.”

During the course of the three-year study, 150,750 pieces of litter were removed from 21 traps.

The litter traps were funded through a 2020 North Carolina Environmental Enhancement Grant as part of a statewide microplastics research and pollution-prevention infrastructure project sponsored by Waterkeepers Carolina, a group of 15 licensed waterkeepers in the state.

By removing and documenting the litter that gets caught in the traps, waterkeeper organizations are able to get an understanding of the most prevalent types of litter entering North Carolina rivers. They are also able to look at correlations between litter accumulation and characteristics such as development, impervious surface, road density and human populations within different watersheds.

Using the data collected by those waterkeeper organizations, researchers can provide a big picture of riverine litter in the state and use that to shape policy.

For this study, seven waterkeeper organizations and their volunteers were tasked with separating and organizing the trash they removed from traps into categories.

Those categories included plastic film, hard plastic, polystyrene foam, metal, glass; and paper covering items, such as drink containers made of plastic, glass and metal, plastic straws and stirrers, cup lids, bottle caps and food wrappers.

Fragments of polystyrene foam from consumer products like Styrofoam cups, food takeout containers and packing materials were removed from all 21 traps in “very high” loads, Lauer said.

Those fragments and single-use plastic bottles made up about 83% of the litter that was collected and documented.

“If you do a cleanup of a roadside, you’re going to find a lot more plastic bags, a lot more food wrappers and we would find those occasionally,” Lauer said. “But I think that those just tend to snag on branches or get weighted down in the stream banks before they would ever be able to reach the trap. It was sort of eye opening to realize which of these plastic items, when they get into the environment, are extremely mobile. It seems like the trash traps are telling us that Styrofoam fragments and plastic bottles can really effectively be transported by surface waters downstream just because they made up such a large fraction of what we were finding in the traps.”

The paper is the latest to highlight single-use plastic pollution in the state.

A 14-page report published last March and created through a collaboration of nonprofits and the policy clinic concluded that state agencies, local governments and nonprofits spent more than $56 million in 2023 cleaning up more than 7,000 tons of litter.

Related: State’s fix for costly litter problem ‘not efficient or sufficient’

That same year, legislators injected language into the state budget prohibiting counties and cities from adopting rules, regulations, ordinances, or resolutions that restrict, tax, or charge fees on auxiliary containers.

The provision stopped locally elected officials in Asheville from voting on a proposed ban of single-use plastic bags and Styrofoam food containers. The law also barred local elected officials in Durham from deciding whether to require retailers tack on a 10-cent fee for each plastic bag given to customers in restaurants, grocery stores and shops.

That law “dealt a huge blow” to North Carolina, Lauer said.

The volume of single-use plastics removed from riverine traps clearly indicates that type of pollution is a huge issue in the state, she said

“I think what this data really highlights is that there’s still work that needs to be done and that work now, because of that preemption law, can’t necessarily be done on the local level in the same way that it could before,” Lauer said. “But there are state-level actions like banning Styrofoam, or a bottle bill that would incentivize people to return their bottles to receive a small deposit. Those could be really effective at reducing stream litter.”

She said it is important to keep in mind that there are types of litter that aren’t being captured in trash traps.

“These traps have a lot of positive aspects, but ideally we want to live in a world where we don’t need them because that trash is never ending up in our streams,” Lauer said. “I feel really strongly that there needs to be action by the corporations and the businesses and the government to stop these items from being provided in the first place. We go through life and you can make choices as an individual, but single-use plastics are still so prevalent that it can feel impossible to avoid them, no matter how hard you try.”

A discussion about a proposal to transfer the Division of Marine Fisheries from the Department of Environmental Quality to the state agriculture department looms large on the list of priorities for a newly formed alliance created to support North Carolina’s commercial fishing industry.

During the North Carolina Coastal Counties Fisheries Coalition’s second meeting Sept. 16 at the Crystal Coast Civic Center in Morehead City, Dare County Board of Commissioners Chair Bob Woodard explained that the proposal was floated after asking commercial fishermen about their concerns.

Among those issues were catch limits, water quality, educating the rest of the state on coastal issues, predation management, and the idea that Woodard called “a big one.” 

“It’s a biggie, is moving the director of Marine Fisheries to the Department of Agriculture,” Woodard said.

The Division of Marine Fisheries provides staff support to the state Marine Fisheries Commission, which is a nine-member board appointed by the governor that manages fisheries in coastal and joint waters.

Woodard initiated the alliance in a July 3 letter to other coastal counties after a state Senate committee amended a House bill that would “prohibit the use of trawl nets to take shrimp in coastal fishing waters or the Atlantic Ocean within one-half mile of the shoreline.”

House Bill 442 was first introduced in March with the stated intention of opening fishing for summer flounder and red snapper, but Senate added the trawl ban language before approving the measure. Despite a handful of “noes” from a few coastal Republican senators and a well-attended protest organized by commercial fishing interests, the amended bill was approved June 19 in a nearly unanimous vote and sent back to the House to consider. House leaders announced on June 25 that the House would not take up the bill.

The coalition held its first meeting Aug. 5, also in Morehead City, and plans are in motion for the next meeting to be Nov. 5 at the same location.

“I think we’re making some really, really positive headway with respect to this coalition,” Woodard said as he called the meeting to order.

Woodard also explained that the Food and Drug Administration has warned that the public should avoid eating imported shrimp potentially contaminated with radioactive material that may have been sold at Walmart in 13 states.

“This is exactly what we’re talking about, folks. Folks sitting around this table, we want to eat local shrimp, and we want to eat it out of clean waters. Americans are being warned not to eat or sell or serve certain Great Value, raw, frozen shrimp sold at Walmart after toxic levels of radioactive materials were detected in just one sample,” said Woodward, noting that the FDA states in its press release that the suspect shrimp had been imported from Indonesia.

“This is this is what we’re dealing with,” Woodard reiterated, adding that nothing is more important than protecting the livelihood of commercial fishermen and local seafood.

As part of that focus, the coalition members has since the first meeting been talking to those in the commercial fishing industry about their concerns. The coalition was tasked with breaking down the list of 10 issues into four priorities.

The priorities to which they agreed to and ranked in order of importance are education, fisheries limits and water quality, legislative items, and predation management.

Regarding the top priority, education, the goal is to inform the rest of the state, local governments, the legislature and consumers about the commercial fishing industry.

Currituck County Commissioner Janet Rose pointed out that consumers are statewide but don’t have a seat at the table. “I think we really need to play into the consumers. I think that’s important.”

For priority No. 2, water quality decline and limits and rules for crabbing, shrimp and flounder, Pasquotank County Commission Chairman Lloyd Griffin said the “biggest opponent right now is the five highways that come to eastern North Carolina.”

“We’re fighting stormwater runoff. We’re fighting the closures because of the stormwater runoff. We have more people that want to live on the coast because of the quality of life. So our roads are our issue,” Griffin said. “You really want to be conscious of is what is happening with our closures because those closures do have an impact.”

The suggestion to move the Division of Marine Fisheries to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Marine Fisheries Commission data sharing and transparency, and testing for restaurants to back up local seafood claims, all fall under the third priority: legislative items.

Carteret County Commissioner Chris Chadwick spoke up in support of the idea of the division being under the Department of Agriculture.

“Shrimpermen, fishermen and floundermen and all that, they are food producers. The only difference — they don’t own the land. They’re out there in the public water. But I think it would be a much more friendly atmosphere over there. Maybe less political. Hopefully less political,” Chadwick said.

Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, was in attendance, and she told the coalition she understands fish issues and the environmental constraints.

As a representative, Harrison said “it’s incumbent on us to educate our colleagues and these folks back here have done a really excellent job of that,” adding that it has been interesting to counter the bad facts that have been floating around the legislature.

Marine Fisheries’ ‘early history’

During the meeting, two scientists who have retired from the North Carolina Department of Marine Fisheries were invited to speak about their time as public servants.

Cornell Purvis, who acted as director for Marine Fisheries from 1978 to 1992, said that “in the last 40 years, Marine Fisheries has been the red-headed stepchild of state government, but it didn’t start out that way. It started out with something that needs to be celebrated. I’m here today to lift the truth and to celebrate the early history of Marine Fisheries.”

He said that, going back 50 years, it “was all old school,” while under the leadership of the division’s third director, the late Ed McCoy. Purvis called him “the brainchild behind the focus on the science and the focus of connection with the fishermen.”

The director taught his staff that they were public servants who served the fishermen in the state. “He told us experience is the best teacher. It’s always the best teacher. These fishermen already know it. We have to learn what they already know and put it in scientific terms.”

Jess Hawkins, previously the chief of fisheries management for the division, worked in state government for 30 years, with much of that time in fisheries regulation. His role with the division was to coordinate rulemaking for the Marine Fisheries Commission.

So, how did the state get to a point where a bill proposing a flounder season was transformed into banning shrimp trawling in estuarine and a coastal waters, he said. “How does that happen in our state?”

Hawkins said the trawl amendment “did not spontaneously develop. It was a chronic process of what I believe is failed governance, and education is a key component of that.”

He added that his comments were intended to help, not disparage, before reciting a brief history of the last few decades of fisheries management.

The Fisheries Reform Act of 1997, which was passed with bipartisan support, “set the foundation for fisheries management in North Carolina and it was an epiphany for our state,” Hawkins said.

The act was meant to transform how the state manages its fish, and set the structure for the Marine Fisheries Commission, established the science-based management system, and required fisheries management plans for all commercially and recreationally important fisheries. The act also provided an avenue for robust public engagement through advisory committees.

When Hawkins retired in 2006, he was managing 25 advisory committees, and now there are seven, prompting his concerns with the public input or stakeholder process.

“My observation is — and following fisheries policy in our state since I’ve retired — is the last 15 years or so, the stakeholder input process of the Fishery Reform Act has been corrupted,” Hawkins said.

The process to build a fisheries management plan begins in a committee, but “right now your fishery management plan committee only meets once,” which used to meet consistently, Hawkins said, the same as the standing and regional committees.

The North Carolina General Assembly requires the Marine Fisheries Commission chair to establish a committee that helps develop the management plan. “The executive branch has interpreted that, that they only need to meet once. During which time, they only share ideas, then staff “assimilate the ideas and go off and work on the plan,” Hawkins said. The committee never gets to review the draft plan before it goes before the commission. “So, that process has been corrupted.”

The habitat and water quality advisory committee used to meet monthly, but in the years since Hawkins retired, he said that the committee has never met. And the finfish committee should have been able to review the flounder fishery management plan, but during some years, it never had the opportunity.

Hawkins also pointed to what he called a lack of dialogue between the public and the fisheries commission, particularly limiting, he said, is the three-minute time limit per person during the public comment portions of commission meetings.

“The silence about seafood consumers in our state when we manage our resources is deafening. There’s very little regard to that, very little discussion of that,” Hawkins said.

There is advocacy for consuming domestic seafood, and it is known that the country has a well-managed seafood system management system that inspects the product caught in the United States, but “We only inspect 1-2% of our foreign seafood, yet we import 85%. We import 90% of our shrimp and yet we have a bill that’s introduced to even stop the shrimp harvest based on no scientific reason of shrimp populations being harmed.”

Hawkins gave the coalition a list of his proposed legislative changes that he said he had also sent to legislators over the years. None have been approved.

“North Carolina cannot afford to continue to rely on the leadership that changes with the gubernatorial office every four years to manage our seafoods. It can’t do that. There needs to be changes,” he said.

If you want a sense of just how complicated and drawn-out state rulemaking can get, look no further than the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission’s water quality committee.

More than a year has passed since the committee began kicking around a rule that would, as initially proposed, limit industrial discharge of forever chemicals across the state.

Any such rule has been passionately debated time after time, meeting after meeting, only to be tabled again and again, heightening the collective frustrations of thousands of North Carolinians and the water utilities that serve them.

Now, if adopted by the full commission, the rule will also have to get the General Assembly’s approval.

The proposed rule would trigger a threshold established under House Bill 402, known as the “Regulations from Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS)” Act, a new law that has drawn sharp criticism from environmental and health advocates who argue it will stifle an already daunting rulemaking process and create significant obstacles to addressing pollution.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, which recommends rules to commissions, including Environmental Management, echoed similar sentiments in an emailed statement responding to a request for comment late last month.

“The Department of Environmental Quality and its Commissions’ rules provide essential public health protections. They help ensure that our air, water and land are clean and safe throughout North Carolina while giving businesses and municipalities the certainty they need to make fiscal decisions. The new law will make it significantly more difficult, and it will take longer, to create new protections against environmental harms like PFAS and other forever chemicals. These rulemaking changes also add significant uncertainty for businesses, municipalities and our residents.”

The REINS Act establishes a tiered system for rules based on their projected financial impact. If a rule exceeds a certain threshold, that rule can no longer be approved simply by a majority vote of a rulemaking board or commission.

Rules projected to cost $1 million over five years must receive a two-thirds majority vote of the rulemaking body. Any rule with an impact of $10 million or more over five years must receive unanimous approval. If a proposed rule is expected to cost $20 million or more over five years the rule must be formally approved by the General Assembly before it can take effect.

Since 2020, the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management has reviewed fiscal and regulatory impact analysis of 31 proposed rules that exceed REINS Act thresholds.

In all, 15 of those proposed rules OSBM has reviewed in the last five years were projected to have impacts of $1 million or more over five years, according to information provided by that office.

Seven proposed rules had projected costs of $10 million or more and nine rules had projected financial impacts of $20 million or more.

The Environmental Management Commission, Commission for Public Health, Building Code Council, and Wildlife Resources Commission were among the rulemaking bodies who considered those proposed rules.

North Carolina has more than 300 boards and commissions that oversee a range of issues that will be affected by the law, one Republican leaders have argued would enhance government accountability and protect residents and businesses from overregulation.

The state is one of the latest to adopt measures modeled after the federal Regulations from Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, which establishes a congressional approval process for a “major rule,” including one likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

“I think what we’re looking at is a lot of gridlock around topics that have not made as much progress as they should have so far,” said Grady O’Brien, North Carolina Conservation Network’s water policy manager.

One of the starkest examples of that, he said, are rules relating to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

DEQ’s initial rule proposal to the Environmental Management Commission included health standards for eight PFAS in groundwater and surface water. The commission’s committees pared down that number down to three chemical compounds – PFOA, PFOS, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists as likely carcinogens, and GenX, a compound specific to Chemours’ Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County.

Under the proposed rule DEQ initially presented to the water quality committee, the state would have been given the ability to enforce limits on dischargers for PFAS. Critics of the current proposed rule argue it lacks the teeth the state needs to be able to ensure industries are actually reducing releases of the chemical compounds into surface water including the Cape Fear River, the drinking water source for tens of thousands of North Carolinians.

The proposed draft rule, which could go to a vote of the full commission in November, would require industries that discharge PFAS into surface water and industries that discharge those chemicals to publicly owned treatment works to monitor for PFOA, PFOS, and GenX.

As is, the proposed rule’s projected financial impact is $129.5 million over the next six years, which means the rule requires both a unanimous vote of the full commission and legislative review.

“So, things have gone from frustrating and slowed down to looking almost impossible when you’re going to need a unanimous vote, which kind of empowers one person on whatever board or commission in question, one person can shut something down that has this $10 million threshold over five years,” O’Brien said.

The law excludes economic benefits associated with a proposed rule and, critics point out, as current rules go up for periodic review, rules that have been on the books for decades that fall within the new thresholds could be stripped from the books.

Braxton Davis, executive director of the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, said rulemaking “already involves an extensive process, including fiscal impact analysis and public input.”

“It often takes a year or more from the time a rule is drafted until it becomes effective – even when rules are being relaxed,” Davis said. “If the commissions’ rulemaking process becomes even more challenging, it may force the General Assembly to act on new issues and information to an extent that would be much better suited for the executive branch to address, at least initially.”

Davis, former director of DEQ’s Division of Coastal Management, said that, in his experience, regulatory commissions have members that bring different expertise, experience and perspectives to the table.

“And, as with any board, it will be very difficult to achieve a unanimous vote on any significant rule changes,” he said.

Mary Maclean Asbill, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Chapel Hill office, said the law will “pretty much shut down” environmental rulemaking.

“We’ve already seen over the past few years the erosion of separation of powers in North Carolina, where the conservative majority of the General Assembly has legislated changes to the composition of boards and commissions, taking away authority from the governor, or the executive branch, and giving it to themselves,” she said. “We have seen appointees to any number of environmental boards and commissions mimic the ideology of the legislature. By that I mean they are anti-regulation, anti-protection, anti-environmental protection and so it has already been difficult for the past few years for state agencies who are charged with protecting the health and environment of North Carolina to promulgate any rules or regulations that are protective of health and the environment. This is going to make it exponentially more difficult.”

Gov. Josh Stein vetoed the law, writing in his June 27 rejection of House Bill 402 that it would, “make it harder for the state to keep people’s drinking water clean from PFAS and other dangerous chemicals, their air free from toxic pollutants, and their health care facilities providing high quality care.”

The law, he wrote, would “impose red tape” and would make agencies, boards, and commissions, “less effective at protecting people’s health, safety and welfare.”

The General Assembly voted to override Stein’s veto.

Longtime Outer Banks politician Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, has launched a campaign to represent northeastern North Carolina at the federal level.

“I’m proud to announce that I am running for the United States Congress and the 1st congressional seat of the great state of North Carolina,” Hanig said Wednesday morning on “Talk of the Town” with Henry Hinton, a radio show on TALK 96.3 & 103.7 FM and streamed YouTube. He made the announcement on his website and social media, as well.

Hanig is running for the state’s 1^st District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, which covers Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Edgecombe, Gates, Granville, Greene, Halifax, Hertford, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, Northampton, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, Vance, Warren, Washington, Wayne and Wilson counties.

So far, Hanig’s only opponent in the Republican primaries being held in March 2026 is Rocky Mount’s two-term mayor, Sandy Roberson. The winner of that race will face in the November 2026 election the incumbent Congressman Don Davis, a Democrat serving his second term representing the district, if Davis goes uncontested.

Hanig decided to run because “more people in North Carolina need someone that’s going to fight for their constituents and the ‘America First agenda,’ and we don’t have it,” he told Hinton, referring to the Trump administration’s plans under the reconciliation act passed in June.

Hanig is an Army veteran and small business owner in his second term in the North Carolina Senate. He represents District 1’s Bertie, Camden, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Northampton, Pasquotank, Perquimans and Tyrrell counties until his term ends Dec. 31, 2026. Before becoming a senator, Hanig served two terms in the state House and as chairman for the Currituck County Board of Commissioners.

In a statement from his campaign Wednesday morning, Hanig said he is a “proven leader who has always been a fierce advocate for my constituents and our shared values and beliefs. I will continue that fight when I get to Washington. I believe in President Trump’s America First Agenda and my record in the legislature backs it up. I’ve cut taxes for North Carolina families, toughened border control in the state, stood up for life, and defended our Second Amendment rights.”

Hanig said during the radio interview with Hinton that he had decided to run before his very public fight against a proposed bill that would prevent shrimp trawling in state waters a few months ago.

“I love eastern North Carolina, and this is my home. These are my people. I’m blessed to do what I do. Serving in the General Assembly has been an absolute honor, privilege and just opportunity in the lifetime,” he said, adding what he thinks he’s learned from serving as a county commissioner and in the House and Senate “has brought me to this point, and I’m ready to move on to the next level and really give northeast North Carolina what they deserve, which is good leadership to protect our values, our heritage and our way of life.”

MOREHEAD CITY – The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management has awarded more than $2.25 million in grants to fund 10 projects to expand and improve public access to beaches and coastal waterways.

The grants, awarded through the Public Beach and Coastal Waterfront Access Grant Program, will help local governments in the 20 coastal counties acquire land for public access sites and build or improve amenities such as dune crossovers, fishing piers, parking areas, restrooms and kayak launches.

“These state investments will both ensure safe and expanded public access to our coastlines and strengthen the resilience of our communities by supporting infrastructure that can withstand extreme weather,” said DEQ Secretary Reid Wilson in a news release announcing the awards. “As we face increasingly severe storms, these projects will play a key role in safeguarding both public safety and the long-term health of our coastal environments.”

The division on Thursday announced the following awards:

• Atlantic Beach in Carteret County is awarded $115,200 for improvements to the New Bern Street Public Access. The work will entail removing the existing dune crossover and rebuilding 381 feet of the walkway with treated wood, Trex decking and handrails to provide access to the Atlantic Ocean.
• Beaufort in Carteret County is awarded $120,000 for an Ann Street Park water access project. The work will create an access site at the west end of Ann Street featuring an observation deck, greenspace, a picnic area and rain gardens while preserving existing open vistas and improving stormwater drainage.
• Belhaven in Beaufort County is awarded $540,000 for its Harbor Park expansion, which involves acquiring 0.74 acres. Recent site improvements include a new bulkhead and a 200-foot dock.
• Bertie County is awarded $80,000 for the second phase of the Tall Glass of Water Beach Access enhancement and will provide safe, maintenance-free access to the beach by providing a solid surface, accessible 12-foot by 440-foot path to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and expanding the existing public beach by planting vegetation to stabilize the base of the bluff.
• Cedar Point in Carteret County is awarded $305,000 for the second phase of the Boathouse Creek Park bathroom facility project. The project is to add three ADA-accessible bathrooms and associated accessible parking to support and enhance usage of the town’s existing water access site at Boathouse Creek Park.
• Nags Head in Dare County is awarded $400,000 to replace the bathhouse and dune walkover at its Hargrove Street Public Beach Access. The project will also remove and replace existing decking, the emergency vehicle ramp, all wooden stairs and walkways, trash cans, fencing, three shower stations and signage.
• New Hanover County is awarded $265,000 to install a new kayak launch, ADA parking, and an ADA sidewalk to the existing pier, along with additional signage at the Trails End Waterfront Access. The work will be completed concurrently with bulkhead repairs.
• Ocean Isle Beach in Brunswick County is awarded $82,500 to replace a non-ADA-compliant dune crossover at the Shallotte Boulevard Beach Access. The new access will be widened to 8 feet and made to comply with ADA requirements. The stairs will be replaced with wheelchair-accessible ramps.
• Swansboro in Onslow County is awarded $127,623 to demolish the Main Street Dock, rebuild an existing pedestrian, fishing, and dinghy day dock at the end of Main Street, along the downtown waterfront area south of the White Oak River Bridge. The new docks will be built within the footprint of the existing facility.
• Vandemere in Pamlico County is awarded $167,700 to build an ADA-compliant fishing pier about 80 to 100 feet long and 9 feet wide. It will be located at the end of North First Street and provide access to the Pamlico River.

The North Carolina General Assembly created the Public Beach and Coastal Waterfront Access Program in 1981 in response to concerns over declining public access by amending the Coastal Area Management Act, also known as CAMA.

The program was expanded in 1983 to include estuarine areas. The program uses 5% of state Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, or PARTF, annual funds to offer matching grants to local governments. It has supported more than 528 projects, enhancing public access for recreation and coastal enjoyment.

For more information about the program, go to the Public Beach and Coastal Waterfront Access website.

MOREHEAD CITY – Keep telling your story.

That was the message to those who attended the first meeting of the North Carolina Coastal Counties Fisheries Coalition held Tuesday afternoon in the Crystal Coast Civic Center.

Dare County Board of Commissioners Chairman Bob Woodard, who initiated the coalition to be a voice for the commercial fishing industry, welcomed elected officials and staff from Beaufort, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Hertford, Hyde, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell and Washington counties, and 10 coastal legislators or their representative.

“We’ve got a lot of folks here today concerned about this coalition, and this effort,” Woodard said, adding that many of the more than 100 in the audience were in Raleigh to protest House Bill 442.

But the head of the state’s recreational fishing association called the group’s goals “disappointing.”

‘No due process’

First introduced in March to open up the recreational season for flounder and red snapper, the Senate amended the bill in mid-June to include a trawling ban in the state’s inland waters and within a half-mile of the shoreline.

The proposed ban was met with both outcry and support, but when the Senate kicked the amended bill back to the House, representatives chose not to advance the bill. Since June 25, the bill has been parked in a House committee.

Woodard set the coalition in motion July 3 with a letter to the 18 other coastal counties that border bodies of water from which licensed commercial fishermen are required to report their catch, representing 20% of the state’s counties, he explained.

“That should send a clear voice to our legislators, that we got 20% of the entire counties in the state of North Carolina, and hopefully we will grow up more for people that believe in eating the fresh local seafood from clean, clear waters in our state, rather than foreign food that comes into our country. I don’t know about you, but I want to eat fresh, seafood,” he said.

When Woodard began the meeting Tuesday, he told the crowd that he was “appalled to see that (proposed trawling ban) went to the House,” and wrote a letter June 30 to Senate Leader Phil Berger.

Woodard read the second paragraph of that letter aloud: “Our democratic system, established by our forefathers, was designed to ensure that every voice in leadership could be heard-whether in support or opposition. At its core, our Constitution is built on mutual respect and, most importantly, due process.”

Woodard said, “everyone in this room sitting here today certainly knows there was no due process,” and then explained how he pitched the idea to form the coalition to a fellow commissioner.

“I said, ‘Enough is enough.’ I’ve been a chairman in Dare County for the last 10 years. I’ve been on the board the last 12 years,” Woodard said. “Every single year, we have to fight the regulatory agencies. We have to fight the leadership.”

It was time “to come together, not just counties, not just fishermen, but stakeholders all over the south and this entire state. We need to educate those legislators that aren’t living on the coast.”

Once given the board’s blessing, Woodard sent the letter proposing the North Carolina Coastal Counties Fisheries Coalition.

“The goal of this coalition is to bring together county leaders from coastal regions to address these critical issues with a unified voice. By coordinating our efforts, we can better advocate for the long-term health and sustainability of our fisheries, our local economies and our fishermen’s way of life,” Woodard said.

About the coalition

Members agreed that the coalition would be a public body and have its next meeting at 1 p.m. Sept. 16 in the civic center, ahead of when the legislature is expected to convene.

After that, the coalition will meet quarterly in Carteret County because of its central location.

Woodard emphasized he wanted the coalition to be “as transparent as humanly possible,” adding he wanted the “public to be here.”

The coalition adopted a mission statement to support commercial fishermen and fishing communities, protect their livelihoods, preserve coastal heritage, “and safeguard the economic vitality of our working waterfronts. Together, we work to ensure the continued harvest of high-quality North Carolina seafood—feeding families, strengthening communities, and ensuring North Carolina Catch remains a priority for consumers to enjoy throughout our state and beyond.”

During the discussion, Pamlico County Commissioner Candy Bohmert said that the coalition should focus on promoting — rather than stating it’s out to save — the commercial fishing industry.

“We don’t need to save these people. They save themselves. We need to empower them,” Bohmert said. “We really need to kind of change that language. We’re promoting them. We’re promoting our commercial history. We’re promoting all of that because they’re important.”

Bobby Outten, Dare County’s manager and attorney, is to serve as staff to the board.

Outten explained that the intention with the coalition is to act as a governmental body.

“The fisheries groups have for years been working hard to deal with fisheries issues, and what we found is the legislators aren’t listening, and it’s a hard road, and it’s a tough time,” Outten said.

The idea is to get the governmental entities of the affected counties together and “then be the voice for the political side of this,” Outten said.

Fisheries groups will still be the resource to disseminate the information, but the coalition will be “the voice of the political counties.”

From the legislators

There were nearly a dozen coastal legislators at the meeting, including Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck. Hanig has been a vocal opponent of the trawling ban since it was first proposed at a Senate committee meeting June 17.

“We’ve never had the opportunity to tell our story. Well, guess what God brought us? He brought us H442, and you know what that did? That wasn’t the shot heard around the world. That was the backfire heard around the world. Let me tell you why. Now we have the ability to be on the offense, and we have to keep that ability to be on the offense,” Hanig said.

That bill “is allowing us to tell our story,” he said, adding that it led to the coalition and got 700 people to Raleigh in about three days.

The turnout in Raleigh brought together various aspects of the industry, such as commercial fishermen, packing houses, “everybody. You know why? Because what’s the first thing they went after? The shrimp, right? They’re going after everything,” Hanig said. “Because that’s what they’re after, folks, they make no qualms about it. They’re after our industry.”

In response to an audience member asking who “they” are, Hanig said “Pick someone. The CCA, the Wildlife Federation, certain legislators, you know, their efforts. They’re after this industry. They make no bones about it. They’ve been telling the wrong story, the false story, for too long, and we haven’t stopped that.” The CCA is the Coastal Conservation Association North Carolina.

“I implore you, tell your story. Do not be afraid to tell your story,” Hanig said. “Let them know where you’re coming from, because those stories matter.”

Rep. Carson Smith, R-Pender, told the crowd that people in Raleigh think there’s no fish, no crabs, no shrimp, that “our fishery is completely depleted, because that’s what the Marine Fisheries Commission is telling them.”

He added that this message is what he feels pitted recreational against commercial fishing, and “they think that the shrimp trawl has killed all the fish.”

Smith suggested two resolutions: Ask the “General Assembly to completely redo the Marine Fisheries Commission,” and “tell the Wildlife Resources Commission, ‘hey, stay in your lane.’ You count the trout in the mountains, but don’t use state resources” to try to close the commercial fishing industry down.

Sen. Bob Brinson, R-Beaufort, said the best way to educate folks in Raleigh is by “getting them on your boats, getting them in your oyster beds, getting them in your fish houses, and showing them what it is you do and how you do it.”

Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Carteret, explained that when the Senate voted on House Bill 442 June 19, four voted against, but 40-plus voted in favor, which he didn’t expect.

He later found out that the votes for the amendment were for the “environmental side because they claim that shrimp trawling was destroying the environment in our sound. That it was going to destroy all kinds of fishing. Well, that’s one of the talking points that the CCA has used for the last 20 years,” he said.

Sanderson said that he was also upset about how the bill was amended in the Senate, “because the process stunk to high heaven.”

He explained that he was co-chair in the Agriculture Committee when the amendment “first came about, and that is the last thing that you ever do to a committee chairman,” he said. “If you’ve got something that’s going to be contentious, if you’ve got something that’s going to cause a lot of outcry or pushback,” you should go to them before the meeting. But Sanderson said that’s not what happened in this case.

“Let’s stay strong. Keep helping us. Keep telling your story, spreading this message across and around this state, so that the next time this happens, there’ll be an outcry from all over this state,” he said.

Response from CCA-NC

Coastal Conservation Association-North Carolina Executive Director David Sneed told Coastal Review in an email that “it is disappointing to read the goal of this new coalition is apparently to create a vehicle only for ‘battling issues that affect the state’s commercial fishing industry’ (fewer than 2,000 people who profit from a public trust resource) rather than acting in the public interest for the 11 million citizens of North Carolina who own our public trust resources and would benefit enormously from a healthy, sustainable coastal fishery.”

The coalition would be better served by recognizing the foundational, bedrock principles established by the public trust doctrine and the state’s constitution. “That North Carolina’s coastal fisheries resources belong to all 11 million citizens of this State and must be managed, preserved, and protected for the overall benefit of those citizens and future generations.  In addition, the coalition’s approach only divides and disenfranchises the not-for-profit fishing public that lives in and visits our coastal counties,” Sneed continued.

“There are more than 91,000 Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold across the state’s 19 coastal counties each year, and it is reliably estimated that more than 300,000 people spend nearly $1.5 billion annually across the three Congressional Districts that encompass these 19 coastal counties—people who not only live in our coastal counties but also people from inland counties who visit our coast and spend money supporting our coastal fishing communities,” he said. “Our hope would be that any efforts by this coalition will be focused on building a true coalition in the public interest—one that will support the sound management of our coastal fisheries resources to achieve the long-term sustainability that all North Carolinians deserve and are entitled to under the law.”

More than half of North Carolina’s 20 coastal counties will be represented at the launch of what commercial shrimping advocates envision as an organization poised to fight for the industry in Raleigh.

The inception of the North Carolina Coastal Counties Fisheries Coalition is set to kick off in an Aug. 5 meeting in Morehead City, where coastal-based local and state elected officials and their constituents are invited to converge, discuss and formulate a plan to combat what they deem politically charged threats to commercial fishers.

“Bottom line, simple mission statement: We want to provide fresh, local seafood for our citizens and visitors and protect the livelihoods and families that harvest it,” said Dare County Board of Commissioners Chair Bob Woodard. “We’re going to do everything humanly possible to protect our commercial fishermen.”

The meeting is scheduled for 1 p.m. in the Crystal Coast Civic Center’s main hall, 203 College Circle.

The idea to form a coastwide coalition to defend and protect the state’s commercial fishing fleet sprouted fresh on the heels of a fierce fight that ensued in the North Carolina Legislative Building in late June.

That’s when a last-minute amendment to ban shrimp trawling in inland and nearshore coastal waters was tucked into a House bill originally authored to expand recreational access to southern flounder and red snapper. A companion bill, House Bill 441, was gutted and revised to establish a program that would pay out annual installments over three years to qualifying shrimpers.

In what quickly became referred to as “Shrimpgate,” hundreds of commercial shrimpers and their supporters, backed by coast-based legislators in both chambers and on both sides of the political aisle, flocked to Raleigh to oppose House Bill 442, one they argued would have effectively shuttered the state’s shrimping industry.

After a near weeklong bout, House Republicans announced June 25 they would not take up the bill with the changes senators had added.

It was a victory for what commercial shrimping advocates say is only one battle in a war they believe has not reached an end.

“Heck no,” the fight isn’t over, Woodard said. Senate leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, has “already said that. When they go back in session in September, who knows. I’m not sure where they’re going with it, but that fight ain’t over.”

Berger, back in June, called the amendment to the bill “a good provision.”

“It’s our position that continuing to allow trawling in inland waters is detrimental to the state overall [and] detrimental to our aquatic fish population,” he said to reporters from various media outlets. “We’re the only state on the East Coast or the Gulf Coast that allows that kind of net fishing in the inland waters and it’s time for us to change that.”

Groups, including the Coastal Conservation Association – North Carolina, or CCA-NC, and the North Carolina Wildlife Federation, have long argued that shrimp trawling harms other fisheries, including juvenile fish, and degrades essential habitats.

Commercial fishing proponents refute those claims, saying that the state’s fisheries management plan for shrimp already protects sensitive habitat and juvenile fish. Commercial fishing is heavily regulated in North Carolina, where trawlers are required to have equipment on their boats that prevent and reduce bycatch.

Woodard noted that argument in a June 30 letter he penned to Berger, writing in part, “regulations are already in place that significantly reduce bycatch in shrimp nets.”

Woodard also called out the eleventh-hour injected amendment to House Bill 442 as a move that “bypassed due process by attaching negative amendments to this bill without public debate or discussion.”

Three days after signing that letter, Woodard dispersed one to chairs of coastal county commissions announcing his proposal to establish the coalition. In it, he welcomed them to extend an invitation to other counties that may wish to get involved.

As of midday Friday, 11 coastal counties including Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Onslow, Pamlico, Tyrrell and Washington had appointed members of their boards of commissioners to the coalition.

At least four members of the Carteret County Board of Commissioners plan to attend the Aug. 5 meeting, Chair Chris Chadwick said.

“But I’m hoping to have a whole group,” he said. “You can’t try to ram something down somebody’s throat and eliminate an industry without involving the people where the industry exists. When you have somebody from Winston-Salem trying to tell you what’s best for you on the coast without involving the people on the coast, that’s a problem in my book. We look forward to a productive meeting and the beginning of something strong and a powerful organization that can go to Raleigh and advocate for the coastal counties.”

Onslow County Board of Commissioners Chair Tim Foster expressed similar sentiments.

“I think when it comes to this, the coastal counties really need to come together and show that unified support of what’s taking place,” he said. “When you see decisions that are being made that impact your communities, but you don’t see yourselves as having a voice on this, this coalition becomes that. We have Sneads Ferry that’s historically a fishing village and an industry that has grown and it impacts these families that have been doing this for generations. We just felt like (the coalition) is something we needed to be part of to support them and be their voice on some of these decisions that are being made that impacts their livelihood.”

Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, plans to be at the meeting. Local elected officials have praised Hanig for initially sounding the alarm on the trawling ban amendment in a social media post.

“What they attempted to do completely backfired on them and it has given the commercial fishermen the platform that they have never had,” he said in a telephone interview last week. “The issue that we’ve had between the recreational fishermen and the commercial fishermen is the commercial fishermen are busy. They’re working all the time. They can’t afford lobbyists so they’ve never been able to tell their story and tell their side of what the real truth is. As bad as what happened several weeks back, what it has done is it exposed the truth. And, what we have to do is keep telling our story so that people understand what the real situation is.”

Hanig hailed the coalition as one that “is going to propel us to where we need to be to fight this battle,” one, he said, will “never be over.”

“When you have leadership in the General Assembly that is willing to shut down an entire industry overnight, there’s a problem and we need to fix that problem. So, here we go,” he said.

RALEIGH — A federal court decision issued Wednesday blocks the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from using a potentially harmful algaecide at Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge, a compound that environmental groups argued would endanger the waterfowl the refuge is supposed to protect.

Refuge officials had issued a notification in 2023 that it planned to do a trial application of chemical pellets within the next two years to test their effects on persistent blooms of blue-green algae on the 40,000-acre Lake Mattamuskeet, the state’s largest natural freshwater lake.

But environmental groups were concerned that the product, according to its label, could be toxic to birds. 

In response, the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club, filed a lawsuit, asking for a preliminary injunction to stop the refuge’s plan. The agency agreed during a subsequent court hearing to suspend its plan until April 2025, and a final hearing was held in May.

Wednesday’s order by U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle for the Eastern District of North Carolina Eastern Division can be appealed within 60 days,  Ramona McGee, senior attorney and leader of the Wildlife Program at the Law Center, told Coastal Review Wednesday.

“The Service is currently evaluating the court’s order,” a U.S. Department of Interior spokesperson said in an email sent Wednesday afternoon, responding to a request from Coastal Review for comment on the decision.

The email also addressed a question about the number of staff at the refuge.

“Lake Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge is part of the Coastal North Carolina National Wildlife Refuges Complex, which includes refuges from Cedar Island to Currituck. As such, Lake Mattamuskeet’s management is through a complex approach — with staff throughout the complex assisting and leading activities.”

As McGee explained, the Southern Environmental Law Center argued successfully that the Fish and Wildlife Service had violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to evaluate and disclose the potential impacts of the algaecide.

“This experiment was merely a distraction,” McGee said in an interview. “It was never designed to address those root causes of the lake’s water quality problems. Instead, this was a project that was explicitly experimental and alarmingly, was using a product that can kill and harm birds.”

The refuge had proposed to use Lake Guard Oxy, a sodium percarbonate-based algaecide used by Pittsburgh-based contractor BlueGreen Water Technologies, on about 600 acres of several isolated areas around the perimeter of Lake Mattamuskeet.

In recent years, the lake has been plagued during warm months with algal blooms that have become populated with cyanobacteria, which can be harmful to people and animals.

The proposed treatment, according to the agency, was intended to reduce the toxic algae enough to allow the beneficial phytoplankton to be reestablished. In the process, the refuge said, it could help restore water clarity in the lake.

In 2001, the North Carolina General Assembly provided $5 million toward the pilot study.

Refuge officials also said that, once dissolved, the pellets were safe for birds. Steps would be taken, the officials added, to prevent their exposure to undissolved pellets.

But rather than a singular problem, the algae is a symptom of an unhealthy ecosystem in the lake that has excessive nutrient levels and near complete loss of submerged aquatic vegetation, the environmental groups said.

Situated in the center of rural mainland Hyde County, the lake, which is 6 miles wide, 18 miles long and an average of 2 feet deep, has suffered severe water quality degradation over recent decades. The refuge totals about 50,000 acres and still attracts thousands of wintering tundra swan and other migratory waterbirds, as well as numerous species of resident duck.

In 2016, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources listed the lake as having impaired waters, based on high alkalinity and levels of chlorophyll-a, both indicators for cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms that produce cyanotoxins.

An effort led by the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, created a collective and holistic approach to restoring the lake, with the Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan being released in 2018. In the years since, the strategies in plan, which include drainage improvements and restoration of the submerged grasses, have been implemented as time, funding and staffing have allowed.  

“We hope that the Fish and Wildlife Service refocuses on the long-term solutions that will address the root causes of Lake Mattamuskeet’s water quality problems” McGee said.

Considering anecdotal reports about staff cuts at wildlife refuges — none have been confirmed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — McGee said it makes the court decision even more timely in its benefit to the birds. As part of its proposal to do the pilot treatment, the refuge had promised that staff would shoo, or haze, the birds away from any undissolved pellets that could harm them. 

“I think it would have been very concerning for the Fish and Wildlife Service to proceed with a risky experiment like this when it did not have adequate staff to monitor and manage the project,” she said.

Reprinted from Island Free Press

Dare County Board of Commissioners Chairman Bob Woodard sent a letter June 30 to Senate Leader Phil Berger expressing “deep concern” about the last-minute changes to House Bills 442 and 441, which resulted in last week’s “Shrimpgate” protests.

Following the surprise introduction of legislation that would ban shrimp trawling in nearly all of North Carolina’s coastal waters, a host of groups and individuals have weighed in on the rushed proposal running aground.

The state Senate passed House Bill 442 on June 20, which would have made it a misdemeanor to operate a shrimp trawl in the sounds and up to one-half mile off the Atlantic coastline. This amendment was tacked on to a bill requiring state regulators to open flounder and red snapper seasons, days before it came to a vote in the Senate.

The Senate also gutted House Bill 441, originally entitled “An act to adopt the Loggerhead Sea Turtle as the official saltwater reptile of the state of North Carolina.” This turtle-centered bill passed 113-0 in the N.C. House on May 7, 2025.

The revised HB 441 bill – different in every aspect but the House Bill number – had the title “Shrimp Trawling Transition Program/Fees,” and it outlined a temporary payment plan for commercial fishermen who would face significant losses as a result of a shrimp trawling ban.

These changes that were inserted without warning or consultation with the bill’s original primary sponsors ignited backlash from across the political spectrum, with bipartisan legislators, fishing advocates, and marine scientists accusing the state Senate of underhanded political maneuvering and disregard for data-driven fisheries management.

The two bills were sent back to the House due to the changes, where N.C. House members announced June 25 that the two controversial shrimp trawling bills will not move forward, at least during this most recent House session.

The following is the June 30 letter from Woodard:

Dear Senator Berger,

First and foremost, I hope this letter reaches your desk for thoughtful review. 

From one Republican to another, I’m writing to express my deep concern and disappointment over the amendments that were recently attached to HB 442 by senior Senate leadership and sent back to the House for a vote. The last-minute deal pushed through the Senate with no opportunity for those affected to speak or defend their livelihoods-was unacceptable. 

Our democratic system, established by our forefathers, was designed to ensure that every voice in leadership could be heard-whether in support or opposition. At its core, our Constitution is built on mutual respect and, most importantly, due process. 

Senator, I fully understand that this issue-shrimp trawling in North Carolina’s inland waters— has both supporters and opponents. I also respect your position in favor of the ban, and your stated concerns about bycatch in shrimp nets. However, it’s important to note that regulations are already in place that significantly reduce bycatch. I would hope you also respect my position, which is to support the continuation of responsible shrimp trawling in our inland waters. 

Let me be clear: I mean no disrespect. But it’s undeniable that under your leadership, the Senate bypassed due process by attaching negative amendments to this bill without public debate or discussion. Senator Bobby Hanig proposed five amendments during the session, and all were tabled without deliberation. This is not how a healthy democracy functions. Our forefathers would be disheartened by the erosion of open debate and procedural fairness. 

Far too often, state and federal legislative leadership sidesteps due process which ultimately destroys the trust of the hard-working people of North Carolina. 

I understand you intend to revisit this issue and pursue a ban on shrimp trawling in the future. If that is the case, I respectfully ask that you do so with transparency, fairness, and a willingness to hear all voices—especially those directly impacted. 

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this vital issue with you. Please feel free to call me at any time at 252-216-8240. If you prefer, I am willing to travel to Raleigh to meet with you in person at your convenience 

Respectfully, 

Robert L. “Bob” Woodard, Sr. 

Chairman, Dare County Board of Commissioners 

This story is provided courtesy of the Island Free Press, a digital newspaper covering Hatteras and Ocracoke islands. Coastal Review is partnering with the Free Press to provide readers with more environmental and lifestyle stories of interest along our coast.

The North Carolina House of Representatives will not consider a bill that would ban shrimp trawling in inland and nearshore coastal waters.

After a long caucus, House Republicans announced Wednesday afternoon that they would not take up House Bill 442, a decision praised by North Carolina shrimpers.

“As you can imagine, there’s a lot of back-slapping and crying and cheering,” North Carolina Fisheries Association Executive Director Glenn Skinner told Coastal Review in a telephone interview late Wednesday afternoon. “I know it’s possible to bring it back up, but, for now, we made passage.”

Little more than a week has passed since a member of the Senate amended the bill, which had been originally written to expand recreational fishing access to southern founder and red snapper, to include the ban.

Advocates of the amendment say a ban would protect bottom habitats. Opponents, including a group of coastal legislators, say allowing trawling in waters no closer than a half mile from the coast would essentially kill the state’s shrimping industry.

The Wednesday afternoon announcement also effectively kills House Bill 441, a companion bill that would subsidize qualifying shrimpers if the ban were made into law.

A group of state lawmakers vow they will fight for North Carolina shrimpers to continue trawling in inland and nearby offshore waters.

Several legislators on Tuesday spoke out against a last-minute amendment injected into a House bill originally aimed at expanding recreational access to southern flounder and red snapper. They called the revision an “injustice,” “bad,” “wrong,” and one that would shutter the state’s shrimping industry.

“I have spent a lot of the last few days being very angry, and I admit that,” said Rep. Celeste Cairns, R-Carteret, during the Tuesday morning press conference in Raleigh. “It’s better to be angry than to be sad because I will end up in tears. I have been in tears several times during this last week.”

A week has passed since two Senate committees pushed forward amended House Bill 442, one that has since its introduction to the House in March been “hijacked,” according to the bill’s sponsor.

“We’re used to the Senate acting this way, but not to this degree,” Rep. Frank Iler, R-Brunswick, said. “As much as I wanted a flounder season, I urge everyone to vote to oppose this bill every chance they get.”

Sen. David Craven Jr., R-Anson, introduced the amendment, arguing that it would align North Carolina’s trawling laws with those in Virginia and South Carolina and reduce the amount of bycatch, or unwanted species, captured in nets.

Advocacy groups, including the Coastal Conservation Association – North Carolina, and the North Carolina Wildlife Federation, have long argued that shrimp trawling harms other fisheries, including juvenile fish, and degrades essential habitats.

But lawmakers, who were joined by commercial shrimpers on Tuesday, pushed back on those claims, saying that the state’s fisheries management plan for shrimp already protects sensitive habitat and juvenile fish. Commercial fishing is heavily regulated in North Carolina, where trawlers are required to have equipment on their boats that prevent and reduce bycatch.

“This is not an environmental issue,” said Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford. “This is an allocation issue. In fact, if we were focused on the environment and the sustainability of fish, we would be talking about water quality. We’d be talking about coastal development. We’d be talking about protecting our wetlands, restoring our buffers,” and about warming sea temperatures.

House Bill 442 was last week sent back to the House, where it and proposed legislation to supplement shrimpers’ income, should the trawling ban become law, now await a vote.

Just hours after the press conference, the Senate voted 43-2 in favor of House Bill 441, which would establish a program that would pay out annual installments over three years to qualifying shrimpers.

The bill includes a provision to temporarily increase license and registration fees for recreational fishers, fishing, and some commercial fishers to cover the cost of the program.

The bill directs the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries to establish and administer the program, one that would allow shrimpers to use trip-ticket forms submitted to the state between Jan. 1, 2023, through June 30, 2025. Each month, dealers submit these forms to the division, which uses the information reported on the tickets as a means to help manage fisheries resources.

Iler also sponsored House Bill 441, which, when introduced earlier this year, called for adopting the loggerhead sea turtle as the state’s official saltwater reptile.

“Without getting into the merits of either bill, I’m here because I am very upset about what happened to these two bills,” Sen. Ted Davis Jr., R-New Hanover, said Tuesday morning.

Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, called the advancement of House Bill 442 a “disgusting process.”

“This amendment wasn’t discussed with our caucus,” he said. “This amendment was a calculated, precision move by a couple of leadership in the North Carolina Senate. When I came to committee prepared to talk about this I was completely shut down. I was completely shut down by my own party and by my own leadership. Last week, I was ashamed to be a member of the North Carolina General Assembly. This is a couple of people in the Senate that are pushing an agenda, an agenda pushed by money, influence, whatever you want to call it. We can’t stand for it and if we in the North Carolina Senate don’t take a stand against this type of activity then we’re not better than they are.”

Last week, an angry Hanig asked fellow senators why they would not wait for the results from an ongoing lawsuit the Coastal Conservation Association – North Carolina filed in 2020 to ban shrimp trawling and for the results of a study on the state’s fisheries that the General Assembly commissioned three years ago.

Hanig said Tuesday that the study was expected to be presented to the legislature in the coming days.

“They know what’s in that study and they know the condition of our fisheries and they know the false narrative they have been pushing for decades,” he said.

Rep. Keith Kidwell, R-Beaufort, also questioned why the call to ban trawling could not have waited until the report is released.

“Did they get a heads up and find out that maybe they’re wrong and that’s why they’re trying to rush it across before the report gets here,” he said. “There’s something dirty going on here people.”

Kidwell said that, in his district, shrimping is not a career, but a way of life.

“Are we going to shut down the people who go to work every day making an honest living because some branch of the government finally decides, in some slimy backroom deal, that they don’t want to do this anymore,” he said. “Well, by God, Down East, we didn’t ask them what they want to do. We want to fish. We want to have the fruits of our labors. We’re not going to stand and take this.”

Commercial fishing industry advocates are heading to Raleigh this week to speak against a bill that would ban shrimp trawling inshore and within a half-mile of the shoreline in North Carolina.

N.C. Catch, N.C. Watermen United, Carteret County Fisherman’s Association, Ocracoke Seafood Co. and Carteret Catch are calling for supporters to join them at “Save NC Shrimp: Shrimp Day at the Legislature” starting at 9 a.m. Tuesday.

The groups plan to have a presence throughout the day in the legislative building, the legislative office building and on the Bicentennial Mall. For details on parking, conduct in the gallery and other information, visit https://www.ncleg.gov/About/VisitorInfo.

House Bill 442 was initially introduced in March to open up recreational season for flounder and red snapper in state waters. North Carolina has had abbreviated seasons in recent years for both species in an effort to restore the population.

Related: Measure that would halt inshore shrimp trawling advances

During a Senate committee June 17, the shrimp trawl ban amendment was added as an amendment and approved. The bill made its way through the Senate and was sent back to the House June 19. As of presstime, the bill was not on the legislative calendar.

Related: Senate kicks shrimp trawl ban bill back to House for vote

“The future of our coastal communities and North Carolina’s access to safe, sustainable shrimp is in their hands. We must show up to help educate lawmakers why HB422 is a flawed bill with dire consequences for the commercial fishing industry, consumers, restaurants, and the entire state’s economy,” event organizers said. “If you can’t attend in person, please continue to call and email your House members.”

Despite public outcry against the move, the Senate has voted in favor of the shrimp trawling ban in inshore waters and within a half-mile of the shoreline that was tacked onto a bill earlier this week to open up recreational harvest for flounder and red snapper.

The Senate also is pushing through committee a bill introduced this week detailing a program to compensate commercial fishing operations that sold shrimp caught by trawling.

When House Bill 442 was introduced in March, the proposed law only addressed recreational seasons for the two species, which has been abbreviated or not opened at all in recent years.

The flounder harvest closure is intended to help restore the species, which is overfished and overfishing is occurring, according to the Division of Marine Fisheries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Gulf and South Atlantic fishery management councils manage red snapper in the United States. North Carolina defers to NOAA Fisheries on this species.

The amendment to “prohibit the use of trawl nets to take shrimp in coastal fishing waters or the Atlantic Ocean within one-half mile of shoreline” was added Tuesday during the Senate Agriculture, Energy, and Environment Committee and was moved forward by those members as well as the Senate’s rules and operations committee that afternoon.

The Senate passed the second reading Wednesday and the third in a 39-2 vote Thursday. The bill is to go back before the House because of the amendment.

Rep. Edward Goodwin, R-Chowan, is a primary sponsor of the bill and strongly objects to the trawling ban.

“This will not pass the House. We had a great bill (HB 442) which only sought to re-open the Southern Flounder and Red Snapper season that was shut down by NCDMF proclamation. The problem came when Senator Bill Rabon, Senate Rules Chairman, added this anti-trawling amendment at the 11th hour,” Goodwin wrote Wednesday in a social media post.

He wrote a letter to the speaker where he states that “The Senate amendment will effectively eliminate the Shrimping industry in North Carolina.” Adding, “I have spent the last two days listening to many of my constituents whose families have been shrimping the inner coast of NC for generations. I am not willing to stand by and let this short-sited and ill-conceived idea ruin the lives of so many hard-working North Carolinians.”

The North Carolina Wildlife Federation supports the bill and commends the Senate for moving it forward.

“The North Carolina Senate has taken a bold and necessary step to protect our state’s precious public trust resources on the coast,” CEO Tim Gestwicki said in a statement. “We thank them for demonstrating their commitment to preserving North Carolina’s marine habitats for current and future generations and urge their colleagues in the House to follow suit.” 

Also on Thursday, House Bill 441, previously “Loggerhead Turtle/State Saltwater Reptile” was completely rewritten, and is now short-titled, “Shrimp Trawling Transition Program/Fees.” The shrimp trawl transition program would provide temporary transition payments for those with a commercial fishing license that sold shrimp between Jan. 1, 2023, and June 30, 2025.

A senator representing five Piedmont counties has introduced an amendment to a House bill that, if it becomes law, will prohibit shrimp trawling in all of North Carolina’s inland waters and within a half-mile of the Atlantic Ocean shoreline.

Despite protests from a coastal senator and several commercial fishing representatives, two Senate committees that met Tuesday were in favor of amending House Bill 442, which Rep. Frank Iler, R-Brunswick, filed in March “to restore recreational fishing for flounder and red snapper in North Carolina.”

Iler said to both committees Tuesday that there wasn’t much of a recreational flounder season last year. He was referring to the harvest seasons established by the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission, which manages flounder and red snapper fisheries. The commission votes on management plans that determines when those species can be harvested.

As the bill made its way through the House and then to the Senate, its language focused solely on expanding recreational access to southern flounder and red snapper, but that changed Tuesday morning during the Senate’s agriculture, energy, and environment committee meeting. The committee approved the amendment and then referred it to that afternoon’s Senate rules and operations committee, which also voted in favor of the bill.

Sen. David Craven Jr., R-Anson, who also represents Montgomery, Randolph, Richmond and Union counties, introduced the amendment to put North Carolina “on par” with regulations in force in Virginia and South Carolina.

He said that the estimated bycatch, or unwanted species, that comes with shrimp trawling is 4 pounds of bycatch to every pound of shrimp harvested, “which is a lot of other species of fish that’s getting caught in the net, potentially dying,” he said. “This has been an issue for quite some time, and I think it’s time this body addressed it.”

The amendment details the penalties a commercial fishing operation would face if caught “Taking or attempting to take shrimp using a trawl net in any coastal fishing waters other than areas of the Atlantic Ocean located more than one-half mile from the shoreline.”

When Committee Chair Sen. Brent Jackson, R-Pender, opened the floor to elected leaders for comment, Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, was the first to speak. Hanig asked why not wait for the results from an ongoing lawsuit filed in 2020 by the Coastal Conservation Association — North Carolina to ban shrimp trawling and the results of a study commissioned in 2022 on the issue.

“Why the urgency all of a sudden and at the 23rd hour?” Hanig asked.

Hanig said he was also concerned with “what data was used to support the amendment to put the hardworking men and women that work in our fishing industry every day out of a job and completely shut down an entire industry?

“Seventy five percent of the shrimp that are caught in the state of North Carolina are caught where this amendment is affected,” said Hanig.

Craven responded that there was no intent to put anybody out of business.

“I believe these fine folks can trawl a half-mile off the coast of North Carolina,” and continue to shrimp. He added that work had been done on a separate matter to ensure there’s “compensation during that time to make sure that we get these folks transitioned.”

Craven said shrimpers must “understand that they will have a process to move through from doing what they do on a daily basis now to kind of moving and changing into going out in the coastal waters.”

Hanig, with no time to ask further questions, urged the committee to reject the amendment.

“This bill started out as a great step forward, one that restores reasonable access to flounder for both recreational and commercial fisheries. This bill comes from progress, cooperation, long-overdue relief from closures derived from flawed science and outdated rules that hurt both industries,” said Hanig.

“Throwing this trawling ban at the 23rd hour undermines the intent and spirit of the bill. It reeks of the same old sleazy, backroom politics and special interests that caused North Carolina endless wars, endless fish wars,” he continued. It’s “disgraceful what we’re doing to the citizens of North Carolina. This is nothing short of special interest and backroom deals. There’s no question about it. That’s why no one was instructed about this amendment.”

Sen. Julie Mayfield, D-Buncombe, said both the original bill and the amendment were taking what should be collaborative, scientifically based decisions out of that realm.

“I’m always worried about this body overruling, for instance, the Marine Fisheries Commission on the flounder and the snapper,” Mayfield said, noting that there’s a shrimp management plan and shrimp working group that’s been together for years, working on and improving trawling and bycatch regulations.

During both committee meetings, supporters and opponents of the amendment explained their positions.

North Carolina Fisheries Association Executive Director Glenn Skinner said that, as a lifelong commercial fisherman, “I probably don’t have tell y’all we are opposed to this trawl ban amendment.”

Skinner said that because the CCA-NC lawsuit and the study were ongoing, “I just can’t help but think that it’s no coincidence that we’re talking about this trawl ban in the same year, both of those are supposed to come before a judge and before this General Assembly.”

Chad Thomas, on behalf of the nonprofit North Carolina Marine and Estuary Foundation, said that while the state “has been a leader in the effort to reduce bycatch, and although the need to protect critical habitats is well documented, legislative action is necessary to ensure the enhancement of nearly 900,000 additional acres of inshore habitats that are critical to our fish and shellfish populations. After careful review of the available science, our foundation’s conclusion is that the shrimp trawl legislation, as proposed in House Bill 442 would bring a huge step closer to this protection goal.”

Brent Fulcher, a business owner with operations in New Bern and Beaufort, said he doesn’t “understand how you would even think about taking the fresh North Carolina seafood away from the North Carolina consumer, and run the risk to ruin infrastructure for the entire industry and other sister industries.”

Cameron Boltes, a former Marine Fisheries Commission member, said he, as “one of 460,000 recreational anglers in North Carolina,” supported the measure. “The big point of clarification I want to make is that the bill is not a ban on trawling in North Carolina. It’s in alignment with the best management practices used by every other state in the Southeast.”

Earl Pugh, a lifetime resident of Hyde County and a former county commissioner there, said his county, as the second smallest in the state, relied heavily on the seafood industry. Seafood is one of the three major industries in Hyde County, along with agriculture and tourism, Pugh noted.

“A ban on trawling in inshore waters would be devastating to the economy of Hyde County,” he said, adding that it would take away income that fishermen, fish houses and other locals in the industry rely on.

Thomas Bell with the North Carolina Wildlife Federation praised the measure, saying it “addresses a major threat to the long-term health of North Carolina’s fisheries inshore.

“Shrimp trawling severely impacts the fisheries we depend on, killing millions of juvenile fish, degrading essential habitats and putting enormous pressure on our collapsing fish populations, including spot croaker and flounder,” said Bell. “This bill does not completely ban trawling but puts good stewardship of our estuaries first by moving shrimp trawling offshore.”

Coastal Review will not publish Thursday in recognition of the Juneteenth holiday.

A coastwide clean water advocacy organization is urging the public to speak out next week during a hearing in Raleigh on a rule that would change the definition of what constitutes protected wetlands in the state.

The public may attend in-person or join the June 26 Division of Water Resources hearing by computer or phone.

The nonprofit North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, on Tuesday asked its supporters to comment on the rule change mandated by the legislature in 2023 that “limits wetlands protected under state water quality rules to those under federal jurisdiction.”

The North Carolina General Assembly, via the 2023 Farm Act, effective June 27, 2023, required “immediate implementation of the revision and directed the Environmental Management Commission to adopt a rule consistent with the revised definition.”

The commission has advanced the proposed rule and the Office of State Budget and Management approved the required regulatory impact analysis on the last day of December.

The Coastal Federation in its advocacy email urged people to “send a powerful message to state officials: the new definition puts millions of acres of wetlands – and flood protection, clean water, and wildlife they support – at risk.”

The organization said lawmakers need to understand “the real harm this rule will cause and the need to correct it.”

The Coastal Federation lists 10 issues it said will be made worse as a result of the rule change, including flooding, irresponsible development, rising insurance and other costs, water quality and the loss of natural resources and state controls.

“By forcing North Carolina’s Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to adopt a rule that ties state wetlands protections to federal limits, the General Assembly is leaving valuable state wetlands vulnerable to being developed without the developer having to apply for a permit that would contain protective conditions,” the organization said in its email.

The meeting will be 6-9 p.m. Thursday, June 26, in the ground floor hearing room of the Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh.

To attend virtually, log in via WebEx using Meeting No. 2425 792 4510, password: NCDEQ; or by phone at 415-655-0003 and access code 2425 792 4510.

Register to comment online by noon June 26. Register onsite starting at 5:30 p.m.

Anyone may comment, but speakers may be limited to three minutes.

Written comments may also be submitted by June 30. Email comments to: Sue.Homewood@deq.nc.gov using the subject line: “Wetland Definition Amendment.”

Reprinted from our longtime collaborator, North Carolina Health News, to complement our ongoing series on federal budget and staff cuts and the dismantling of programs and services affecting life and lives here on the North Carolina coast.

People who have been struggling to clean up decades of industrial pollution in the lower Cape Fear River basin are expressing their dismay and anger at a federal delay announced Wednesday on a crackdown on so-called forever chemicals that have fouled their drinking water.  

That day, the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to extend the timeline for water utilities to reduce the maximum safe levels for human consumption for a select group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances known as PFAS.

In 2024, under the Biden Administration, the EPA finalized the first-ever enforceable standards for six PFAS compounds: PFOA, PFOS, HFPO-DA (GenX), PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS. At that time, water utilities had until 2029 to comply with the new standards. 

A year later, the Trump Administration’s newly appointed EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency would uphold standards set for PFOA and PFOS — legacy PFAS that persist in the environment despite no longer being manufactured. But Zeldin also announced he would rescind and re-evaluate rules for the other four, including GenX. 

GenX is the common name for the substance produced at the Chemours Fayetteville Works plant; it was discharged into the river’s water for decades until researchers revealed their presence in 2017. 

Additionally, the new federal timeline gives utilities until 2031 to comply with the standards, extending the original 2029 deadline.

“We are on a path to uphold the agency’s nationwide standards to protect Americans from PFOA and PFOS in their water,” Zeldin said in a news release. “At the same time, we will work to provide common-sense flexibility in the form of additional time for compliance.”

While Zeldin’s statement appeared aimed at reassuring the public that the EPA is taking control of the situation, to critics, it sounded like a betrayal — signaling, in their view, a retreat from more robust protections from substances that have become known as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in the environment.

‘Not forward-thinking’

“Overall, PFOA and PFOS are chemicals of the past, though they are still present in drinking water sources. So removing them will get a lot of others,” said N.C. State University epidemiologist Jane Hoppin in an email. “But the other four are chemicals of the future, particularly GenX, so removing these rules would not be forward-looking.”

In 2017, Hoppin headed a team of researchers and launched the GenX Exposure Study, which revealed that most of the people from the Cape Fear River Basin who participated in the research have PFAS in their blood.

There are thousands of unique PFAS in the environment, according to experts. They’re present in multiple products to help make them slippery and resistant to oils, water and solvents, including some cosmetics and apparel, microwave popcorn wrappers, dental floss, firefighting gear and some firefighting foams.

PFAS exposure is associated with a range of adverse health effects, such as increased cholesterol levels, kidney and testicular cancer, pre-eclampsia in pregnant women and decreased vaccine response in children, among other conditions.

“The EPA is caving to chemical industry lobbyists and pressure by the water utilities, and in doing so, it’s sentencing millions of Americans to drink contaminated water for years to come,” said Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook in a statement.

Cook’s organization has worked throughout the country to document environmental problems.

“The cost of PFAS pollution will fall on ordinary people, who will pay in the form of polluted water and more sickness, more suffering and more deaths from PFAS-related diseases,” he said. 

Kelly Moser, senior attorney and leader of the Water Program at the Southern Environmental Law Center, echoed this sentiment. “When this administration talks about deregulation, this is what they mean — allowing toxic chemicals in drinking water at the request of polluters,” she said in a release.

Living with PFAS

It has been a tumultuous eight years for thousands of North Carolinians living in the Cape Fear River Basin since the presence of  the forever chemicals was first announced in 2017. Among those affected are residents whose drinking water wells are contaminated, likely because of PFAS that were incinerated at the Fayetteville Works plant and drifted far and wide in emissions from the factory. 

Despite a 2019 consent order — established among Chemours, Cape Fear River Watch and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — aimed at assisting residents with PFAS-contaminated wells, living with PFAS is a daunting challenge.

Jamie White, administrator of the Facebook group “Grays Creek Residents United Against PFAS in our Wells and Rivers,” which works to raise awareness about PFAS contamination, expressed the group’s frustration after the EPA’s latest announcement.

“Well, it shocked us all, first off — and when I say all I speak for the group,” White said during a call with NC Health News. “Number one, we have worked for eight years to get the limits lowered, to bring awareness to everybody, because our wells are contaminated.”

“(The EPA) extended the public water facilities another two years (before) having to have the chemicals cleaned out of their water systems — another two years of contaminating the public,” she said.

Jane Jacobs (EagleHeart), a tribal leader of the Tuscarora Nation, an Indigenous community with many members in the Cape Fear River Basin, criticized the lack of action to protect vulnerable communities.

“My children, my grandchildren, need to be protected from all of the poison, not some of the poison,” Jacobs said. “If somebody was pointing a gun at my kid right now, am I going to protect him from one bullet or all of the bullets?”

Jacobs also highlighted the disproportionate impact on her community. 

“Being a bipoc community, we face a lot more environmental hardships than most people do,” she stated. “We have to drink the tap water. We don’t have money for filters, so for the people in my community, this affects us 10 times worse because we don’t have the money to protect ourselves.”

Looking ahead

While many expressed disappointment over the EPA’s decision, the environmental community remains hopeful that more stringent rules could eventually prevail at the state level — though it may take time. 

One significant obstacle is the Environmental Management Commission, which is responsible for developing regulations to safeguard, preserve and improve the state’s air and water resources. Since 2022, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality has been working with the commission to establish regulations for PFAS and 1,4 dioxane — a cancer-causing pollutant that’s also been found to be widely discharged by industrial companies and ultimately flow into the Cape Fear River.

However, a series of delays have stalled progress, preventing the process from advancing to the public comment period — the next step toward establishing maximum contaminant levels for PFAS at the state level.

The most recent Environmental Management Commission meeting, on May 7, ended in another delay after the Office of State Budget and Management raised concerns about the proposal’s fiscal analysis.

Possible remedies

Despite the setbacks, several people at the meeting expressed relief, including Haw Riverkeeper Emily Sutton.

“There’s not actually any checks or enforcement to make sure that the plans that are drafted are effective, and so this (plan) doesn’t do anything for our downstream community members,” Sutton said. 

She also criticized the fiscal analysis requested by the Office of State Budget and Management.

“The fiscal analysis that they’ve asked for also is flawed. It doesn’t include information about the financial impacts for downstream communities who are bearing the burden of this pollution. (The fiscal analysis) is looking at how much this is going to cost polluting industries. That’s not our concern. Our concern is the health of our community members.”

Southern Environmental Law Center’s Moser agrees that the commission’s proposal falls short of the outcome environmental groups demand. 

“The EMC is siding with polluters and considering adopting rules that were written by polluters,” Moser said. “That could allow industrial facilities to release PFAs indefinitely into North Carolina’s drinking water sources and even increase the toxic water pollution that they are putting into our waterways.”

Sutton and Moser and their colleagues are closely monitoring Senate Bill S666 — the Water Safety Act — proposed by North Carolina Senate Majority Leader Michael Lee, R-New Hanover. If passed, the bill would deliver the state-level regulatory action environmentalists are pushing for.

“ (The proposed bill) directs the EMC to set regulatory limits on PFAs, and that is what our hope is,” Sutton said. “We don’t trust that this commission will hold polluters accountable, and unfortunately, the Department of Environmental Quality has to abide by what they are directed by the EMC.”

Moser pointed out that a potential remedy exists to address the water pollution problem: “It’s more important than ever that states like North Carolina, EPA and wastewater treatment plants use their current authority under the Clean Water Act to require that industry stops their pollution at the source before discharging it into our waterways.” 

The Environmental Management Commission is scheduled to meet again in July, while the EPA is expected to update federal PFAS standards by late 2025, with finalization anticipated by spring 2026. Amid these ongoing challenges, Jacobs offered a rallying cry to fellow environmentalists: “We just need to keep pushing. We need to keep fighting.”

Debbie Swick has been waging a single-handed campaign describing how dangerous a balloon is after it has been released.

“I promise you, with every fiber of my being, helium balloons do not go to heaven,” she said and suggested alternatives.

“Blow bubbles, plant a tree, scatter wildflower seeds,” the Southern Shores resident continued.

“There’s so many other things that you can do besides releasing balloons,” adding, “I would not tell people not to celebrate. I would not tell people not to mourn those that have passed on.”

For over a year, Swick has been, in her words, “a one-woman crusader.”

She describes herself as a “devout Christian” who believes “this is God’s planet, and we’re just visitors here, and let’s leave it a little better than we found it.”

Something happened to her one morning over a year ago when “God spoke to me that morning when I watched this balloon release on TV.”

Since then, she has been indefatigable, writing letters to every county manager and board in the state, innumerable municipalities, visiting counties and towns to talk about the dangers of balloons. And learning some things along the way.

She describes the impact on marine animals and wildlife, including the 2023 death of a juvenile Gervais’ beaked whale beached on Emerald Isle. The whale starved to death after a plastic balloon became trapped in its digestive tract.

“I tell everybody, speak to our commercial fishermen, ask anybody that goes out in the ocean and ask them how many balloons they encounter. It’s staggering,” Swick said.

Yet after speaking to Camden County commissioners, a new danger emerged, telling Coastal Review that a commissioner, “was saying how a farmer was complaining that he wrapped (a balloon) around his combine and broke this very expensive piece of equipment.”

And now, after months of lobbying, letter writing, cajoling and presentations, it may be that her efforts will be rewarded.

North Carolina Senate Bill 20, “An Act to Prohibit Certain Mass Balloon Releases,” filed Jan. 29, 2025, currently is in the senate’s rules and operations committee.

The bill’s primary sponsor, Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, told Coastal Review that there is “unanimous support on both sides of the aisle, both chambers, manufacturers, retailers, associations, everyone has come out in support of it.”

Hanig explained early this month that the bill would likely to stay in committee as the senate worked on their version of the budget, which was introduced April 17.

“We’ve been dealing with the budget process, so I’m hoping that over the next couple of weeks, things will start getting pulled out of Rules and start moving to committees,” Hanig said.

Cosponsored by Sen. Gale Adcock, D-Wake, and Woodson Bradley, D-Mecklenburg, the bill does appear to have the bipartisan support Hanig touted.

Adcock, Hanig said, “was a senator I worked with on several piece of legislation. We served together in the House. We have a great relationship. And Woodson Bradley, she’s new this year, she said she wanted to be on (the bill).”

Underscoring the support for the bill, Adcock wrote in an email that “I heard from a dozen or so of (her district’s) constituents after the bill was filed, and after I had signed on to the bill.”

The bill is short, less than 250 words, and straightforward in its language.

“The General Assembly finds that the release into the atmosphere of balloons inflated with lighter-than-air gases poses a harm to the scenic beauty of the State and a danger and nuisance to wildlife and marine animals,” the bill reads.

The bill includes fines for releasing balloons, and the fines can be substantial at $250 per balloon.

For Swick, that’s important. Her hope is that people will look at that and realize, “I’m not even going to chance it, because at $250 per balloon,” she said. “Four balloons is $1,000. I don’t have that kind of money to part with.”

As she continues to work to bring awareness to the issue, Swick said she has found a wide spectrum of interests supporting her efforts, including the Surfrider Foundation, and the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review.

“We have the CRC, which is the Coalition for Responsible celebrations, who works directly with Dollar Tree and Party City,” she said.

Even the balloon industry “has taken on a responsible attitude about balloons. They understand their negative impact on the environment, so they’re joining with groups like me to educate and say, ‘Listen, enjoy your balloons, but dispose of them responsibly.’”

That the legislation is enjoying bipartisan support is, to Swick, part of the backing she has seen as she has worked on the issue.

“We waste so much time fighting each other,” she said. “This is one of those things where it shouldn’t be, ‘your side, my side.’ This is for the good of all people and all things living,” she said.

A Carteret County town known for its waterfront is looking for help from the state to repair its town docks and replace the bulkhead and the boardwalk.

Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Pamlico, who also represents Carteret, Chowan, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Perquimans and Washington counties, is the primary sponsor of the bill filed March 25 titled “An act to appropriate funds to the Town of Beaufort for upgrades and repairs to the town’s Boat Docks.” If passed, the bill would appropriate $12 million from the general fund “to provide a directed grant to the Town of Beaufort as title indicates. Effective July 1, 2025.”

The next day the bill was sent to the appropriations/base budget committee, where it remained as of Thursday, when he bill was still not listed on the legislative calendar.

There was no mention of funding for the town in the most recent edition of the Senate’s proposed budget passed April 17. The House is currently working on its draft. The North Carolina General Assembly has until June 30 to finalize the budget.

Beaufort Public Information Officer Rachel Johnson said the funds would be used for the needed infrastructure upgrades to include, but not limited to, the town’s bulkhead, boardwalk, and docks work, according to an April 20 article in the Carteret County News-Times, which first reported the proposed bill.

Beaufort, which “has a residential population of about 4,000 with a high influx of visitor traffic during the warmer months,” has had a “Waterfront Improvement Project” in the works for the past handful of years, according to the town website, to prepare for when Beaufort Waterfront Enterprises no longer manages or maintains the docks, which it has done for several decades. Their lease originally set to expire Dec. 31, 2024, was extended in August 2024 to Dec. 31, 2025.

Not much has changed in the saga surrounding shellfish farming in coastal waters of Onslow and Pender counties.

That was made clear during a public hearing Tuesday night in the little town of Holly Ridge in Onslow County, where Topsail Island-area residents and aquaculture farmers took turns speaking about the prospect of more shellfish leases in the area.

Perhaps the one consensus among those who oppose additional leases and those who hope to raise shellfish in them is that they are where they are because new leases are not allowed in waters of neighboring coastal counties to their north and south.

Shellfish moratoriums in waters from Cedar Island south to Brunswick County have essentially funneled growers to waters around Topsail Island, prompting what has become an unceasing push to get the state to pump the brakes on new leases in Onslow and Pender counties.

Within the span of one week, the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries held two public hearings – one in Pender, the other in Onslow – on lease applications for shellfish farms that would collectively take up more than 30 acres.

That’s more than double the total acreage of shellfish leases in nearby New Hanover County, Topsail Beach resident Tate Tucker said during the Tuesday night hearing, where he reiterated comments he had made at a public hearing in Pender County the previous week.

“Like I said last week, say this whole Eastern Seaboard of oysters is a boat. We’re the hole in the boat, right? And they’re filling it just as fast as they can with leases, as much as they can. I don’t think we can keep going like this if we don’t have an organized plan. If we don’t fill that hole, the boat’s going to sink,” Tucker said.

The Topsail Island Shoreline Protection Commission, or TISPC, which is composed of elected officials from each of the island’s three towns — Topsail Beach, Surf City and North Topsail Beach — has since last year called for a temporary moratorium on new shellfish leases. County officials in Onslow and Pender have made the same request.

“As a commission, we have become increasingly concerned about conflicts between shellfish leases and other uses of our natural resource waters that include commercial and recreational fishing, boating, kayaking and other coastal land and water uses, not to mention the potential impacts on property values and esthetics,” TISPC Chair William Snyder said.

On April 10, Rep. Carson Smith, R-Pender, introduced legislation that would require a statewide study on shellfish leasing and the current lease moratoriums.

Under House Bill 841, the North Carolina General Assembly-created North Carolina Policy Collaboratory would evaluate everything from existing leases and the history and reason for current permanent and temporary moratoriums to economic impacts of shellfish aquaculture expansion on coastal economies and tourism, and the different potential environmental impacts of bottom leases and water column leases.

A final report of the study would be due to legislators by May 1, 2026.

Chris Matteo, acting president of the North Carolina Shellfish Growers Association and East Coast Shellfish Growers Association vice president, said Tuesday that the legislation “thankfully” does not call for a moratorium in Onslow and Pender counties.

He also said the measure is unlikely to pass.

“There’s been plenty of impact studies done over the course of time and, quite frankly, this area may be relatively new to intensive aquaculture, but the rest of the East Coast and West Coast of this country, it’s been in play for a very long time and the positive impacts are irrefutable,” Matteo said.

As he had in previous public hearings, Matteo suggested that residents and local leaders ask state elected officials to lift moratoriums on shellfish leases in other coastal counties.

He rebutted comments made by others who spoke at the hearing that shellfish farms negatively affect property values.

Nelson Bullock, who started Gator Bay Oyster Co. with his wife, mirrored sentiments of other shellfish lease applicants who argue shellfish farming is beneficial to the environment.

The Bullocks have applied for a 3.82-acre shellfish bottom and water column lease in Onslow County’s Ellis Cove.

“I’ve been involved in oyster farming for over 14 years now and have witnessed firsthand all the positive impacts of shellfish aquaculture on both the environment and our communities,” Bullock said. “Oysters naturally filter and clean the water. They create habitat and they also help stabilize the shoreline. Shellfish farming is one of the most sustainable forms of aquaculture offering significant ecological and economic benefits.”

Bullock said he was committed “to being a good neighbor in the water.”

John Eynon, owner of Big Cypress Mariculture, said he understands concerns raised by some local fishermen, who argue leases impede access to fishing spots around the island.

“I’m more than happy to talk with people and try to figure out how I can mitigate whatever those impacts might be, whether it’s by using certain gear types, positioning these gear in certain places, orienting in a certain way,” Eynon said.

He has applied for a 2.73-acre bottom and water column lease in Sneads Creek, a location he said he picked because it is “tucked away.”

“It’s not a navigational hazard,” he said. “It’s not impacting anyone’s views, which I know have been issues with other lease proposals.”

TISPC Vice Chair Larry Strother, who also chairs North Topsail Beach’s Beach, Inlet and Sound Advisory Committee, reiterated that the concern raised by the island towns is that more studies need to be done before additional leases are permitted.

“There are some leases that are going to affect the recreational activity, the fishing and everything else that takes place around the island, which is what we provide when we represent the recreation part of our beach,” he said. “We just want to make sure that our recreational activities and our fishing that’s been going on for all these years is going to be able to continue and cohabitate with the leases. We’re not opposed to shellfish leasing. We are opposed to not having it studied.”

Marvin Nelson routinely takes the state commuter ferry across the Neuse River with whatever scrap metal he’s gathered up to cash in at the recycling center closest to his Arapahoe home.

The 72-year-old hops the Cherry Branch-Minnesott ferry, a roughly 15-minute ride one-way, once or twice a day to get to Foss Recycling in Havelock.

For Nelson, scrapping is a source of income, wages he says will take a hit if he can no longer take the ferry for free.

That’s a prospect he faces after the North Carolina Senate last week approved its proposed $66 million budget, one that includes tacking on tolls for all North Carolina Department of Transportation ferry routes and raising rates at those where tolls already exist.

“That has got people around here all shook up,” Nelson said.

And it has drawn the immediate rebuke of local government officials representing the areas in which these ferries are operated.

“We here consider (the ferry) incorporated into the taxes that we have already paid every single year,” said Pamlico County Commissioner Ken Heath. “That’s the way it’s been since the early ’70s is that our tax money has gone to support all the highways in North Carolina, including our highway that stretches across the river, which is exactly what the ferry is. It’s our highway. We see that as a shared cost across the state.”

But some lawmakers, including Republican Sen. Vickie Sawyer of Mooresville, argue that the revenue the additional tolls would generate is needed to bolster state transportation department funds.

“In an era when we are fighting for every dollar we can for all types of transportation, collecting revenue from tourists using our ferries is a logical step,” Sawyer, co-chair of the Senate appropriations committee for transportation, told the Raleigh News & Observer last week.

And while well over half of Ocracoke-Hatteras ferry riders are tourists, locals depend on ferry service to access things like medical specialists and other services not available on Ocracoke, island resident Randal Mathews said.

The Hyde County commissioner was riding the Ocracoke-Hatteras ferry, returning from a dental appointment, when he was reached by telephone last Wednesday.

“It’s typical of what people of Ocracoke have to do,” he said. “We have to travel. I ride (this ferry) all the time. We can’t pay $40 round-trip for every trip to Hatteras.”

In a text he sent Coastal Review the day following the telephone interview, Mathews reiterated that ferry tolls “will create hardship for all residents.”

“I’m afraid the vendor that removes our solid waste will not serve us after a toll is added,” he said. “Any politician who supports tolling to Ocracoke is making a terrible mistake and is certainly not interested in economic development in eastern North Carolina.”

Under the Senate proposal, vehicles less than 20 feet long would be charged $20. The toll for larger vehicles would be $40 and passengers would be charged $1.

NCDOT would charge vehicles that provide commercial goods and services an annual fee of $150, which would cover priority boarding. Commuters would be charged the same $150 annual fee for a commuter boarding pass. “Only one annual pass per vehicle shall be issued per year,” the budget states.

That would apply to all four car ferries that are currently free, including the Cherry Branch-Minnesott and Aurora-Bayview ferries, whose users are largely commuters — workers at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point and employees of the Nutrien phosphate mine in Aurora.

“We have one ferry that goes from Pamlico to Craven (counties) and it’s used by a lot of people who work at Cherry Point, which is obviously a major employer of our county and so, without question, we are not in favor of tolls on the ferry,” Craven County Commissioner Chair Denny Bucher said. “Our DOT highways, the people don’t pay to ride on the highways, except for one spot in the Raleigh area, but they don’t pay to drive on highways and I don’t think they should have to pay to cross a river that happens to be between them and their employment.”

Vehicles 20 feet and under would be charged $5 to ride the Cherry Branch-Minnesott ferry. The price would double for vehicles greater than 20 feet.

The toll for the Aurora-Bayview ferry across the Pamlico River would be slightly less, with vehicles 20 feet or less paying $3, and those over 20 feet paying $6. Passenger riders would be charged $1.

Riders of the now-free-of-charge Currituck-Knotts Island ferry across the Currituck Sound would be charged $3 for vehicles 20 feet or shorter and double that for longer vehicles. Passengers would be a $1 toll.

Fees would double for riders of the Ocracoke Express, the passenger-only ferry, to $15 per person, and for riders of the Cedar Island-Ocracoke and Swan Quarter-Ocracoke ferries across the Pamlico Sound to $30 for vehicles 20 feet and under and $60 for those over 20 feet. Passengers would be charged $2.

Those who pay a vehicle toll would not be required to pay separate passenger tolls for occupants of that vehicle.

The Senate also proposes increasing tolls on the ferry that runs between Fort Fisher and Southport across the Cape Fear River to $10 for vehicles 20 or less, $20 for longer vehicles, and $2 for passengers.

History repeating

Heath said that, though he was led to believe the issue of ferry tolls would not be forthcoming this year, he is not surprised.

Tolling all ferry systems has been an on-again, off-again discussion stretching back to 2011. Since then, including the latest round of ferry toll talks in 2023, local outcry has halted further implementation of toll fees.

“Our population is nowhere near that of Goldsboro-west, and those areas can attract industry due to the large population,” Heath said. “We’re very sparse here so you’re penalizing us and what little bit of economic positives come out of the ferry. There’s a slight attraction for people to come ride, but it’s minor. For our area, tolls will kill that. It’s a negative for us all the way around. Everybody is pulling together and digging in to fight this till it’s taken off.”

Rep. Keith Kidwell, the Republican representing District 79, which includes Pamlico, Hyde, Beaufort and Dare counties, said in an email that he will fight ferry tolls.

“I will again work against ferry tolls,” he said. “Unless of course they want to toll all bridges that cross water in NC.”

Rep. John Torbett, a Republican from Gaston County, also spoke in opposition of the proposed tolls.

“Dear Eastern and all NC friends. Once again the Senate Transportation leaders intend to toll all ferries,” he recently posted on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. “This will cost North Carolinians who have to use the ferries to go to school, work, doctor, pretty much anywhere. The revenue/tax/user fee is not enough to cover much of anything, and it is not worth it for North Carolinians. Standard revenue sources are enough to cover cost.”

Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Pamlico and also a representative of Carteret, Chowan, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Perquimans and Washington counties, co-sponsored the budget bill. He did not respond to a request for comment.

Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, voted against the budget. He did not respond to a request for comment.

“An important link’

A 2020 analysis by North Carolina State University’s Institute for Transportation Research and Education found that North Carolina’s ferry system facilitates more than $735 million in gross business sales and generates more than $32 million in tax revenue.

The ferry system also provides to passengers vehicle cost savings of $18.1 million, $13.9 million in travel time benefits, and $8.3 million in safety benefits, according to the report.

“Furthermore, based on responses collected by the research team, the N.C. Ferry system is an important link connecting residents to work, medical, school, shopping and other destinations on the coast. Ultimately, the N.C. Ferry System is a source of job creation, local revenue and tax creation that benefits the coast and the state. It provides economic and quality-of-life benefits for its ferry passengers accessing communities along the state’s extensive coastline.”

Ferry tolls would “take a lot out of my profit,” Nelson said. Driving his old pickup truck on the all-road alternative route would cost him more gas and time.

“Good gracious in the morning, it would take me half-an-hour to go around to Havelock,” he said.

Guest Commentary

To stimulate discussion and debate, Coastal Review welcomes differing viewpoints on topical coastal issues. Morty Gaskill is a member of the North Carolina Coastal Federation Board of Directors. The nonprofit advocacy organization publishes Coastal Review, which remains editorially independent.

In 1976, a North Carolina Sea Grant newsletter sounded the alarm: large-scale land drainage was wiping out wetlands that protect our coastal fisheries. Fishermen saw their livelihoods at risk and 3,000 of them pleaded for action.

“We, the undersigned, being commercial and sport fishermen who use the creeks, rivers, and bays adjacent to Pamlico Sound and the waters of Pamlico Sound, petition the Marine Fisheries Commission and state officials as follows: … to investigate the effect of changing salinity in said waters upon the economy of Pamlico Drainage areas and to initiate proper controls to insure the continued health of commercial and sport fishing in this area.”

They saw it coming. But there was hope — state and federal leaders acted. For decades, farming, forestry, development, and fisheries co-existed under federal and state wetland safeguards — rules that carefully balanced economic growth and environmental protection. These safeguards didn’t create unbearable hardships; they provided stability for all.

Yet here we are again, nearly 50 years later, facing the same crisis — not just for our fisheries, but for our homes, businesses, and communities. Given the changing economic and environmental conditions of many coastal communities across North Carolina, it could not come at a worse time.

This time, the rollback of wetland protections isn’t coming from local drainage operations. It’s happening due to recent federal and state government actions. The Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA decision has dramatically narrowed the definition of federally protected wetlands. The North Carolina General Assembly followed suit, choosing to adopt the weaker federal standard instead of maintaining the stronger state level protections that had been in place for years. And now, under new leadership, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is further diluting the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, stripping even more protections from wetlands and streams that feed our coastal estuaries.

The consequences? More wetlands drained. More freshwater rushing unchecked into saltwater nurseries. More flooding. More property damage.

Costly gamble

History has already shown us what happens when we fail to protect our wetlands. In 1976, Rose Bay fisherman Troy W. Mayo spoke out as catches dwindled.

“Twenty-five years ago, I owned a 26-foot shad boat. We used to go out in Rose Bay, two people, for five or six hours and we’d catch 35 to 40 tubs of oysters—that was two men pulling by hand,” said Mayo. “Today you go out in this same area with a power winder and all modern equipment, and I’d be surprised if you catch 10 tubs of oysters.”

Scientists confirmed what fishermen already knew. “Salinity is a major ingredient for survival in the estuaries”; reported the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. Preston Pate, who studied juvenile shrimp in Rose Bay, found that freshwater intrusion “definitely disrupted the salinity of small creeks in the area. The result was a smaller shrimp harvest by fishermen.”

But wetland loss isn’t just bad for fisheries. Wetlands absorb floodwaters, buffer storm surges, and keep pollution out of our waterways. Every acre lost means more homes and businesses at risk.

In North Carolina, our coastal communities have already been battered by hurricanes, rising insurance costs, rising property taxes, lack of affordable housing, and an aging drainage infrastructure that can’t keep up with heavier rains. Weakening wetland protections only adds fuel to the fire. It shifts costs onto property owners, local governments, and taxpayers — many of whom will be left paying for flood damage that could have been prevented.

Commonsense approach to conservation

Those lessons from the 1970s helped shape policies that kept North Carolina’s wetlands intact for decades. But now, history is repeating itself. The rollback of WOTUS protections and the state’s decision to weaken its own rules mean more wetlands will be drained, increasing flooding, pollution, and economic losses.

This shouldn’t be a divisive political issue. Wetland protections aren’t just about environmental policy — they’re about practical economics, public safety, and community well-being. They help prevent costly flood damage, safeguard private property, and support the resilience of coastal economies that depend on fisheries, tourism, and clean water.

Jim Brown of the Division of Marine Fisheries put it best nearly 50 years ago:

“We love beans and beef, and we have a serious need to extend agricultural operations. At the same time, we dearly love shrimp and oysters. There exists a very serious need for imposing compatibility between the two. Can it be done? That’s the question. Or do we just keep plodding along with our fingers crossed?”

If we ignore history, we aren’t just crossing our fingers — we are guaranteeing a grim future for our coastal communities. The fishermen of Rose Bay warned us decades ago. Will we listen this time? Or will we, once again, pay the price for failing to protect the wetlands that sustain our way of life?

Opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of Coastal Review or our publisher, the North Carolina Coastal Federation. See our guidelines for submitting guest columns.

For the first time in more than 10 years, North Carolina land donors may be eligible to receive a tax credit for gifting property to conservation.

But there’s a catch. A few, actually.

The law that went into effect Jan. 1 includes caveats that were not in the original one that legislators repealed in 2013.

This time around, there is a credit cap for qualifying properties, which means donors will not know how much of a credit they will receive at closing. Conservation easements, or those where the landowner can permanently protect the environmental value of his or her land while continuing to own it, no longer qualify. And the program ends after two years.

The law isn’t likely to raise the brows of landowners wanting to donate solely in the name of conservation. But proponents are concerned the law might not be enough to entice property owners who may be looking for more incentive to donate.

Land trusts across the state are working to get at least some of the language in the North Carolina Farm Act of 2024 changed to reflect that of prior guidelines when the legislative session convenes late this month.

“I would say, although it’s not what we would most prefer getting started, having the tax credit reinstated at all is certainly an accomplishment, and we’re pleased for that,” said Harrison Marks, Coastal Land Trust executive director. “I think until a couple of things are addressed it will be somewhat limited. I think it’s a reward for people who probably want to do the right thing for the right reasons anyway. But I would think somebody who is mostly motivated by the tax credit may wait and see what happens in the future.”

Under the old law, landowners would receive a tax credit of up to 25% of the fair market value of their donated property.

Now, a statewide cap of $5 million must be divided between donors with qualifying tracts of land.

Land owners will not be notified until after the close of the tax year, after the state Department of Revenue tallies the year’s donations, how much of a tax credit they will receive.

“If they don’t hit the cap, then every landowner will get the full 25% of the donated value and that’s fantastic, but I can’t tell a landowner that,” explained Rusty Painter, Conservation Trust for North Carolina’s land protection director. “I have to tell the landowner you might get as little as 5% or less, who knows, of the donated value. That’s going to make it hard for them to factor that in, or make that a significant factor in their decision.”

The message he’s likely to relay to prospective land donors is to remind them that a federal tax deduction for conservation easement donations stands. Whatever the landowner may get in a state conservation tax credit would be the “gravy on top.”

“You’re likely to get some kind of state tax credit, but I can’t tell you how much,” Painter said. “Nobody can tell you how much right now. Just wait and hope for good news and enjoy the windfall, however big or small it might be.”

North Carolina was the first in the nation to enact a conservation income tax credit.

Between the time the credit was rolled out in 1983 until its repeal 30 years later, donations and bargain sales of land and easements for conservation purposes led to the protection of more than 230,000 acres of forests, farms, waterways, wildlife habitat, wetlands and other natural areas.

Proponents of the credit point out that neighboring states, including South Carolina, Virginia and Georgia, implemented similar conservation tax credits after seeing the success of North Carolina’s program.

Land donations for conservation “really dropped off” after North Carolina lawmakers repealed the tax credit, Marks said.

Under the current law, eligible lands include those used for forestland or farmland preservation, fish and wildlife conservation, buffers around military installations and training areas, historic landscape conservation, for public trails or access to public trails, and for floodplain protection in counties where a gubernatorial disaster declaration as a result of a natural disaster that occurred five years before the donation.

The law expires Jan. 1, 2027.

“We’re definitely hoping for an update because we need all the help we can get,” Painter said. “The window is closing on the best of the best properties to conserve. Development is rampant now and it’s going to continue to increase and funding for our work is pretty limited. Our hope is that this is the first step toward revamping and improving the program based on what we’ve learned in this two-year period.”

This special news feature is part of Coastal Review’s 12-month observance of the Coastal Area Management Act’s 50th year.

NEW BERN — Special Deputy Attorney General Mary Lucasse gestured to the projector screen behind her as she began her presentation to a couple dozen last month about the rules governing the last five decades of coastal development.

On the screen, a black-and-white photograph taken over a century ago depicting three, nattily dressed men in a rowboat, gliding across Bogue Sound with the expanse of undeveloped waterfront in the background a reminder of how much North Carolina’s coastline has changed.

When the photo was taken in 1912, the character of coastal North Carolina was “so different than it is today, 100 years later. We didn’t have bridges to the coast, people were not building on barrier islands,” Lucasse explained.

Lucasse joined the state Department of Justice in 2009, and works in the department’s Environmental Division. Her presentation, “50th Anniversary of the Coastal Area Management Act,” opened the daylong Shape of the Coast legal symposium, held in conjunction with North Carolina Sea Grant’s biennial Coastal Conference, Nov. 13-14 at the Riverfront Convention Center.

North Carolina Sea Grant, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Office of General Counsel and the National Sea Grant Law Center partnered on the symposium that featured speakers on concerns regarding homeowner’s insurance, oceanfront homes, wetlands, sand for beach nourishment and other aspects.

“Development really started on the oceanfront after World War II, and even later than that, and what North Carolina was experiencing was a destruction of wetlands, indiscriminate development, dredging, septic tanks that were improperly sited, declining water quality,” Lucasse said. “And as the population in coastal North Carolina grew, the governor at that time realized that we lacked the public infrastructure and regulations that would allow North Carolina the capacity to handle an increase in population and development.”

The governor at the time, Bob Scott, worked with legislature to put together the Dredge and Fill Act in 1969. Lucasse called the measure “the start” of the state’s work to protect its coastal and the natural resources. The act put limits on dredging and filling of wetlands. Scott also directed a committee to design what would become the Coastal Area Management Act.

When North Carolina was looking to protect its coastal resources, the federal level was doing the same, resulting in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, which Lucasse called “an important partner as we protect and manage the coastal resources here in North Carolina.”

CAMA was first drafted in 1973 but there was a lot of pushback from utilities, agriculture and building interests.

“At first, CAMA was opposed by 90% of the coastal legislators,” which she said was in part because coastal stakeholders wanted a larger role in the process. Legislators in response reworked the proposed act to include their feedback.

CAMA was enacted in 1974 and created the Coastal Resources Commission.

The commission adopts rules, establishes procedures for processing and enforcing major and minor development permits, considers variances from coastal development rules and appeals of permitting decisions, and other development rules.

Lucasse has been legal counsel to the commission since 2011, In that role, Lucasse advises members on open meeting laws, meeting procedures, handles public records requests, writes the commission’s final decisions, represent the commission on any litigation, and works with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management. Division staff implement commission rules and issues CAMA permits.

“When I talk about CAMA, I always talk about the fact that this is a balancing statute. This is not about, ‘Let’s do everything we can to only protect natural resources.’ No, we balance the rights of development, the rights of property owners, with the need to protect natural resources,” she said.

CAMA protects the rights of neighbors, the public trust, the right to use ocean beaches, and to use navigable waters, she added.

A large part of CAMA is its land-use planning component. At the local level, the plans provide a blueprint for community growth and are used to guide development. At the state level, the plans review development requests and determine consistency both with state guidelines and federal regulations.

CAMA also gives the Coastal Resources Commission the power to determine areas of environmental concern. In the 1970s, the commission was directed to establish AECs.

They decided that all the barrier islands would fall under that designation, and there was “a lot of pushback for that,” Lucasse said. “They realized that really, the rules of the commission had to focus on critical areas. They began thinking about buffers, ocean beaches, not upland areas, but areas that are critical for protecting the North Carolina coastal resources.”

Now, areas environmental concern include estuarine system areas, ocean hazard areas, public water supplies, and natural and cultural resource areas. Examples are estuarine waters, coastal wetlands, beaches, frontal dunes, inlets and surface water and water supplies.

Another major aspect of CAMA is permitting and enforcement.

“I think of permits as the teeth of CAMA,” Lucasse said, because before any development in an any of the CAMA-designated areas, a permit is required, in addition to any required at the local or federal level.

CAMA grew to include in 1981 the Public Beach and Coastal Waterfront Access Program, a way to allow everyone to enjoy the shoreline.

“North Carolina realized that it was very important not only to protect the natural resources, but to allow the public to exercise their public trust rights. And this program was created to identify, to acquire, to improve and to maintain public access ways to public trust resources,” she said, noting that the legislature provided about $2 million in first-year funding.

In the decades since, appropriations have been at just over $1 million a year, she said. “Historically, the requests for funding have exceeded the amount of funding available. But since 1981, the division of coastal management has awarded over 500 grants that total about $45 million.”

Starting in 1982, the state began adding to CAMA reserve sites. Now, there are 10 coastal reserve sites making up the North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research Reserve that protects about 44,000 acres along the coast.

“The reserves are really important component,” Lucasse said, adding that the sites allow for stewardship of these natural resources, research and education. Students visit the reserve sites to experience the natural resources.

Lucasse, in her presentation, was joined by Zach Griffith, a second-year law student at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

Griffith said that CAMA had undergone significant changes since 1994, including the exemption of floating structures associated with the shellfish industry from regulation, how lobbyists changed how the state interpreted sea level rise policy, the repeal of a ban on terminal groins to now allowing seven terminal groin permits that can potentially be issued.

North Carolina’s chief administrative law judge and former head of the state’s environmental regulatory agency has eliminated a state cap on the amount of a chemical solvent some municipal wastewater treatment plants discharge.

Chief Administrative Law Judge and Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings Dr. Donald van der Vaart revoked permit limits of 1,4-dioxane for wastewater treatment plants that discharge the chemical substance, one the federal Environmental Protection Agency classifies as a likely human carcinogen, into the drinking water sources of tens of thousands of people.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality officials did not follow the letter of the law written in state statutes when they calculated discharge limits and established an enforceable water quality standard for 1,4-dioxane, van der Vaart ruled. In his Sept. 12 decision, van der Vaart also said DEQ erred by considering the chemical substance a carcinogen.

“The [Environmental Protection Agency] has characterized 1,4-dioxane as ‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’” he wrote. “The EPA has not characterized 1,4-dioxane as ‘carcinogenic to humans.’”

DEQ has 30 days to appeal van der Vaart’s decision.

A North Carolina Department of Justice spokesperson said by email Monday state attorneys are reviewing the decision with DEQ.

In its 2023 draft revised risk determination for 1,4-dioxane as a chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA “proposes that exposure to drinking water sources from surface water that is contaminated by 1,4-dioxane released from industrial facilities contributes to the unreasonable risk” to human health.

The compound is used primarily as a solvent in chemical manufacturing.

Wastewater treatments plants operated by the cities of Greensboro, Asheboro and Reidsville receive 1,4-dioxane emitted from textile, chemical and plastics manufacturers. Those wastewater treatment facilities then discharge the chemical into surface waters that flow downstream to the Cape Fear region, an area plagued with drinking water contamination from industrial releases of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

PFAS are widely used, human-made chemicals that can be found in a host of consumer products, including stain-resistant carpets, fast food packaging, and water-resistant apparel. Studies of possible human health effects of PFAS, including those found in the Cape Fear River, the drinking water source for tens of thousands of North Carolinians, have found that the chemical substances can cause damage to the liver and immune system, low birth weight, and increase risk of some cancers.

In August 2023, DEQ’s Division of Water Resources issued Asheboro a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permit limiting the city wastewater treatment plant’s release of 1,4-dioxane.

The city sued, challenging the state’s power to include the 1,4-dioxane water quality standard in the permit and arguing it faced excessive financial burden because of the new limits.

The cities of Greensboro and Reidsville joined in the lawsuit after both were issued notices of violation for 1,4-dioxane discharges in November 2019 and required to consent by special order to include discharge limits in their draft NPDES permits.

Brunswick County, Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and Fayetteville Public Works Commission intervened in the case, asserting that upstream 1,4-dioxane dischargers placed an undue financial burden on them to sample drinking water sources for the chemical and try and reduce the level of consumption of it to their customers.

In his ruling, van der Vaart noted that a regulatory impact analysis, which assesses possible financial impacts of proposed rules, states that costs associated with controlling discharges of 1,4-dioxane “… are anticipated to be prohibitively expensive for local governments and the citizens served by public utilities,” but acknowledges “ongoing costs benefits associated with the monitoring and treatment of 1,4-dioxane are likely to be considerable.”

Van der Vaart was appointed DEQ secretary in 2015 by then-Gov. Pat McCrory. In 2017, under the leadership of then-Secretary Michael Regan, van der Vaart was placed on administrative leave. Van der Vaart later resigned from DEQ.

Following growing public outcry in recent years, both the EPA, now headed by Regan, and DEQ have begun to address the releases of some of these compounds – there are more than 10,000 – into drinking water sources.

Earlier this year, EPA announced final maximum contaminant levels limiting a half-dozen PFAS in drinking water.

DEQ’s proposed draft rule outlining health standards for PFOA, PFOS and GenX in groundwater is heading for public comment after a unanimous vote of the state’s Environmental Management Commission.

Groundwater supports about half of drinking water supplies in North Carolina.

The commission decided to omit five PFAS initially included in the proposed draft rule.

The board is still hashing out DEQ’s proposal to establish surface water rules for all eight PFAS. Earlier this month, the commission’s water quality committee instructed DEQ to develop a draft rule and regulatory impact analysis that would establish monitoring requirements for every industrial and NPDES permit and require every industrial and significant industrial user to include PFAS source-reduction plans in their municipal pretreatment plans.

The Republican-majority commission has come under fire for what some state officials and environmental groups are calling stall tactics.

In a meeting earlier this month, some commissioners continued to refute those claims, saying that they were committed to addressing 1,4-dioxane discharges into drinking water sources in the state.

Commission members briefly discussed a petition to the EPA asking the agency to strip North Carolina’s authority to administer the NPDES permit program. North Carolina is one of 47 states authorized by the EPA to implement the permit program.

Cape Fear River Watch, Environmental Justice Community Action Network, Haw River Assembly, and MountainTrue filed the petition Aug. 28, arguing that the North Carolina General Assembly had blocked DEQ from “effectively implementing” its NPDES permit program and protecting North Carolinians from water pollution.

The General Assembly has amended laws that dictate who appoints members of the Environmental Management Commission and Rules Review Commission, “such that these commissions have been effectively captured by a supermajority in the legislature that is hostile to environmentally protective regulation,” according to the petition.

Legislators have also enacted laws that give the Office of Administrative Hearings “final decision-making authority over NPDES permits, thereby stripping DEQ and the EMC of the roles assigned them,” the petition states.

The EPA “generally works” with a state and petitioner to resolve issues raised in a petition, according to the agency’s website.

Kelly Moser, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Chapel Hill office, confirmed late last week that the EPA is taking the petition under advisement. The EPA’s Atlanta region press office did not respond to a request for comment.

“We’ve had concerns about the legislature control over the EMC and we’re just seeing that playing out in the latest delays that the EMC has created in North Carolina’s attempts to protect people from harmful industrial chemicals,” she said in a telephone interview. “The people of North Carolina deserve to have access to clean water and the actions by the state legislature, the EMC and now ALJ van der Vaart are standing in the way of North Carolinians having access to clean water. We are confident that EPA will take our petition seriously and that the state will hopefully be forced to come into compliance.”

Advocacy groups are asking the Environmental Protection Agency to revoke the state’s authority to regulate water pollution because of legislature interference.

The Southern Environmental Law Center filed Wednesday a 65-page petition requesting the federal agency withdraw North Carolina’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, authority because lawmakers have been “unlawfully stripping” North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality of its ability “to protect its waterways, drinking water sources, and communities from harmful pollution.”

The federal Clean Water Act implemented the NPDES permit program in 1972 to address water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants to waters of the United States.

“DEQ operates the NPDES program in compliance with the Clean Water Act as delegated to the State by EPA. Our staff is dedicated to carrying out our delegated authority in a manner that protects the resources and residents of North Carolina,” DEQ officials said Wednesday in response to a request for comment.

The petition, filed on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, the Environmental Justice Community Action Network, MountainTrue, and the Haw River Assembly, “documents how the North Carolina General Assembly has systematically undermined the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality and the Environmental Management Commission to the point that the state can no longer effectively protect its waters, including through the following actions.”

The petition also argues that the General Assembly has caused North Carolina to violate the Clean Water Act requirements and the memorandum of agreement between the state and EPA that governs how the state administers its NPDES program.

“The people of North Carolina deserve clean water, yet the state legislature is preventing the state from limiting toxic pollution of our waterways and drinking water,” Mary Maclean Asbill, Southern Environmental Law Center North Carolina offices director, said in a statement. “Legislative-induced failure is not an option when it comes to protecting North Carolina’s water and communities, so we are asking the Environmental Protection Agency to step in.”

The petition asserts that the legislature has systematically acted to block NCDEQ from effectively implementing its NPDES permit program and from protecting residents from water pollution, including chemicals like per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and 1,4-dioxane.

“For instance, the legislature has amended the state laws governing the appointment and composition of the State’s Environmental Management Commission (“EMC”) and Rules Review Commission (“RRC”) such that these commissions have been effectively captured by a supermajority in the legislature that is hostile to environmentally protective regulation. Together these commissions are blocking the agency’s development and use of numeric water quality standards for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, impeding its implementation of the narrative standards,1 and threatening to take permitting authority away from agency experts,” the petition states.

The petition continues that the legislature has enacted legislation that gives the Office of Administrative Hearings final decision-making authority over NPDES permits, “thereby stripping DEQ and the EMC of the roles assigned them by the Memorandum of Agreement and threatening DEQ’s ability to issue protective permits.”

The legislature has enacted laws prescribing specific permitting conditions for discharges from fish farms and wastewater discharges into small creeks and streams. “These laws unlawfully usurp the State’s environmental agencies’ authority to evaluate permit applications and issue permits tailored to the discharger and receiving waterbody. These laws also prevent the public from participating in the permitting process, and they violate the backsliding provisions of the Clean Water Act,” according to the petition.

And, the legislature-enacted state budget “has perpetually and systematically underfunded DEQ for over a decade, resulting in a backlog of expired NPDES permits and a lack of agency capacity to adequately develop and enforce protective NPDES permits.”

The law center agues that the “legislature has gone too far. To protect North Carolinians, EPA should withdraw North Carolina’s NPDES permitting program unless these issues are resolved and the State is returned to compliance.”

The commission that determines development rules and policies for the 20 coastal counties meets later this month to consider changes to align existing development rules with recently passed state laws, including new looser requirements for replacing or repairing damaged or destroyed docks.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, during its meeting set for 3 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 27, at the Beaufort Hotel, is also expected to consider four variance requests. The commission meeting is set to resume at 9 a.m. Wednesday, Aug. 28.

The public may attend at the hotel at 2440 Lennoxville Road in Beaufort or watch online. A full agenda and related materials are on the commission’s website. Times for agenda items are subject to change.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management serves as staff to the Coastal Resources Commission. The division carries out the state’s Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, Dredge and Fill Law and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 in the 20 coastal counties using rules and policies of the commission.

Two of the three rule changes on the agenda were directed by state lawmakers.

One previous rule had required a permit to replace damaged or destroyed structures. Earlier this year, the General Assembly eliminated that requirement.

“In the case of fixed docks, floating docks, fixed piers, or floating piers damaged or destroyed by natural elements, fire, or normal deterioration, activity to rebuild the dock, pier, or walkway to its pre-damaged condition shall be considered repair of the structure, and shall not require CAMA permits, without regard to the percentage of framing and structural components required to be rebuilt,” according to the new language.

Additionally, a replacement dock can be enlarged by as much as 5 feet or 5%, whichever is less, and its height may be increased without a permit. The change does not apply to docks and piers more than 6 feet wide, greater than 800 square feet of platform area, or adjacent to a federal navigation channel.

The other legislative directive is to allow for a measurement line to be established for dune-building projects related to permitted terminal groin construction.

A third rule change on the agenda is to adjust a deadline for a permit typically used by the North Carolina Department of Transportation to replace existing bridges and culverts.

The commission is expected to consider a variance request related to a soundside walkway wider than permitted at an event site in Nags Head. The division had previously authorized most of the proposed work at the site through a major permit application, except the proposed boardwalk. The boardwalk is part of a larger project for the town and Dare County Tourism to add public amenities to the site on Roanoke Sound with existing asphalt parking, as well as a gazebo, decks, ramp, office building, pier, platform, slips, and onsite septic systems. Petitioners requested permission to build a 10-foot-wide boardwalk over portions of coastal wetlands. The permitted width is 6 feet.

The other variance requests on the agenda include one from a restauranteur on the Wilmington waterfront looking to enclose a porch with vinyl wall panels, and there are two requests from oceanfront property owners in Pender County.

Also during the meeting, the division staff is to present a periodic review of the CAMA and Dredge and Fill Act permitting process with a focus on the major permit process. The committee is also expected to consider approving the fiscal analysis for the installation and maintenance of wheat straw bales for land fencing.

The commission is to hear from a subcommittee appointed to review the third-party hearing request process. This process allows any party except the permit applicant or NCDEQ secretary to challenge the commission’s decision to grant or deny a permit.

The Coastal Resources Advisory Council will have its in-person only meeting before the commission at 1 p.m. Aug. 27 in the hotel. Also in-person only, the public comment period is at 5 p.m. Aug. 27. The chair may limit comments to three minutes per person.                                                    

Sometimes it’s a puzzle why people don’t ask more questions, such as, “Has the river that’s down your road ever flooded your house, the house I’m thinking of buying?”

The maxim “buyer beware” is wise advice no matter where a house is situated, but it’s good to have rules in place to cover homebuyers’ backs for the things they overlook or wrongly assume.

As of July 1, prospective real estate buyers in North Carolina must now be provided the required North Carolina Real Estate Commission residential disclosure form by the seller that for the first time includes questions related to a property’s flood risk.

The change in the form was requested in a petition for rulemaking filed by the Southern Environmental Law Center in December 2022 on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, the North Carolina Justice Center, MDC Inc., the North Carolina Disaster Recovery and Resiliency School, Robeson County Church and Community Center, and NC Field.

“Most of those are small, local nonprofits that respond to disasters,” Brooks Rainey Pearson, senior attorney with the law center, told Coastal Review in an interview, referring to petitioners. “So we really wanted to give a voice to the people on the ground who deal with the fallout from flooding.”

Pearson said that the Real Estate Commission had quickly granted the petition at the time and agreed to add the questions proposed by petitioners. It was then delayed by mutual agreement, she said, to adjust the law to allow the commission to merely make changes in the form. That would avoid having to go through a lengthy rulemaking process.

“It was a longer journey than it should have been, but not because of any pushback,” she said. “I think everyone understands that homebuyers deserve to know if the property has flooded before.”

Questions about flooding that have been added to the disclosure statement include the following:

• Is the property located in a federal or other designated flood hazard zone?
• Has the property experienced damage due to flooding, water seepage or pooled water attributable to a natural event such as heavy rainfall, coastal storm surge, tidal inundation, or river overflow?
• Is there a current flood insurance policy covering the property?
• Is there a flood or Federal Emergency Management Agency elevation certificate for the property?
• Has (the property owner) ever filed a claim for flood damage to the property with any insurance provider, including the National Flood Insurance Program?

The form also notes that the requirement to obtain flood insurance passes down to all future owners for those properties that have received disaster assistance.

Joel Scata, senior attorney with the NRDC, a national environmental nonprofit organization that is one of the petitioners, said that in the past, the only flood information that had to be disclosed to homebuyers in North Carolina was whether the property was in a floodplain.

“Now with the changes, a buyer is going to have access to much more detailed information,” he told Coastal Review.

According to state law, residential property owners are required to complete the disclosure statement and provide it to a buyer before an offer is made to purchase the property.  New construction or never-occupied properties are exempted. Every question must be answered with “Y,” “N,” “NR” or “NA” for “Yes,” “No,” “No Representation,” and “Not Applicable,” respectively.

Despite stern language in the form about requirements, there is enough gray area to give pause to anyone with insight into human failings.

“An owner is not required to disclose any of the material facts that have a NR option, even if they have knowledge of them,” the statement says. Also: “If an owner selects NR, it could mean that the owner (1) has knowledge of an issue and chooses not to disclose it; or (2) simply does not know.”

The form does warn that failure to disclose hidden defects “may” result in civil liability. It also assures that if an owner selects “No,” it means that the owner is not aware of any problem. But if “the owner knows there is a problem or that the owner’s answer is not correct, the owner may be liable for making an intentional misstatement.”

If an owner selects NA, it means the property does not contain that particular item or feature.

Scata said that he believes that whatever remedies are available for enforcement are strictly civil, and do not include criminal charges in the case of fraud or misrepresentation.

“A buyer could file a civil suit, claim that the seller intentionally misled the buyer, make a fraud claim,” he said. But damages and other penalties would depend on the impact of what wasn’t disclosed, he added.

A buyer should take any “NR” answer as a cue to ask the owner about what they don’t want to disclose, Scata said, adding “it’s a good indication that something is wrong with the property.”

That choice could not be removed from the form unless it was done through a change in the legislation, he said.

“The buyer always has the right to go back and explicitly ask the seller the question,” he said. And don’t just push the question with the buyer, he said, but also go talk to neighbors about the situation with flooding episodes in the neighborhood.

Also, real estate brokers by law have a duty to disclose what they know, or reasonably should know, regardless of the seller’s response. “So if a seller says something like ‘No, there’s never been (flooding) on the property,’” Scata said, “but the Realtor knows that’s not true, there’s a duty on them to disclose. And they can be liable if they are complicit in that fraud.”

In that instance of potential fraud by a broker, the buyer can file a complaint with the Real Estate Commission.

According to an NRDC press release, homes in North Carolina with prior flood losses would be expected to average an annual loss of $1,211, compared to $61 for the average home. In 2021, there were 13,237 homes purchased that were estimated to have been previously flooded. The expected annual flood damage totals for those homes were estimated at about $16 million.

With climate change causing more intense rain and stronger storms, flooding is only going to become more of an issue, Pearson said.

“Before when you only had to disclose if the house was in a floodplain, well, that’s no longer a good indicator of whether your house might flood,” she said. “The best indicator of whether your house might flood is whether it’s flooded before. And so, we think, just for the sake of transparency, people deserve to know that. But they also deserve to know that because — I believe it’s called behavioral economics — when people have more information, they’ll make different and better decisions.”

Now that the mile extending from Southport’s incorporated limits is under Brunswick County’s jurisdiction, there are questions.

In June, the North Carolina General Assembly approved House Bill 911 that removed Southport’s extraterritorial planning jurisdiction, putting that land under Brunswick County’s control effective July 1.

To help residents and property owners in the former Southport ETJ navigate the initial zoning process, county planning staff scheduled an open house for 5:30 p.m. Thursday, July 25, at The Brunswick Center at Southport.

An ETJ is the land usually adjacent to a town’s incorporated limits and is regulated by the town’s zoning and planning rules.

Staff will give the same 30-minute presentation at 5:30 p.m. and again at 7 p.m. A recording of the presentation and materials will be available online after the open house. 

Also during the drop-in open house, residents will be able to offer their input and ideas concerning possible initial zoning for the area.

Planning staff will consider this input when drafting map amendments to the unified development ordinance that will go before the county planning board in August for consideration, the county said.  

Brunswick County Communications Director Meagan Kascsak​​​​ told Coastal Review in an email last week that the county and city continue to work together to identify and transfer impacted projects to the county’s jurisdiction.

“The County and the City will share more information on any directions and next steps with residents and the development community once everything is finalized. Until otherwise directed, all approved projects or projects currently in the application phase within the Southport ETJ area should continue to contact the City of Southport concerning any planning or permitting needs,” she said.

Individuals can contact the county’s planning team at 910-253-2025 or email Jeff Walton at jeff.walton@brunswickcountync.gov.

Correction: This story originally reported that Cooper had vetoed the bill.

Gov. Roy Cooper late Monday afternoon declined to sign a bill that includes granting a state regulatory agency’s request to delay new mandatory catch-reporting rules for recreational anglers and commercial fishermen.

The decision was over unrelated provisions that Cooper described as an “unconstitutional power grab.”

A paragraph tucked into Senate Bill 607, the 2024 version of the legislature’s annual regulatory reform measure, pushes the start of the coastal fisheries harvest-reporting system back one year, making the effective date Dec. 1, 2025.

The bill, which is now a law, also includes terminal groin language for Bald Head Island.

Shortly before 7 p.m. Monday, Cooper’s office announced in a release that the governor declined to sign the bill and veto Senate Bill 445, the latter of which pertains to court documents and proceedings.

Cooper’s statement noted that the regulatory reform bill includes “some important changes that should become law, however I am not signing this bill because there is a provision where the General Assembly is seeking to interfere with the charter and bylaws of the North Carolina Railroad, a private corporation. This isn’t about improving transportation for the people of North Carolina, it’s just another unconstitutional power grab by Republicans. Article VIII of the North Carolina Constitution protects private businesses from this type of legislative interference in their internal governance.”

Seeking more time

North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries officials had asked lawmakers for more time to roll out the phased enforcement of the rules, which will require recreational coastal anglers to report harvests of flounder, red drum, speckled trout, striped bass and weakfish.

“Delaying the effective date of the mandatory harvest reporting rules by one year allows the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) the time to better inform stakeholders and conduct outreach and awareness around the new requirements,” Christy Simmons, Division of Coastal Management public information officer, said in an email.

The temporary rules, which must be approved by the state Rules Review Commission, were adopted June 6 by the Marine Fisheries Commission and the Wildlife Resources Commission.

Those commissions had to comply with a law the General Assembly enacted last year that detailed which species recreational anglers will be required to report and an enforcement timeline.

The law also requires commercial fishers to list on their trip tickets all catch, including finfish, shellfish and crustaceans, that they do not sell to a dealer. Dealers submit those forms each month to the state, which uses the information reported on the tickets as a means to help manage fisheries resources.

The new reporting mandate was suggested by a relatively new nonprofit called the North Carolina Marine & Estuary Foundation with the support of the North Carolina Fisheries Association, which represents commercial fishing interests, and the state chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association that represents recreational anglers.

Foundation Executive Director Chad Thomas has said the foundation supports the division’s request to push back the effective date of the law. He has said the law is meant to bring together two state agencies that have a history of conflict over their shared management of joint fishing waters, fill gaps left by federal reporting surveys, and make North Carolina a pioneer in coastal fish data management.

Under the law, the rules will be enforced in phases over three years.

The bill includes language that pushes the date of when the rules will become effective to Dec. 1, 2025, after which time a fisher caught not complying will receive a verbal warning.

Full enforcement of the law takes effect Dec. 1, 2027. Offenders of the law will be punished with a $35 fine per violation. Repeat offenders will face the threat of license and permit suspensions.

The new reporting mandate will not replace the Marine Recreational Information Program, or MRIP, which is a multi-governmental program that uses recreational fishing surveys to estimate total recreational catch.

Upward of 1 million recreational anglers fish state waters any given year, according to fisheries officials.

The mandate has been met with fierce criticism from opponents who argue the rules are unenforceable, unnecessary bureaucracy and government overreach, and question the accuracy and reliability of report collection.

Concerns also have been raised that the law does not include catches and releases of the five species be reported.

Anglers will be given the option to report their harvest by scanning a QR code or by going directly to the division’s website. Printed report cards will be placed in bait and tackle shops and other areas for anglers who do not have smartphones or are in areas that do not have cell phone service.

Anglers will be required to provide their fishing license number or first and last name, ZIP code, the types and numbers of species harvested, length of each fish, the area in which those fish were harvested and the gear used to harvest them.

Details of the reporting process may be found on the division website.

It’s unlikely anglers will be required to report flounder harvests this year because the Marine Fisheries Commission does not plan to open its recreational flounder season for 2024.

Related: No recreational flounder season likely this year; here’s why

Wildlife Resources Commission has proposed closing this year’s flounder season for inland waters. The public comment period on the commission’s proposed temporary rule for the 2024 season closed Friday.

The commission’s next scheduled meeting is July 25.

Bald Head Island could be the first beach town in the state to have two terminal groins now that the North Carolina General Assembly has amended the law that governs the number of such structures allowed on the state’s coastal shores.

Village officials were quick earlier this week to say that Senate Bill 607 gives them the option to pursue a study on whether a terminal groin would be a viable method of controlling chronic erosion at the east end of the island’s south beach.

Whether the village will move forward with such a study remains to be seen as the bill, which was ratified Friday, awaits Gov. Roy Cooper’s decision to sign, veto or let the bill become law.

Bald Head Island Village Mayor Peter Quinn on Monday sent an email to island property owners explaining why village officials had requested the change in the law, what the change means for the village and next steps.

“Such projects are very expensive and take years,” Quinn wrote. “The Village would not undertake such a study without any basis for a helpful solution. Any structure would be subject to extensive design, environmental study, public input, and state and federal permitting.”

A terminal groin has not been designed, planned or proposed, he wrote, and a multi-year investigation into whether such a structure would keep erosion at bay “will not be rushed.”

A terminal groin, as defined by bill, is one or more structures constructed at the terminus of an island or on the side of an inlet, or where the ocean shoreline converges with Frying Pan Shoals.

“Work to find a viable, financially responsible long-term answer needs to be environmentally sound,” Quinn stated. “Our community has, and hopefully always will, embrace the role of a steward whose actions are in harmony with its natural surroundings. We depend on this mutual idea and agents like the Conservancy to keep us on course.”

He is referring to the Bald Head Island Conservancy, an environmental and educational nonprofit that has publicly opposed the change to the law.

Last month, Bald Head Island Conservancy Executive Director Chris Shank was invited to make a presentation to the village council in which he argued whether a hardened structure would control the movement of sand on the east end of south beach, an area where sand is shifted by storms, which are unpredictable in frequency and strength.

Shank said in an email Monday afternoon that the conservancy was “very disappointed” legislators had passed the law, which also gives the village the option to explore replacing a series of fabric, sand-filled tubes on the west end of south beach with rock structures.

“I don’t believe the Village of BHI leadership or the NC legislators appreciate the monumental shift in approach to managing and protecting NC’s spectacular barrier islands that this legislation could bring,” he wrote. “Our barrier islands have always been one of our state’s most special resources, including our dynamic cape system whose constantly changing sands bring awe and wonder to those who experience them. Further, I doubt that North Carolina citizens want to armor their beaches to protect a limited number of private properties in the short-term in exchange for potentially much longer-term negative impacts to the rest of our beaches. I wish the Conservancy along with our research partners in the coastal physics and engineering fields had been offered the opportunity to discuss the potential consequences of this legislation with those who crafted and voted upon it. Then, at least, this baseline shifting decision would have been given the respect that it deserved for the citizens of Bald Head Island and throughout North Carolina.”

Bald Head Island was the first North Carolina beach community to build a terminal groin after the General Assembly repealed a decades’ old law prohibiting hardened shoreline erosion control structures on North Carolina’s coast.

The 2011 law authorized the Coastal Resources Commission to permit the construction of no more than four terminal groins under a pilot program. Legislators would later add that two additional terminal groins may be permitted. Senate Bill 607, if approved by the governor, will up the allowable number of terminal groins that may be permitted to seven.

Bald Head Island and Ocean Isle Beach are the only towns that have built terminal groins.

Village voters in 2014 overwhelmingly passed an $18 million bond to secure funding to build a 1,300-foot-long terminal groin at the western end of south beach, an area where the widening and deepening of the entrance to the Wilmington Harbor channel exacerbated sand loss.

“Changes in the island’s morphology at Frying Pan Shoals over the past few years have seen dramatic erosion and loss of beach habitat and property on the east end of South Beach,” Quinn stated in his letter to property owners.

The village spends anywhere from $1 million to $2 million about every five years to replace the cloth sand tube groin filed at south beach, he said. That groin field has been there since 1995.

“Replacing the cloth tubes with rock structures would save substantial public funds,” Quinn wrote. “These are not new or disappearing conditions.”

Village Manager Chris McCall described the tubes as, on average, stretching about 300 feet long.

Those tubes have proven to slow the rate of sand flow, he said. The law specifies that the field of rock structures may be groins, including T-head or lollipop groins, or breakwaters. The rock structures cannot be larger than the existing cloth tubes or greater in number.

These structures would have to be approved by the Division of Coastal Management or by variance from the Coastal Resources Commission.

Quinn said the village will dedicate a page on its website to keep property owners updated on its analysis of potential erosion control methods on the beach and when the public can provide input.

Note: Coastal Review will not publish Thursday in observance of Independence Day, a federal holiday.

A contentious provision that would all but eliminate protections for archaeologically significant resources was stripped from an energy and environmental bill at the eleventh-hour last week, just days after an altercation at a site where Native American human remains were found during construction.

Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Pamlico, asked the Senate late Wednesday evening to approve the amendment for House Bill 385, “Various energy/environmental changes,” that removed a section dealing “with all the archaeological situations that we have in North Carolina that have kind of sprung up on us recently.” Sanderson also represents Carteret, Chowan, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Perquimans and Washington counties.

The bill first stirred up controversy when a provision was introduced June 6 during a Senate committee meeting that targeted the Coastal Area Management Act, which turned 50 this year. Among the changes were to restrict the Division of Coastal Management’s authority when issuing CAMA permits, including the division’s ability to consult other state agencies, such as the Office of State Archaeology.

The North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, in a June 10 response after the provision became public, explained that the language was “associated with a subdivision in Carteret County that is currently under construction where extensive Native American human burials and an undisturbed Woodland period (1000 BC – AD 1600) village site have been found.”

The bill’s language was edited after the June 6 meeting. The proposed CAMA overhaul was removed June 19, and then the attempt to simplify the Office of State Archeology’s involvement in development was tweaked during committee meetings June 25 and 26.

Sanderson continued that striking the section would allow more time to work on the language and bring in more stakeholders, to ensure that “this is an adequate bill and a very good bill going forward. We’ll do that in the long session,” he said, referring to the North Carolina General Assembly’s odd-year session that begins in January.

The Senate voted 29-18 to send House Bill 385 back to committee in the lower chamber. The measure still included controversial points, including a proposed terminal groin for Bald Head Island, and it appears stalled for now.

“We appreciate that the Senate paused legislative changes related to the Office of State Archaeology. We will continue to work with legislators as we seek to protect our state’s invaluable archaeological resources,” Cultural Resources Communications Director Schorr Johnson said Thursday.

Tuscarora Nation of North Carolina Public Relations Officer Rahnàwakęw Donnie McDowell told Coastal Review that while Tuscarora Nation considers the removal of the archaeological provisions was “a giant win,” he said that knowing that the issue will return again next session, “continues to drive our concern that developers and their legal allies will use their money and clout to grow their support for completely removing archaeological protections from all sites across the state.”

McDowell expressed his concern that “HB 385 has gained so much attention no one is talking about our tribal reaffirmation bill, HB 970.”

Tuscarora leaders are concerned that the attention to the archaeological provision has undermined the bill that would grant state recognition to the Tuscarora of Eastern North Carolina, add two members of the Tuscarora to the State Commission of Indian Affairs, and make Tuscarora people eligible for federal benefits and services.

House Bill 970 has been stalled in the House appropriations committee since early May.

Sanderson didn’t mention a specific archaeological situation last week during the Senate meeting, but the move to strike the provision came just days after a confrontation at the Bridge View development.

Tuscarora Nation of North Carolina, the Occaneechi Saponi and other extended Indigenous relatives, allies and supporters met in Cedar Point, “to peaceably honor the ancestors’ remains unearthed by construction and surveys,” Tuscarora leaders said in a June 24 statement.

Residents of the nearby development proclaimed that the 17 Rivers North Carolina American Indian Movement and Tuscarora participants “should get off the land across the road from the development, which is currently undeveloped,” the statement continues. “Tuscarora Nation members, witnessing this outrageous experience, report that a resident of the Cedar Point development physically assaulted a Native woman and her children.”

The Carteret County Sheriff’s Office issued a statement June 25 saying that when deputies arrived on scene, they discovered that an altercation had occurred and one resident had been stabbed in the arm with a small pocket knife. One suspect had been identified and warrants were obtained. The sheriff’s office said that this is an ongoing investigation and details would be released when appropriate.

Dr. Crystal Cavalier-Keck, a citizen of the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation and co-founder of 7 Directions of Service, an Indigenous-led environmental justice and community, explained during a press conference June 26 that she was in Cedar Point for the prayer.

“I am personally traumatized as one of the participants who escaped and naively waited for the others only to be told by legal, political, and spiritual leaders I trust that I could not rely on law enforcement protection in that county and to get my victims to safety. Because we were afraid for our lives, we drove three hours until we arrived safely at a place we trusted and a physician could see and address their physical damages,” said Cavalier-Keck.

Bridge View residents issued a statement June 27 that “As a community, we respect the ongoing archaeological efforts and the preservation of history. We ask that our safety, privacy and property investment, as well as the laws regarding trespassing on private property, receive equal respect from stakeholders and citizens and that these priorities are taken into account in future words and actions because they are at the forefront of our minds,” WRAL reported.

“We are discouraged to see inaccuracies being reported about our neighbors and the beautiful place that we call home. Bridge View residents are largely learning about archaeological finds within our subdivision alongside the general public through the media. We have little to no prior knowledge of what has been unearthed and where, or the future of development within our gates,” the statement continues. “Those questions are best directed to the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology and the residential developer, not the Bridge View residents who have been the subjects of unsolicited attention and aggression and placed in the middle of a debate beyond our control.”

Storms largely drive sand movement along the Bald Head Island beachfront and sand is being lapped away at the east end, where village officials are considering building a terminal groin to keep erosion at bay.

The unpredictability in the frequency and strength of those storms were among several points of concern raised by the Bald Head Island Conservancy last week over the prospect of additional hardened erosion control structures on the Brunswick County island’s shores.

“So, we’re going to try and control something, which we don’t even know how to predict the future of, and we’re going to try and put something there that says we know what it’s going to do?” Chris Shank, executive director of the Bald Head Island Conservancy, recently asked the village council. “It’s not an easy system to understand. To think, if we put something in the way, can you block sand in that area for a little while? You probably can for a little while. How long will it last? We don’t know that.”

Shank was invited to make a presentation to the village council during its meeting Friday, wrapping up a week when legislation was introduced that would allow the village the option to add a second terminal groin to its shoreline and replace a series of fabric sand tubes with a field of rock structures.

Related: Bald Head Island seeks to change hardened shorelines law

The proposed revision to a statute that lays out the rules for the construction, funding and number of terminal groins permitted on the North Carolina coast bumps the total of allowable hardened erosion control structures from six to seven.

Language added to the law went last week before the Senate judiciary committee, which is expected to take it up for further discussion this week. That language defines a terminal groin as one or more structures constructed at the terminus of an island or on the side of an inlet, or where the ocean shoreline converges with Frying Pan Shoals.

This would give the village the option of building what it describes as a field of rock structures that would replace fabric sand tubes installed along the west end of south beach and a terminal groin at the east end of south beach. The sand tubes have to be replaced every few years.

A state-permitted sandbag revetment installed by a private country club known as The Shoals Club protects it from the encroaching ocean at the east end of the south-facing beach.

Shank played a video of a female sea turtle lumbering under the cover of night along the beach to the sandbag wall. With no place to dig a nest, she eventually turned around and headed back to sea, he said.

“We don’t want something like that to be a long-term measure, especially not in this area,” Shank said, adding that the sandbags are analogy for how rock structures might affect nesting sea turtles.

“We’re sharing the island with our wildlife and, look, I’m not unrealistic about the fact that we have massive erosion in that area. I get that. But we have to be smart about the future.”

Bald Head Island’s beach is federally designated critical sea turtle habitat.

The soft tube groin field rests on the opposite end of the south beach from the 1,300-foot-long terminal groin the village had constructed nearly 10 years ago. The groin, a wall-like structure built perpendicular to the ocean shoreline, is designed to stop the movement of sand.

Bald Head Island was the first to build a terminal groin after the North Carolina General Assembly repealed a 30-year ban on such hardened erosion control structures on the state’s ocean shores.

Bald Head Island Mayor Peter Quinn made clear last week that village officials have not determined whether they want to go the route of having additional hardened structures on the island’s beachfront.

“It needs to be studied before anything is acted on, and this is a step toward making sure that it’s even a possibility before we do anything,” he said. “We’re working with the conservancy. This isn’t something we’re trying to steamroll or anything.”

Shank cautioned council members that, should they decide against building groins at the east end of south beach and the bill amendment passes in Raleigh, the door is opened for a future council to do so.

“I know that there’s a process involved, but it’s complicated,” he said. “By having this legislation passed you have created a pathway for somebody else to walk through and that is a major concern,” he said. “Once that pathway’s open, then what?”

The conservancy is a nonprofit organization that sponsors and facilitates coastal scientific research and offers recreational and educational activities to the public.

Shortly after Shank’s presentation, village council members approved a contract with Marinex Construction of North Carolina Inc. to place more than 1 million cubic yards of sand onto shore at the terminal groin fillet and the east end of south beach. That project is expected to begin later this year.

The village is sending out another round of bids for a project to replace the soft groin tubes on the east end.

Changes to a controversial bill that would have allowed development to trump historical and environmental protections went before the Senate judiciary committee Wednesday for discussion, and the measure now features a new provision allowing additional hardened shoreline structures to be built on Bald Head Island.

Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Pamlico and also representing Carteret, Chowan, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Perquimans and Washington counties, explained during the meeting that the previous language to change Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, permitting process rules was being replaced with directives for the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources regarding historically significant land.

With the new language, Sanderson said Wednesday, the department would be required, “upon request,” to inform the owner or prospective buyer of property “in an area of environmental concern of anything that may be of archaeological or historical significance,” Sanderson said.

The language also would prohibit the Office of State Archaeology, under the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, to add conditions to a CAMA permit restricting development for three years after its issued, and directs the state agency to apply for funding to purchase properties in an area of environmental concern that has archaeological or historical significance, he said.

The new language replaces, as Sanderson explained it during a June 6 Agriculture, Energy, and Environment committee meeting, an attempt to harness the Division of Coastal Management, which he said had “forced developers to conduct lengthy, open-ended and costly historical and archaeological investigations to obtain a permit or as a condition of a permit.”

The previous language, Sanderson continued on June 6, “to some degree reins in DCM’s historical and archaeological jurisdiction to develop activities that involve actual land disturbance, and so that specifies the circumstances under which an area can be designated as an Area of Environmental Concern based on cultural, scientific or scenic values, or natural systems.”

Cultural Resources Communications Director Schorr Johnson said Thursday that while the new language is an “improvement from the original proposal, the Office of State Archaeology already provides information to property owners and prospective property owners about archaeological resources on their property. The new language attempts to codify that practice while also undermining archaeological protections. We look forward to continuing to work with the legislature on this proposal.”

Regarding the new section on hardened shorelines, Sanderson told the judiciary committee Wednesday that the language modifies the decade-old statute that allowed a limited number of terminal groins as a pilot project along the North Carolina shoreline.

Bald Head Island was the first town to build a terminal groin after a former law banning hardened erosion control structures on the North Carolina coast was repealed in 2011.

The new language defines “terminal groin” as one or more structures constructed at the terminus of an island or on the side of an inlet, or where the ocean shoreline converges with Frying Pan Shoals, and changes the number of permits from six to seven to construct a terminal groin.

Bald Head Island has been working with the Department of Environmental Quality on the provision to allow the village to apply for a permit to build a second groin on the island nearest to Frying Pan Shoals, Sanderson explained.

“Upon passing, the village plans to do robust studies on the best environmental path forward for the new structure,” Sanderson said. “The section would also enable Bald Head Island to eliminate a number of geotextile sand tubes that have to be replaced every five to seven years at great expense to residents and replace them with permanent rock structures that are equal or less in number and size than the existing tubes.”

Southern Environmental Law Center North Carolina Legislative Counsel Brooks Rainey Pearson told Coastal Review in an email Thursday that the section added via proposed committee substitute Wednesday would change the definition of “terminal groin” to allow a new groin on the east end of south beach on Bald Head Island.

“We are against any expansion of the armoring (or ‘hardening’) of the coast, and believe that expanding the number of new groins allowed under state law will effectively open the entire coast to terminal groins on N.C.’s public trust beaches,” Pearson said in the email. “Groins are incredibly expensive to build and maintain, and encourage litigation as homeowners on the ‘wrong’ side of the groin lose sand/beach to properties on the ‘right’ side of the groin.”

Bald Head Island Public Information Officer Carin Faulkner said Thursday morning in response for a comment that the village council had not reviewed the proposed language, but village staff plan to present the information during the council’s 10 a.m. Friday meeting, which can be viewed online.

Division of Coastal Management officials said Thursday afternoon that the new provision would make the Village of Bald Head Island eligible to apply for a permit to construct another terminal groin near Frying Pan Shoals and it increases the cumulative number of terminal groins that the Coastal Resources Commission can permit from six to seven.

Sanderson, Lazzara want to ‘rein in’ regulatory authority

When the previous language, which was replaced Wednesday, had gone before the Senate agriculture committee June 6, both Sanderson and Sen. Michael Lazzara, R-Onslow, said the intention was to “rein in” the Division of Coastal Management and CAMA authority.

The North Carolina General Assembly passed the Coastal Area Management Act in 1974 to guide development on land near coastal waters. The Coastal Resources Commission adopts rules for CAMA that are carried out by the Division of Coastal Management, under the Department of Environmental Quality. The commission also determines for the 20 coastal counties area of environmental concern, which are those areas that are vulnerable to flooding or erosion, or may have environmental, social, economic or aesthetic values that make it valuable to the state.

State archaeology officials said in a June 10 response that the language was linked to a subdivision being built in Cedar Point where “extensive Native American human burials and an undisturbed Woodland period (1000 BC – AD 1600) village site have been found” and the bill as it was written then “would endanger some of North Carolina’s most significant archaeological and historical resources, including Native American village sites and human burials.”

Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Public Information Officer Michele Walker said Friday that two archaeological sites were found in the 1970s at the tract where Bridge View subdivision is now being developed.

Walker said that the department, through the Office of State Archaeology and the State Historic Preservation Office, is one of 10 state agencies that review CAMA major permit applications. These agencies may recommend specific permit conditions based on the permit review.

In response to the division’s CAMA Major Permit application review, the Office of State Archeology noted that the area of potential effect for the proposed Bridge View subdivision contained these two known and unassessed prehistoric archaeological sites that are adjacent to four other archaeological sites identified in a survey for the neighboring subdivision of the 1990s Magens Bay subdivision, she said.

“During construction at the site, the remains of at least five individuals were inadvertently disturbed in the developer’s Phase 1 area, which is outside the CAMA defined area of environmental concern,” Walker said. “And an initial archaeological survey within the AEC has identified 11 additional human burial sites, each of which may include multiple individuals. This initial archaeological survey included test trenches that, cumulatively, uncovered just over 1 acre of the almost 21-acre area of environmental concern.”

State Archaeologist Chris Southerly told Coastal Review last week that the “initial findings at this site indicate that this area was a pre-contact-era American Indian settlement which was occupied over multiple generations.”

Southerly said the site “is one of the most significant archaeological sites ever identified in North Carolina and could help us to understand more about these ancient people and their day-to-day lives. It’s important to recognize that this site contains multiple human burial sites – the ancestors of people living in coastal North Carolina today. These once-vibrant people deserve the utmost respect and care of their final resting place.”

Sanderson still could try to harness CAMA

Sanderson suggested at the agriculture committee meeting earlier this month that, during the legislative session most likely to begin in January, lawmakers can review CAMA parameters, “and see which ones are still good, which ones are outdated, which ones need to be changed or updated.”

“We welcome any opportunity to improve on our 50-year history of balancing the protection of coastal resources and the public trust with economic development. We all share a common desire to enjoy a healthy environment and economic growth. We support any reforms that are thoughtful, stakeholder engaged, and that will result in positive outcomes for a healthy coast and for the public,” division officials said Thursday.

It’s been a long time, Sanderson said in noting 50 years had passed since the landmark coastal measure became law. “CAMA has done a lot of great work on the coast, exactly what it was intended for,” but it’s time for a review “and we need to make sure that what we’re doing is still relevant for the coastal area, for the environment and for the people who want to take advantage of our areas.”

Division officials last week in response explained that eliminating its regulatory role does not improve the process for the public, “it simply replaces it with a much slower federal process, and certain permit applications that are now processed by DCM within two weeks could be taken over by the US Army Corps of Engineers and take six months or more to process.”

The division “serves as a permitting clearinghouse for coastal development so that one application to us covers all state and federal permits in most cases. Instead of having DCM guide applicants on necessary permits and standards, applicants will have to figure those out on their own and may inadvertently find themselves in violation of state or federal law due to a lack of awareness.”

The primary goal of CAMA is to balance protection of the public trust — environmental, cultural, aesthetic, recreational use — with private use and economic development, DCM officials said.

“DCM has a 50-year history of finding this balance, coordinating with other state and federal regulatory and resource agencies to continuously streamline the permitting process. This has made NC one of the most efficient coastal management programs in the nation. Some of the HB385 provisions stand to reverse years of progress to the detriment of the public,” officials continued. “Local governments may face heavier burdens on their staff time and resources to manage development activity that is currently handled by the state, including adopting and enforcing new ordinances, and resolving disputes and legal challenges.”

Sanderson also noted about the previous language discussed at the agriculture committee meeting June 6 that the provision would limit CAMA permits to development activities only within an area of environmental concern, and that Division of Coastal Management would be the only agency authorized to review and issue CAMA permits.

Division of Coastal Management officials said their agency collaborates with Cultural Resources staff throughout the permitting process if archaeological work on a project is requested, including after a permit is issued if there is a condition placed on the permit related to archaeological resources.

“Between 2020 and 2023, the Division of Cultural and Natural Resources reviewed 737 projects that were seeking major coastal permits and recommended archaeological work on 13 of those projects,” Walker said. The Office of State Archaeology “has limited to no statutory enforcement authority outside of its commenting responsibilities for environmental permits. Human burials, both marked and unmarked, do have statutory protections.”

The bill as it was previously written would have restricted the Office of State Archaeology, among other state agencies, from being consulted or recommending conditions on permits issued pursuant to CAMA.

“This sets an alarming precedent and could leave the permitting body or official unable to consult archaeological experts within state government when determining a project’s impact on archaeological and historical resources, including unmarked human remains,” she said.

This story is part of a reporting partnership with The Outer Banks Voice.

With Dare County mandated to return $35 million in housing funds to the state, a suit filed last year by its six towns contesting the conditions attached to that money has been withdrawn.

Last October, the six municipalities filed the litigation after a special housing provision inserted into the state budget would have restricted their ability to regulate affordable housing projects funded by the $35 million in state money. Town officials vocally criticized the measure for eroding and encroaching on local authority over development and zoning, the Outer Banks Voice reported.

Related: Dare won’t use state budget provision on workforce housing

Ben Gallop, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, the town of Manteo, told the Voice that on Friday, June 7, the municipalities filed a voluntarily dismissal of that suit, “in recognition that the General Assembly’s recent repeal of the legislation provided the towns with the result sought by the lawsuit.”

The filing of the suit harkens back to one of the most divisive controversies that emerged during efforts to build more workforce housing in the county. It came only weeks after local officials expressed anger and surprise upon learning that the provision restricting town control over the housing regulation had been inserted into the state budget. The $35 million was intended to be used by Coastal Affordable Housing LLC, which was, at the time, one of the county’s two private housing development partners.

Coastal Affordable Housing LLC was formed in 2021 with Jordan Hennessy, an aide to former Sen. Bill Cook, a principal. Hennessey is also one of the newest members of the state Coastal Resources Commission and an officer in the company Dare County contracted to address shoaling in county waterways.

From the outset, Dare County officials insisted they had no knowledge of and no role in inserting that provision and Rep. Keith Kidwell, R-Beaufort, whose district covers part of Dare County, was subsequently identified as involved in inserting that provision. The Dare County commissioners also passed a resolution indicating they would not abide by the provision removing local control over affordable housing regulation.

In April, the Dare Board of Commissioners voted to end the county’s partnership with Coastal Affordable Housing and to seek to return the $35 million in housing money to state coffers.

The county’s Affordable Housing Task Force was hopeful the commissioners could delay returning that money. But a little over a month ago, the legislature passed a measure that removed the provision and also required the return of the $35 million to the state, in effect bringing this chapter of the county’s housing initiative to an end.

Related: CRC member Hennessy threatens to sue Dare candidate

The first North Carolina beach community to build a terminal groin after state lawmakers lifted a 30-year ban is looking at the possibility of constructing more hardened erosion-control structures.

The Village of Bald Head Island recently asked its legislative delegates to bump the number of permits the state can issue for terminal groins from six to seven, giving the Brunswick County island government the option of building a groin at the east end of south beach to curb erosion. This is an area where chronic erosion threatens The Shoals Club, a private club that has a state-permitted sandbag revetment installed on the property to help protect it from the encroaching ocean.

The village is also considering replacing a series of fabric sand tubes installed along the west end of south beach with a rock structures.

Proposed changes to the 2011 law were recently handed over to Rep. Charles Miller, Sen. Bill Rabon, both Republicans, and N.C. Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Elizabeth Biser.

Biser and Miller visited the island May 17 after touring the Brunswick County water treatment plant’s reverse osmosis project, according to Sharon Martin, DEQ’s deputy secretary of public affairs.

“Secretary Biser appreciated the opportunity to meet with the local leaders and hear their concerns,” Martin said in an email responding to questions. “The visit to BHI was part of the Brunswick County visits arranged by Representative Miller for that afternoon.”

Language the village has drafted to amend the current law specifies that the number of rock structures that would replace fiber, sand-filled tubes would not exceed the existing number of permitted tubes or surpass the length of the longest existing tube.

“The structure(s) or field of structures may consist of groins,” the draft language states.

It is unclear if and when the drafted language might be introduced in the General Assembly.

Miller’s office did not respond to a phone call and email for comment. Rabon’s office also did not respond to a request for comment.

The existing soft tube groin field rests on the opposite end of south beach from the 1,300-foot-long terminal groin built nearly 10 years ago. The groin, a wall-like structure built perpendicular to the ocean shoreline, is designed to stop the movement of sand.

Bald Head Island Public Information Officer and Deputy Clerk Carin Faulkner explained that the village is being proactive in exploring long-term, more cost-effective shoreline stabilization alternatives at the west end of south beach.

Fiber tubes must be replaced every four or five years, she said.

Bald Head is among a small number of Brunswick beaches that get sand injections from periodic dredging that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does to maintain the Wilmington Harbor navigation channel.

The sand the village receives is typically not enough to stretch along the entirety of south beach, leaving the east end sand starved.

“We have successfully proven that an engineered beach solution works to stabilize our shoreline,” Bald Head Island Mayor Pro Tem Scott Gardner said in a statement to Coastal Review. “The combination of soft groins, a terminal groin, and a sand management plan have demonstrated that by slowing the movement of sand from our beaches, we can protect our infrastructure and property, and improve habitat for wildlife. Our 2025 plan maintains the quality of shoreline stabilization on the west end of south beach and allow us to begin investigating the possibility of a similar stabilization plan on the east end of south beach.”

The 2025 locally funded coastal storm damage reduction project will place more than 1 million cubic yards of sand onto shore at the terminal groin fillet, the east end of south beach and used to fill new fiber tubes that will replace existing ones in the tube groin field on the west end.

The village has obtained the necessary permits for the project, which is ready to go out for bids, Faulkner said.

Sand for the 2025 project is being tapped from Jay Bird Shoals, a borrow source that is not projected to have enough sand to provide for the future needs of Bald Head’s ocean beach.

The village has thus far unsuccessfully convinced the federal government to allow it to use a portion of Frying Pan Shoals as a sand borrow source.

In 2017, the village applied for a federal permit to mine with a 460-acre area on the western portion of Frying Pan Shoals about a mile off the island’s southeast shoreline.

Frying Pan Shoals is a line of shallow sandbars trailing from the southeastern tip of Bald Head island some 30 miles into the Atlantic Ocean and is an area that has no record of ever being dredged.

This is an area that includes essential fish habitat, a federal designation that describes waters and substrate necessary for fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity.

Bald Head Island is one of only two beach towns authorized to build terminal groins since the General Assembly in 2011 repealed the longstanding ban on the use of hardened erosion-control structures on the state’s beaches. Ocean Isle Beach in Brunswick County built its terminal groin in the winter of 2021-22.

Figure Eight Island in New Hanover County, Holden Beach in Brunswick County and Carteret County ultimately decided against building terminal groins on their shores.

North Topsail Beach in Onslow County is developing a draft environmental impact statement examining potential options, including a hardened structure, for stabilizing its shore at the New River Inlet.

Coastal Review Assistant Editor Jennifer Allen contributed to this report.

Temporary harvest reporting rules for coastal recreational and commercial fishers were adopted Thursday by the advisory boards to the state agencies responsible for enforcing the rules.

The North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission and the Wildlife Resources Commission in separate meetings Thursday morning approved the rules, which will go into effect Dec. 1, unless state legislators agree to amend current law and push that date back by one year.

Before the fisheries commission cast a unanimous vote in a short, called meeting, officials reiterated that the rules are the result of law enacted last year by the North Carolina General Assembly, and not the state Division of Marine Fisheries or Wildlife Resources Commission.

Of more than 2,000 written comments submitted to the fisheries commission, 83% opposed the rules, which require recreational coastal anglers to report their catch of flounder, red drum, speckled trout, striped bass and weakfish. The law also requires commercial fishers to list all catch, including finfish, shellfish and crustaceans, that they do not sell to a dealer on their trip-ticket forms.

People who wrote in opposition to the rules argued that they are unenforceable, unnecessary bureaucracy and government overreach, and raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of their collection.

The 10% of public comments the fisheries commission received in favor of the rules argue that they will lead to better data that will help the state manage its fisheries resources.

“It’s important that the public understand first of all that this is a legislative initiative and not something put forth by the commission or the division and I just want to state that,” said Fisheries Commissioner Tom Roller.

Roller went on to say that he is supportive of recreational reporting but that he objects to the species listed within the new reporting law.

“I guess my concern here is as we move forward with this is that we’re asking anglers to report species that the current system, MRIP (Marine Recreational Information Program), actually works pretty well for, and those are the species that are harvested by a large group of people and are more common,” he said.

The commission recently announced there will not be a recreational flounder season in the state this year. There is also no recreational season for striped bass and current bag limits for red drum and weakfish are one fish of each species per angler.

“To me, if you really want to truly collect data, having releases added to a harvest and release program makes more sense to me,” Commissioner Alfred Hobgood said.

“I agree with Commissioner Hobgood that we should be looking at releases in the future, particularly since this data stream is not going to be comparable to MRIP in any way. We’re not sure how it can be used for management,” Roller said. “The species we’re asking people to report, if we’re going to draw an analogy to hunting, we’re asking people to report their squirrels, bunnies and quail while ignoring the big game species like deer, turkeys and bear.”

The law, introduced by Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Pamlico, was created at the suggestion of the newly formed North Carolina Marine & Estuary Foundation with the support of the North Carolina Fisheries Association, which represents commercial fishing interests, and the state chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association, which represents recreational anglers.

In a submitted guest commentary Coastal Review published earlier this week, Chad Thomas, the foundation’s executive director, wrote that the reporting rule would fill data gaps for both commercial and recreational harvests.

“With better data, the state can more effectively manage our valuable coastal fisheries that drive economic activity across the coast,” Thomas wrote.

North Carolina Fisheries Association Executive Director Glenn Skinner told Coastal Review that his organization is set to publish on its website an explainer on how the law got to where it is, including the recreational fishing group’s role.

“We’re glad that it’s passed this far,” Skinner said.

CCA North Carolina Executive Director David Sneed told Coastal Review Thursday evening that the recreational angler group was more interested in the portion of the law that pertains to commercial harvest reporting.

“I gave my support to Chad for his bill out of respect for what he and the foundation are trying to do for fisheries reform in North Carolina and to keep the commercial license reporting piece alive,” he said. “I think it is OK to raise questions and want to get something right.”

He noted that the current rules do not include discard information, “which is a big concern,” he said.

The law requires that the rules be enforced in phases over three years.

After the rules initially go into effect Dec. 1, anyone caught not complying with the law will receive a verbal warning. Full enforcement of the law is set to kick in Dec. 1, 2026, after which first-time offenders will face a $35 fine.

Repeat offenders will face the threat of license and permit suspensions.

Division of Marine Fisheries officials have asked legislators to push back implementation of the temporary rules by one year, saying that they need more time to inform the public about the reporting mandate and set up the reporting system.

Division and wildlife officials are hashing out the finer details of a reporting system for recreational anglers.

Legislators gave the agencies a one-time, $5 million allocation to set up a reporting system, which will give anglers the option to report their harvest by scanning a QR code or by going directly to the division’s website.

Printed report cards will be placed in bait and tackle shops and other areas for anglers who do not have smartphones or are in areas that do not have cell phone service.

Anglers will be required to provide their fishing license number or first and last name, ZIP code, the types and numbers of species harvested, length of each fish, the area in which those fish were harvested and the gear used to harvest them.

Fishers must report their harvests when they have finished finishing for the day. Those who use printed report cards to record their catch must submit the information electronically by midnight the following day.

The North Carolina Press Association announced its support Thursday for a bill to amend the North Carolina Constitution with language that preserves the public’s right to access government meetings and records.

The measure, Senate Bill 911, was filed Tuesday in the North Carolina General Assembly. A companion bill, House Bill 1075, was filed in the lower chamber also on Tuesday. Both measures passed first readings and were referred to the respective rules committees in each chamber.

The association, of which Coastal Review is a longstanding member, says public records are vital to ensuring government transparency and accountability.

“This amendment mandates that authorities cannot restrict access to public meetings and records unless they can demonstrate that such limitations protect a compelling public interest,” said the association, which represents North Carolina newspapers and works to protect the public’s right to know through the defense of open government and First Amendment freedoms. “This critical measure fosters trust in public institutions by ensuring that any restriction on access is both justified and necessary.”

The press association applauded the bills’ sponsors, Sens. Dan Blue (Primary), D-Wake, Graig Meyer, D-Caswell, Gale Adcock, D-Wake, Val Applewhite, D-Cumberland, Sydney Batch, D-Wake, Mary Wills Bode, D-Granville, Natasha Marcus, D-Mecklenburg, Julie Mayfield, D-Buncombe, Mujtaba Mohammed, D-Mecklenburg, Natalie Murdock, D-Chatham, DeAndrea Salvador, D-Mecklenburg, and Kandie Smith, D-Edgecombe; and Reps. Tim Longest (Primary), R-Wake, Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, Diamond Staton-Williams, D-Cabarrus, Lindsey Prather, D-Buncombe, John Autry, D-Mecklenburg, Cynthia Ball, D-Wake, Allen Busani, D-Orange, Terence Everitt, D-Wake, Frances Jackson, D-Cumberland, Nasif Majeed, D-Mecklenburg, Robert Reives II, D-Chatham, Caleb Rudow, D-Buncombe, and Julie von Haefen, D-Wake, for their efforts in advancing the legislation.

State lawmakers citing “legislative privilege” last year approved legislation that exempted themselves from provisions in North Carolina’s public records law.

Guest commentary

To stimulate discussion and debate, Coastal Review welcomes differing viewpoints on topical coastal issues. 

Where were you in 1970? Some red drum still living in the million-acre Pamlico Sound were born that very year.

Red drum contribute to the financial health of our coastal economies to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Together with speckled trout, flounder, striped bass, and weakfish, the group is considered North Carolina’s top five inshore coastal fisheries.

Despite the significance to our economy and culture, those responsible for maintaining a robust fishery population have precious little data to guide their efforts. Should the flounder season be longer or shorter next year if we even have one? Will speckled trout daily limits be reduced if current trends continue?

These questions cut to the core of maintaining sustainable, self-replenishing fisheries. But without reliable numbers, many policy decisions will be wrong, risking the very existence of critical species in our coastal waters, unnecessarily limiting recreational fishing seasons, and ultimately harming the entire fishing industry.

In October 2023, the North Carolina General Assembly acted to address this problem by advancing a new harvest reporting policy. The Marine Fisheries Commission is currently considering the rules to implement this program.

On the commercial side, about 6,000 licenses are sold per year. Of those licenses, only about 2,000 holders report at least one sales transaction to a licensed fish dealer. What impact, if any, do the other 4,000 license holders who report no annual sales activity have on the various fisheries?

This commercial data gap has been a constant source of uncertainty. The new harvest reporting policy aims to close this gap by requiring that all fish and shellfish kept under the privileges of a commercial fishing license be reported, regardless of whether those fish were sold or not.

On the recreational side, the data used to inform fishery management decisions is collected through a federal survey process known as the Marine Recreational Information Program. With rare exceptions, this annual data stream is the only source of recreational harvest data used by state fish agencies to set size limits, daily creel limits, and season lengths.

Not shockingly, the federal surveys have their limitations, and in August 2023 new sources of error were identified that brought the survey program to a halt through at least 2026.

Here lies the opportunity the legislature seized to do something different. If successful, North Carolina will have its own data stream to evaluate harvest trends for our most valuable coastal fish species. A visionary observation from the policy sponsor noted, “The new fisheries data program, which will be phased in over a period of three years, positions the state of North Carolina as a pioneer in the field of commercial and recreational harvest reporting.”

Yes, reporting catches can be an annoyance, and some anglers will not comply. But consider North Carolina’s existing mandatory reporting programs for bear, deer, and turkey. Reporting big game harvests is ingrained in our culture, although it might shock you to learn that not everyone reports their deer kills. And here is the remarkable thing — that’s okay! The data is still valuable.

Our state wildlife agency doesn’t need 100% accuracy because it monitors trends in the reported harvest – how it compares to last season, where it’s concentrated, and the like.

It will be several years before consistent reporting rates are achieved for the five recreational fish species included in the new reporting program. Even if initial reporting rates are low, the numbers will level out over time. Once that happens, the trend data could validate federal survey estimates, inform harvest rates during short keeper seasons (like southern flounder), and unify data collection for all five recreational species across the various management jurisdictions.  

The state needs time to build out the reporting system, make it user-friendly, and educate the angling public to encourage participation and promote compliance. Like anything new, the data’s true value will be determined over time. For a working example, check out Alabama’s “Snapper Check,” a state reporting program used alongside the federal data that lengthened red snapper seasons in the Gulf.

This program can be a cornerstone in promoting world-class fisheries in North Carolina. With better data, the state can more effectively manage our valuable coastal fisheries that drive economic activity across the coast. While the new requirements cause anglers to face the same minor inconvenience hunters do, the desired benefit is that over time there will be more fish and longer seasons for all anglers.

Opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of Coastal Review or our publisher, the North Carolina Coastal Federation. See our guidelines for submitting guest columns.

The N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission will meet by web conference to vote on the final adoption of temporary rules to implement mandatory harvest reporting requirements.

The meeting at 11 a.m. Thursday, June 6, will be livestreamed on Webex. The link is on the Marine Fisheries Commission Meetings webpage.

A listening station will be set up at the Division of Marine Fisheries Central District Office in Morehead City. After the meeting, a recording will be posted online.

The mandatory harvest reporting requirements were passed by the General Assembly. The commission is to hear public comment received on the proposed rules.

No other issues are on the agenda.

The Wildlife Resources Commission is scheduled to take similar action on its proposed temporary harvest reporting requirements rule at its June 6 business meeting to implement the requirements of this recent law.

More information on this mandatory harvest reporting requirement can be found on the division website.

The anglers have spoken.

And they apparently did not spare using colorful language to express their thoughts on proposed temporary mandatory harvest reporting rules state regulatory agencies must enforce later this year.

The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission received a combined more than 3,700 public comments on the proposed rules at the close of the comment period May 20, fisheries Director Kathy Rawls said Thursday morning during the fisheries commission’s quarterly business meeting in Beaufort.

“All I’ll say about them right now is that Catherine (Blum) has a long list of cuss words that she had to redact from the information so that’s kind of where we are,” Rawls said, referring to the division’s rulemaking coordinator.

The comments will be presented to the Marine Fisheries Commission on June 6 during a special-called meeting in which the commissioners are expected to adopt the temporary rules. The Wildlife Resources Commission, or WRC, is scheduled to meet that same day and is also expected to adopt the proposed rules.

In a move likely to draw even more ire from recreational anglers, the state is axing flounder season this year. The fisheries commission declined during its meeting Thursday to hold a special meeting to discuss alternatives to shuttering the already-short season altogether for 2024.

The division issued a release Thursday afternoon stating that the season will not open for recreational harvest this year because 2023 estimates indicate catch surpassed the quota allowed under the commission’s Southern Flounder Fishery Management Plan.

Under the proposed rules on mandatory harvest reporting, which are the result of a provision tucked into a controversial law the General Assembly enacted last year, recreational coastal anglers will be required to report harvests of flounder, red drum, speckled trout, striped bass and weakfish.

Related: No 2024 recreational flounder season

The law also requires commercial fishers to list all catch, including finfish, shellfish and crustaceans, that they do not sell to a dealer on their trip-ticket forms. Dealers submit those forms each month to the state, and uses the information reported on the tickets as a means to help manage fisheries resources.

The law dictates that the rules will be enforced in phases over three years. The reporting requirement is set to go into effect Dec. 1, after which time a fisher caught not complying with the law will receive a verbal warning.

Full enforcement of the law is set to kick in Dec. 1, 2026, after which time offenders will face a $35 fine violation. Repeat offenders will face the threat of license and permit suspensions.

Rawls said that division officials hope the General Assembly will push back by one year when the rules go into effect.

A draft special provision that would grant the agencies an extra year is “out there,” she said. 

“That was, from our seat, something that we really wanted to better inform the public because I just don’t think folks are aware that this is coming and it is going to be a huge change for people that are fishing these species,” Rawls said. “The division is doing its best to work through this and the timeframe that we’ve been allowed. We’re still hoping for that extension, but we are working as if that will not happen.”

The law was not requested by either agency, but rather a fledgling nonprofit called North Carolina Marine & Estuary Foundation.

Foundation Executive Director Chad Thomas in an interview with Coastal Review earlier this month said the idea behind the law was to bring together two state agencies that have a history of conflict over their shared management of joint fishing waters, fill gaps left by federal reporting surveys, and make North Carolina a pioneer in coastal fish data management.

Upward of 1 million recreational anglers fish in state waters any given year, Rawls said.

“And we’re talking about a recreational harvest with these five fish (species) totaling around 2.5 million fish,” she said.

Rawls reiterated that the new reporting mandate will not replace the Marine Recreational Information Program, or MRIP.

That multi-governmental program uses recreational fishing surveys to estimate total recreational catch.

The new mandatory reporting rule “will just provide another data set that we will have,” Rawls said.

Division and wildlife officials are hashing out the finer details of a reporting system for recreational anglers. 

Legislators gave the agencies a one-time, $5 million allocation to set up a reporting system.

During a public hearing last month, officials said anglers will be given the option to report their harvest by scanning a QR code or by going directly to the division’s website. Printed report cards will be placed in bait and tackle shops and other areas for anglers who do not have smartphones or are in areas that do not have cell phone service.

Anglers will be required to provide their fishing license number or first and last name, ZIP code, the types and numbers of species harvested, length of each fish, the area in which those fish were harvested and the gear used to harvest them.

Fishers must report their harvests when they have finished fishing for the day. Those who use printed report cards to record their catch must submit the information electronically by midnight the following day.

Related

• Hearing set on new fishing catch reporting requirement published April 24
• Anglers: Reporting law puts burden on them, unenforceable published May 6
• Fisheries Division seeks to delay mandatory catch reporting published May 8

State fisheries officials are asking lawmakers for another year to roll out a new harvest reporting requirement for coastal recreational anglers and commercial fishermen.

“This will allow us more time to get the word out to the fishing public about the new law and to help them understand the importance of compliance,” North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Public Information Officer Patricia Smith said in an email earlier this week.

The reporting requirement is set to go into effect Dec. 1, after which time a fisher caught not complying with the law will receive a verbal warning.

Related: Anglers say reporting law puts burden on them, unenforceable

As it stands, full enforcement of the law, which will carry a $35 fine for each violation and the threat of license and permit suspensions for repeat offenders, is set to kick in Dec. 1, 2026. Chad Thomas, executive director of the North Carolina Marine & Estuary Foundation, the relatively new nonprofit that initiated a plan to get the harvest reporting requirement into law, said that the group supports the division’s request.

He said the idea behind the law was to bring together the two state agencies that have a history of conflict over their shared management of joint fishing waters, fill in gaps left by federal reporting surveys, and thrust North Carolina into the spotlight as a pioneer in coastal fish data management.

Under the law, coastal recreational anglers will be required to report harvests of five species: flounder, red drum, spotted seatrout (speckled trout), striped bass and weakfish (gray trout). Thomas said those are the most high-profile recreational fish on the coast.

The division and state Wildlife Resources Commission are accepting public comments on a set of proposed temporary rules the agencies presented during a hearing last week, one in which anglers questioned why the law was created and argued it puts an unfair burden on recreational fishers.

Commercial fishers will for the first time have to include on trip-ticket forms catch they do not sell to a dealer. Dealers submit trip-tickets each month to the state, which uses the information reported on the tickets as a means to help manage fisheries resources.

Thomas, a retired fisheries scientist who worked at the state wildlife agency for 30 years and is a member of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, pointed out that the legislation the North Carolina General Assembly passed last year does not dictate what the division should do with the data that will be collected under the new reporting requirement.

“But the information that would be gained is extremely valuable,” he said.

The federal survey known as the Marine Recreational Information Program, or MRIP, fails to capture a solid statistical account of certain fisheries in some states, Thomas said.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is looking at ways to improve its fishing effort survey. Last August, NOAA Fisheries released the results of a pilot study that suggested reporting in some fisheries and in some states was inflated by as much as 40%.

Data collected through a state reporting requirement will provide information that, over time, will allow fisheries officials to determine the percentage being reported for a species and allow them to follow trends in those species, Thomas said.

“So, if you’re seeing your red drum populations are going up, trending up by way of harvest, and then the federal data is showing something different than that, scientists have an opportunity to ground check both of those data sets,” he said. “If your data is trending up, that’s a good thing. If it starts to drop down, then that can recognize that perhaps another management action needs to happen. It’s a way to backcheck the data the division is already using without putting any undo expectations on the division to use.”

He likened the reporting system to that required of hunters, who must report seasonal kills of wild game including deer and bear to the state wildlife office.

“That’s the only way they can survey to see how many of those animals are harvested every year,” Thomas said. “Without that information, how else do they sample? That’s the idea here behind just the five recreational fish. Those five support a billion-dollar fishery on our coast.”

Smith with the division said in her email that the division does not have an economic impact estimate for the five species that have to be reported.

“Once we move to the permanent rulemaking process, a fiscal analysis will be required,” she said.

Neither the division nor Wildlife Resources requested the new reporting program, which comes with a one-time $5 million allocation from the General Assembly.

Some anglers who spoke during last week’s public hearing argued the new reporting law will simply not be enforceable.

The division’s Marine Patrol and the commission’s law enforcement division have a combined force of a little more than 100 enforcement personnel charged with overseeing an area that includes more than 300 miles of ocean shoreline, nearly two dozen inlets and thousands or estuarine coastlines.

House Bill 949, introduced in the House May 1, aims to inject $600,000 in recurring funds and a one-time $10,000 allocation to the Division of Marine Fisheries for five full-time Marine Patrol officer positions.

That’s not enough, Thomas said, but it’s a start.

“Will (officers) be able to capture everything? Absolutely not,” he said.

Still, he argued, most recreational license holders are going to “do what’s right” and adhere to the rules. And, he said, enforcement officers can ramp up patrols during seasons, which, like that of flounder season, have a relatively small window.

Thomas also addressed concerns that the new reporting requirement will not include fish anglers catch and release.

“Harvest is the only thing that you could enforce because how many I caught and how long I went out there is nothing that I can provide proof of if I’m stopped and checked,” he said. “I think down the line the division, if they find the data to be necessary, then they can add those fields.”

Thomas said additional funds will be needed to keep the reporting program going.

“That’s part of what our group wants to do down the road with the state,” he said. “We want to see this program be successful. North Carolina’s trip ticket information is some of the best in the country. Why not have something like that on the recreational side?”

Coastal recreational anglers are questioning the fairness and motive of a new law that will require them and commercial fishermen to report certain harvests to the state beginning late this year.

Temporary rules for the law, which was tucked into a controversial bill the North Carolina General Assembly passed last year, were discussed Wednesday night during a jointly held virtual public hearing of the state regulatory agencies tasked with enforcing it.

Beginning Dec. 1, recreational fishermen will be required to report harvests of red drum, flounder, spotted seatrout (speckled trout), striped bass and weakfish (gray trout), to the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, or DMF.

Commercial fishers will for the first time have to include catch they do not sell to a dealer on trip-ticket forms. Dealers submit these forms each month to the division, which uses the information reported on the tickets as a means to help manage fisheries resources.

The law will apply to those who fish in coastal waters, joint fishing waters and inland fishing waters adjacent to coastal and joint fishing waters.

“It seems like it’s affecting the individual angler and it’s not affecting commercial fishermen because it’s not any extra added work for them, but it is extra added wok to the recreational fishermen,” said Ivan Colesnic, a Raleigh resident and recreational fishermen.

Colesnic, who said during the hearing he primarily travels to the Morehead City-Atlantic Beach area to fish, continued that the new reporting requirement won’t likely discourage people from illegally harvesting fish listed under the new law.

Colesnic was among several people, the overwhelming majority of which were recreational fishermen, to speak during the public hearing hosted by DMF and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, voicing their opinions about whether the new reporting requirement is the most effective way to gather fisheries data and questioning how it will be enforced.

“I don’t know what you’re going to do about private docks and private ramps and that’s a significant percentage of the people that are fishing,” Bill Mandulak said. “You’re not going to go walk around people’s private docks and say ‘hey did you send this in or not.’ I mean, enforcement is a mess. I hope they’ve given you about half-a-million dollars or, no, half-a-billion dollars to hire enough Marine Patrol officers to enforce this thing. I don’t understand how the division or Wildlife Resources are going to have the manpower to make any reasonable way of enforcing it.”

When a state official clarified that the agencies have been given a one-time, $5 million allocation for the new reporting system, Mandulak chimed, “I can’t imagine that’s enough.”

That funding may not be used to pay for additional enforcement staff for the division’s Marine Patrol or Wildlife Resources Commission’s law enforcement division.

Combined, the agencies have a little more than 100 enforcement personnel, forces already stretched thin by the sheer size of the area they’re charged with overseeing, which includes more than 300 miles of ocean shoreline, nearly two dozen inlets and thousands of estuarine coastlines.

State officials explained Wednesday that recreational anglers will be given the option to report their harvests by scanning a QR code or by going directly to the division’s website.  

Printed report cards will be placed in bait and tackle shops and other areas for anglers who do not have smartphones or are in areas that do not have cell phone service. An angler may show his or her card to law enforcement if approached by an officer.

Anglers must provide their fishing license number or first and last name, ZIP code, the types and number of species harvested, length of each fish, the area in which they were harvested and the gear used to harvest them.

Recreational fishermen must report their harvests when they have finished fishing for the day. Those who use printed report cards to record their catch must submit the information electronically by midnight the following day.

New Bern resident Stephen Stroud suggested recreational fishermen be given more time to report their harvest.

“If I’ve gone out and fished all day and I’ve got fish all over my hands, that’s not the first thing that I’m going to do want to do,” he said. “But if you want me to record it and then report it the following day, I could certainly maybe understand that after I’ve cleaned the fish, frozen the fish or fried the fish, showered and changed and so forth. I think that this is all a lot of imposition on the recreational fishermen with not knowing exactly how and why this data’s going to be used and how accurate it’s going to be.”

Commercial fishermen must report their entire harvest within 48 hours of landing.

Catherine Blum, DMF rulemaking coordinator, said Wednesday that the division is looking at creating a separate reporting tool for commercial fishermen to report the catch they do not sell to a dealer, but that the rollout of a new reporting method will take some time.

The new law will be phased in over the next three years. Verbal warnings will be issued the first year. Officers will start issuing warning tickets to violators Dec. 1, 2025. One year after that, violators will be fined $35 per offense and face suspension of their fishing licenses and permits.

“I just don’t understand how it’s fair that you’re cracking down on the recreational fishermen instead of going straight after the commercial fishermen,” said Christopher Barnett.

“They’re not checking their nets for stuff before they drop them and get the chance to drown the fish and you’re wanting to pick on the people that, like myself, that maybe get to fish twice a year, if they’re lucky, at the coast,” Barnett continued. “I just think it’s getting stricter and stricter for people to actually go down there and have a good time and enjoy their self fishing off the pier so y’all can install more fines for something for really that’s not hurting the population or resources as much as the commercial end could.”

Hunter Owen, who said he was representing the North Carolina chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, a nonprofit sportsmen’s organization based in Montana, said the group supports mandatory recreational and commercial harvests.

“Since science-based wildlife management is critical and conservation is a pillar of BHA,” he said.

“We do have one suggestion, however, in order to make reporting more successful and useful,” he added. “We will once again step up to the plate supporting this reporting system so that regulatory agencies have the best data available. We do wonder when the effects of commercial inshore shrimp trawling will receive similar scrutiny so that all of us participate in this effort for healthy inshore fish stocks.”

Public comments on the temporary rules will be accepted through 5 p.m. May 20.

Comments on the Marine Fisheries Commission rules may be submitted through an online form, or by mail to: N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission, Rules Comments, P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, NC 28557.

Comments on the Wildlife Resources Commission rule may be submitted through an online form, emailing regulations@ncwildlife.org, include name, county and state or residence, or by mailing: Rulemaking Coordinator, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, 1701 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1700.

Updated 10:30 a.m. Wednesday: The Senate Agriculture, Energy and Environment Committee adopted the amendment during its meeting Wednesday morning in Raleigh.

Original post 11:45 a.m. Tuesday:

Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, has proposed language that would direct the Coastal Resources Commission to implement its longstanding rule protecting Jockey’s Ridge until the commission can adopt a permanent rule that again defines the massive dune as an area of environmental concern.

Hanig said Tuesday during the Senate Agriculture, Energy and Environment Committee meeting in the Legislative Building in Raleigh that he would formally introduce the proposed committee substitute for House Bill 426 for committee consideration Wednesday.

The proposed language is in response to an ongoing dispute between the Coastal Resources Commission and the state Rules Review Commission, which last year rejected 30 longtime coastal rules, including protections for Jockey’s Ridge in place since 1977.

The CRC is responsible for adopting coastal management rules. The RRC is charged with reviewing and approving rules adopted by state agencies.

“Currently there’s a lawsuit between the CRC and RRC regarding several emergency declarations that were put in place and Jockey’s Ridge is caught in the middle of it,” Hanig said Tuesday during the committee discussion. “Currently Jockey’s Ridge is not protected from any type of construction or anything like that. So, we got to make sure we take care of Jockey’s Ridge.”

Hanig’s measure would direct the Coastal Resources Commission to implement its previously adopted rule establishing minimum use standards for development in the Jockey’s Ridge area environmental concern until the CRC adopts permanent rules.

The language would also require Department of Administration to hold a public hearing before granting an easement on state property for disposal of spoil materials dredged from navigable waters or dumping rights of spoil materials in the county where the proposed easement is located and consult with the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations, effective Aug. 1.

It would also “clarify” language regarding surfaces excluded from consideration as “built-upon area” for purposes of state or local stormwater programs. It would also add artificial turf installed over pervious surface to the list of surfaces that are not considered built-upon area.

MANTEO — In an effort to address objections from the commission that last year nulled 30 state rules, including the environmental designation for Jockey’s Ridge, and to maintain temporary rule protections, the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission unanimously voted Thursday to send an amended rule and findings from the state geologist back to the state Rules Review Commission.

“We’re trying, but there’s no guarantee that the Rules Review (Commission) will in any way change their mind,” CRC Chair Renee Cahoon said after the vote during the second day of the two-day meeting at the Dare County Administration Building. “We hope that the supplemental findings and the fact that we’re fighting so hard will make a difference.”

The findings, she said, are based on a letter received this week from State Geologist Kenneth Taylor affirming that Jockey’s Ridge meets the qualifications that define an Area of Environmental Concern, including being a unique geologic formation.

The CRC is seeking to restore the AEC designation to Jockey’s Ridge State Park in a permanent rule to replace the one tossed by the 10-member Rules Review Commission, which is appointed by the leaders of each chamber of the North Carolina General Assembly.

Jockey’s Ridge in Dare County is the tallest living sand dune on the East Coast, according to the nonprofit Friends of Jockey’s Ridge organization that supports the state park created in 1975 at the site once targeted by developers.

The Division of Coastal Management staff is proposing an amended rule to redesignate Jockey’s Ridge as an Area of Environmental Concern, along with a set of use standards to protect the AEC from incompatible development and loss of sand.

The proposed amended rule would include protective-use standards for the AEC to prevent incompatible development and sand loss, according to division staff. At the same time, the CRC intends the revised rule to alleviate the Rules Review Commission’s stated objections by limiting rule content to the Jockey’s Ridge AEC designation and its particular use standards.

The Rules Review Commission had objected to 30 existing CRC rules. Last year, new legislation prevented the CRC from responding to the objections and the state codifier removed them from the N.C. Administrative Code. The CRC then reinstated 16 of those rules through emergency rulemaking and proposed temporary rules, to which the rules commission objected.

“This is unchartered territory for us,” Cahoon explained. “In the past, any rule that came up for periodic review, we worked with the Rules Review Commission.”

The Coastal Resources Commission was caught off guard during last year’s state legislative session, she said, when the General Assembly gave the rules codifier the ability to eliminate existing rules. Objections were also issued against numerous other state agencies’ rules.

“No more notification — just absolutely unfettered power to drop the rules,” Cahoon said of the change.

Area residents and Jockey’s Ridge supporters have come out in force in favor of the AEC redesignation, which in part ensures that sand will not be removed from the dune and protects it from unsuitable development.

“You can’t get this back,” resident Taylor Conyers told Coastal Resource Commission members during the public comment portion of the meeting Thursday, adding that she was speaking on behalf of other younger residents. “You can’t get Jockey’s Ridge back once it’s encroached upon. Like, it’s gone.”

As Daniel Govoni, policy analyst and federal consistency coordinator with the Division of Coastal Management, detailed in his presentation Thursday, the proposed rule is divided into three areas: description, boundary and use standards.  

“If we approach this rule as a brand-new rule and, instead of going into all the other processes, it would have three sections,” Govoni said.

Commission member Jordan Hennessy had previously requested staff to prepare proposed rule language for the panel to review.

Hennessy, who has attracted attention for, among other actions, attempting to oust Cahoon as chair at the start of his first commission meeting, spoke out in support of the AEC for Jockey’s Ridge. 

“It’s a gem, a treasure to the state,” said Hennessy.

The commission, during the meeting, also approved starting the permanent rulemaking process, which takes about a year, to replace six other rules that were deleted over Rules Review Commission objections.

The process would require additional public comment periods and public hearings.

Coastal recreational and commercial fishermen will have to report certain fish harvests under a new North Carolina law that takes effect later this year.

Preliminary details are scant as to how the two state agencies tasked with overseeing the reporting requirements will implement the program, one that is slated to be discussed during a combined virtual public hearing next week.

The N.C. Marine Fisheries and N.C. Wildlife Resources commissions have opened a public comment period ending May 20 on the temporary rules, which were established under the North Carolina General Assembly’s Regulatory Reform Act of 2023.

The mandatory harvest reporting requirements were tucked into the controversial law, one environmental advocates referred to as a “pro-polluter” bill for cutting favors to industries that control hog and poultry farming, discharge per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and build fracked gas pipelines.

Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed the bill last October, but legislators overrode that veto, setting into motion this requirement that was not sought out by the regulatory agencies and that must now enforce it.

“We do recognize that there are data gaps, particularly in the area of recreational fishing and we do have hopes that this is something that may take a while, but that can be built into a system that can fill those data gaps,” said Patricia Smith, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries public affairs officer.

Under the law, recreational fishermen must report harvests of red drum, flounder, spotted seatrout (speckled trout), striped bass and weakfish (gray trout), to the division. Reports will most likely have to be submitted electronically through a smartphone app or computer.

Commercial fishers will have to report all fish harvested, including catch that is not sold to a dealer. This means commercial fishermen will have to include fish caught and used for bait, and fish caught and kept for personal consumption.

Commercial fishermen record the catch they sell to dealers on trip-ticket forms. The dealers then submit those forms each month to the state fisheries division.

The Division of Marine Fisheries uses the data gathered from the trip tickets as a means to help manage fisheries resources.

Doug Todd, a member of the North Carolina Fisheries Association’s Board of Directors and part-time commercial fisherman, has been including all of the harvest he keeps for the past few years.

“If I get 5 pounds of fish I record 5 pounds of fish just so there’s a record of what’s being caught,” Todd said. “That just gives a better record of what’s being caught and used out of the ocean and around the waterways. There’s no true numbers on what’s being caught in the recreational zone. It’s at least a start to try to get some more accurate data.”

Smith said that commercial fishermen will not be required to obtain a dealer’s license to comply with the new harvest reporting mandate.

“We’re still working on a lot of details,” she said. “We’re just trying to get the word out now because this requires some temporary rules.”

The law does not require fishermen to report their discarded catch, or fish that are caught and released, information some argue would help provide a more complete picture of the impacts to species through recreational fishing.

Tom Roller, a member of the state Marine Fisheries Commission and owner of WaterDog Guide Service in Beaufort, said that while the new law may seem like a burden in the short term, the hope is that the new reporting requirements will help produce better data.

“It’s very clear that we need better data,” he said. “Recreational fishermen want better data. Commercial fishermen want better data. It’s very important that we find new ways to address some of our data deficiencies. The question is whether or not this is the better way to do it.”

Enforcement of the new law will be phased in over the next three years.

Fishermen must report their harvest beginning Dec. 1, after which time anyone found in violation of the law will receive a verbal warning.

The division’s Marine Patrol and the Wildlife Resources Commission’s law enforcement division will start issuing warning tickets to violators of the new law Dec. 1, 2025. One year after that, violators will incur a $35 fine and face suspension of their fishing licenses and permits.

While the system the state will use to collect harvest reports is being funded through a one-time, $5 million allocation, there is not funding at present to pay for additional enforcement staff in either of the state agencies.

Combined, those agencies have a little more than 100 enforcement personnel, forces stretched thin by a coverage area that includes more than 300 miles of ocean shoreline, nearly two dozen inlets and thousands of estuarine coastlines, including bays, sounds and wetlands.

The agencies will host the virtual public hearing at 6 p.m. Wednesday, May 1. Pre-register for the public hearing online. Pre-registration is required. To join by phone call 833-568-8864. The webinar ID is 160 805 6277.

Comments on the Marine Fisheries Commission rules may be submitted through an online form or by mail to:

Comments on the Wildlife Resources Commission rule may be submitted through an online form, emailing regulations@ncwildlife.org (include name, county and state or residence) or by mailing:

The public comment period on the temporary rules closes at 5 p.m. May 20.

Second in a series.

Maybe one North Carolina insurance provider should join the industry trend and advertise: “Hello Beach Plan policyholders! Do you need a new roof? Want to save on your property insurance? How about we help you out with as much as $8,000 toward a much stronger roof that is fortified to withstand storms? And don’t worry — we’re not asking you to pay it back.”

Even with those selling points, the North Carolina Insurance Underwriting Association, or NCIUA, which runs the Beach Plan, has yet to reach the number of property owners who could benefit from the Strengthen Your Roof grant program it offers to its policyholders.

“The question was, how do we incentivize consumers so that they desire a new roof as much as they desire a beautiful countertop?” Gina Hardy, general manager and chief executive officer of N.C. Insurance Underwriting Association and N.C. Joint Underwriting Association, said in an interview.

“We had given credits to policyholders who installed fortified roofs, but in 2016, we started running pilot programs to motivate them to engage in mitigation,” Hardy said.

To be clear, that motivation is money in the form of a grant. To fund the grant program, Hardy said the insurance provider made a business case that the grants would help homeowners build more wind-resistant roofs, which would result in savings on future claims and reinsurance costs.

The North Carolina Joint Underwriting Association administers the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements, or FAIR, Plan is a tax-exempt organization of insurance companies that do property insurance in the state. The North Carolina Insurance Underwriting Association, or Beach Plan, is similar but is specifically for providing essential coverage in coastal and beach zones.

At a time when North Carolina’s coastal homeowners are more immediately worried about rising costs of property insurance and its availability than rising seas, insurance providers are looking askance at growing risks from climate change-related impacts and the ballooning costs of disaster claims.

Meanwhile, forecasters are predicting a very active hurricane season in 2024.

Proactive resilience measures such as N.C. Insurance Underwriting Association’s Strengthen Your Roof program, which provides the grants to install the trademarked Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, or IBHS, Fortified Roof are helping to decrease a significant part of that risk.

Data from IBHS, the South Carolina-based research nonprofit that developed the roof, shows that up to 90% of insured catastrophic residential property losses are related to roof failures.

As described by IBHS, Fortified is a voluntary re-roofing program, designed to be stronger in winds, hail and hurricanes based on field research of real houses after storms. Installation of a fortified roof involves removing the existing roof to the decking, sealing the deck, and using stronger nails and nail attachments, and roof mounted vents.

Recent research on the effectiveness of IBHS roofs by N.C. State University’s School of Data Analytics found a reduction of about 35% in reported claims and 23% in the amount of payment in filed claims for hurricanes Matthew in 2016, Florence in 2018, Dorian in 2019, and Isaias in 2020.

When the pilot program first launched, only four houses on the coast out of over 400,000 policyholders had participated in the program by December 2016, Hardy said. Still, it was innovative enough to inspire invitations to both the White House and the World Bank in late 2016.

But Strengthen Your Roof has grown steadily since its underwhelming start. In April 2019, 274 eligible houses had fortified roofs. As of September 2023, the grant program’s completed roofs and applications totaled 5,928.

“This is a great program!” 2023 grant participant Joseph Connolly Ely of New Bern said in feedback provided on the program’s website. “Homeowners get a cash grant, a reduction on their wind and hail insurance premium AND peace of mind from the reduced likelihood that their roof will fail in a hurricane.

“The NCIUA, in turn, has a reduced likelihood that they will have to pay a large claim due to such a roof failure,” he added, “so it really is a win-win program.”

Who is this program for?

Billed as one of the first efforts in the nation to help policyholders in hurricane zones to better protect their homes from the storms, the IBHS program is offered to its eligible policyholders on the Outer Banks and barrier islands.

The grants are available on a first-come, first-served basis until the end of this year, or when all funds are awarded. The program also expanded two years ago to the other 18 coastal counties the Insurance Underwriting Association serves.

Part of the slow response from the public to the program may be confusion about the requirements, which includes having an evaluator ensure qualification for the IBHS designation, and a contractor who is trained to build a fortified roof.

“So, it was definitely an uphill battle trying to get everyone to understand IBHS was doing fantastic science, but we were not getting that science implemented for the benefit of our coastal residents and our policyholders,” Hardy said.

Now known officially as the Coastal Property Insurance Pool, the Beach Plan, also referred to as the market of last resort, was created in 1969 by the North Carolina General Assembly to provide adequate property insurance for homeowners in the state who could not otherwise obtain coverage in the private market.

About 70% of homeowner policies in coastal North Carolina counties are insured for wind and other hazards under the Beach Plan. Separate flood insurance policies, required for mortgaged properties in flood zones, are provided by a Federal Emergency Management Agency program.

What is IBHS?

IBHS, which researches mitigation and resiliency across the country, is funded by insurers and re-insurers. First established in 1977 as the National Committee on Property Insurance, it has since changed its name and expanded its focus numerous times.

In 2010, the IBHS Research Center was created in South Carolina “to advance the scientific understanding of severe weather perils and their interaction with the homes and businesses at full scale,” according to its website, referring to wind, hail, rain and wildfire.

“We study those four primary perils as we conduct that research and we gain understanding of how buildings are interacting and how different systems like the roof, like windows and doors resist flying projectiles . . . how they interact with the wind,” said Fred Malik, managing director of Fortified. “We are charged by our member companies to reduce avoidable losses and financial hardship for their clients and our customers.”

Besides its roofs, IBHS offers Fortified construction techniques to strengthen the overall structure of a house as options for property owners.

In general, the institute claims that Fortified methods reduce emergency management and disaster recovery costs, decrease insurance losses, increase availability and affordability of insurance, and minimize disruptions and uninsured losses to homeowners.

The argument for fortified roofs

Data shows that fortified roofs work better than standard roofs, said Donald Hornstein. He is chair of the N.C. Insurance Underwriting Association board of director’s mitigation committee and a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law who, among other subjects, specializes in insurance law, regulatory law and environmental law.

“It’s just a matter of whether or not the relatively modest additional costs of requiring fortified roofs should be adopted,” Hornstein told Coastal Review. “So that’s a straight-up political fight — it’s not an expertise fight.”

Hornstein explained that the insurance provider has spent $50 million of its own funds for the roof program “because we make money.” Estimates show that for every $50 million invested, within 10 years $65 million in avoided claims will be saved, as well as reduced reinsurance costs.

“These fortified roofs are definitely cost effective,” Hornstein said.

That’s why some states, like Alabama, require them, and others pay homeowners the additional cost, which averages about $2,300, to install a fortified roof when they’re re-roofing.

“So basically, if you don’t compel people to do it,” he said, “you bribe them to do it.”

Other states offer grants, and although the North Carolina legislature has provided funds, much of Strengthen Your Roof grant program has been paid for out of the N.C. Insurance Underwriting Association surplus fund.

With the average cost of roof replacement at least $12,000 or more, depending on factors such as location and home size, people often put it off until the last minute. But the hope is that by offering policyholders the $8,000 grant, Hornstein said, they will see the advantage of applying for the stronger roof.

Using the fortified program, for instance, could make homeowners property insurance eligible for mitigation credits, according to the state Department of Insurance.

How is it funded?

The General Assembly allocated $7 million to match the N.C. Insurance Underwriting Association’s allocation for grants for the expanded program. The 2023 Strengthen Your Roof Program was launched with a $20 million allocation from the insurance provider, which then increased the grant amount from $6,000 to $8,000 for the Outer Banks and Barrier Islands.

Legislators provided only $2 million of the $20 million requested last year for matching funds, but the spell of relatively minor hurricane seasons for North Carolina in recent years has allowed N.C. Insurance Underwriting Association to contribute more to the grant program than it would have if it had been paying high-damage claims for disasters.

Hornstein said that while the insurance provider appreciates the support from the legislature, it knows that the state’s funding — like the insurance provider’s surplus — is not guaranteed indefinitely into the future.

“So, we’re trying to make hay while the sun shines,” he said.

Legislative setbacks

One of the reasons the building method has become distinctive is because its standards go beyond building codes to strengthen structures against destructive winds and other storm damages.

Fortified roofs, in some way, are going in the opposite direction of North Carolina’s current regulatory approach.

A controversial bill, House Bill 488, that became law in North Carolina last year, froze old residential building and energy efficiency codes, and banned inspections of roof sheathing in areas exposed to winds 140 mph or below.

The North Carolina Home Builders Association objected to the upfront costs to meet standards in proposed new building codes, as well as the time builders say it would take for homebuyers to get a return on the investment, Tim Minton, executive vice president of North Carolina Home Builders Association, said in an interview.

Minton said the association went to the legislature and asked to pause implementation of the new proposed codes until 2031, or until a new residential code council is installed in 2025 and can look at, or possibly phase-in, potential updates and changes.

In a couple of years, he said, the costs for items such as insulation may cost less. Also, Minton said, the legislation included inspection for roof sheathing on the coast, where winds are typically highest.

“First and foremost,” Minton explained, “we have not seen any data that shows that houses are blowing down in North Carolina. Second, when you look at damage from a hurricane, the damage is not occurring from wind is actually occurring from water.”

Minton also disputed that the value of government grants related to resilient building and updated building codes outweighed what the association said would be an additional average $20,000 cost per house.

“So, you know, adding additional requirements just to make people feel good is not really a reason to do that,” he said. “Yeah, there’s the balance, and how do you create that balance that’s a reasonable balance? And the policy makers will decide the future in the sense of what happens next.”

One of the main sponsors of HB 488, Rep. Mark Brody, R-Anson, who is a construction contractor, defended the need to create separate code councils.

“The reason is that commercial construction in particular has become so complex, and there’s so many new products, methods, and designs that are coming forth that we felt that they needed their own council because they needed a certain expertise,” he said in an interview. While the councils do its work reviewing codes before the mandated 2031 update, he said, nothing is stopping home owners or contractors from building to stricter standards than the existing codes call for.

Brody also strongly disagreed with estimates from a research lab with the U.S. Department of Energy that estimated that the proposed code updates that HB 488 stopped from going into effect would have added only $4,700 to $6,000 to the average home cost, and that the energy savings would pay off the cost in a few years.

But Brody said that those estimates did not take into account the extra labor and cost of materials to install energy efficiency requirements such as specific insulation. He also said that the homeowner would not see the return on those costs during the life of a 30-year mortgage.

“They’re misleading people,” he said of the Energy Department.

In Malik’s observation over the last 15 years, he said it can take years to incorporate the latest science into building codes, which he called a “consensus process.” For that reason, he said that volunteer programs such as Fortified can help get the word out to homeowners and builders about new construction practices that can influence policy,

“And there are plenty of builders and roofing contractors who like the opportunity to offer to their customers something that goes beyond whatever the current building codes are,” he said.

More hurricane-prone states are responding to the risk with stricter codes. For instance, Alabama’s building codes require new and replacement roofs to be Fortified, and Florida in 2020 adopted a code requirement for sealed roof decks. But sometimes, an epiphany will happen only after a disaster, Malik said.

“People may see the value of resiliency when they’re paying for hotel rooms or see the costs from flood damage to their home,” he said.

“You know, what we’re starting to see is consumers really paying attention and saying that they want to see resilience,” Malik added. “And the more they do that, the more that will be an opportunity for builders to respond to that demand.”

First of two parts.

When Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey met last month in Manteo for a brief overview and Q&A with community members worried about property insurance issues, he stressed that his office had limited power over building code changes and insurance company business decisions in North Carolina that have unnerved homeowners.

First of all, he said, billion-dollar losses from storms, wildfires, floods and other disasters are worldwide challenges. But the property insurance industry in the U.S., where population numbers and real estate values are often highest in the highest-risk areas, is approaching its own survival crisis.

“It’s a very hard market right now across the United States,” Causey said. “Companies just don’t want to write homeowners policies.”

Confronted with looming policy price hikes and feeling powerless to stop their insurance companies from pulling out of the state, frustrated homeowners are turning to the government for solutions.

“People say, ‘Why don’t you change the system?’” Causey said, responding to the audience’s questions about future insurance affordability and access. “The only group that can change that system is the legislature.”

Whether Causey, a Republican who is seeking reelection to the post he’s held since 2017, is shifting blame may be debatable, but it is evident from the last legislative session that focus on property insurance viability in the state was not a priority for the North Carolina General Assembly.

Rather than modernizing the state’s 15-year-old residential building codes, a step incentivized by lower property insurance costs, millions in government grants, and more resilient and efficient construction, North Carolina legislators passed a law, House Bill 488, that in much of the state banned inspection of exterior sheathing in structures exposed to winds of 140 mph or less.

The bill also removed authority from the North Carolina Building Code Council, a panel of industry specialists that had been working for months on updating codes, froze the old energy-efficiency standards until 2031 and directed creation in 2025 of a new separate residential council.

While the legislation is certain to deprive the state of available funds for climate resilience, it is also locking homebuyers into new housing that is built to outdated standards and thus more vulnerable to climate hazards. As a result, homebuyers will have increasingly higher utility bills, as well as structures more prone to damage in weather events, ultimately making their home more expensive to own.

“Everybody’s going to be paying quite a bit more for homeowners’ insurance because …  our building codes are hopelessly out of date when it comes to residential construction in some areas,” said Kim Wooten, a member of the Building Code Council and the chair of the council’s ad hoc energy committee. “The other piece of this is that North Carolina is now going to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money from the federal government to increase our ability to withstand flooding from flood events, storm events, weather disaster events.”

The bill also allocated about $500,000 for staff members for the new residential council, which had been part of the existing Building Code Council, she said. Wooten, who was on the panel from 2008 to 2013 before rejoining about five years ago, is an engineer.

Anti-regulation sentiment in the legislature as well as persistent climate change skepticism, Wooten said, has contributed to lawmakers’ resistance to updating codes. The North Carolina Home Builders Association, which lobbied for the bill, had said that sheath inspection is unneeded and, along with energy-efficiency updates, would add an average of about $20,000 in costs to a new home.

But in an independent analysis Wooten conducted as part of her role with the energy committee while reaching out to green homebuilders, industry insiders and researchers, said that energy efficiency was consistently one of the five top things homebuyers want in a home — and the costs were “nowhere near” what the homebuilders claim.

“They just pulled a number out of a hat, which is the same number they pulled out of their hat five years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago,” Wooten said. “Yeah, it’s always $20,000.”

Zach Amittay, a Southeast advocate for E2, also known as Environmental Entrepreneurs, told Coastal Review that it’s understandable that the homebuilders’ group would want to protect their bottom line, but ultimately, the consumer and the taxpayer will be paying the piper.

“It’s going to become more and more financially untenable for folks to be able to have insurance, and then you’re dealing with more uninsured homes and then what happens after storm damage,” he said.

Less resilient construction often translates to more severe damage to both the interior and exterior, Amittay added. That leaves underinsured property owners unable to afford repairs or replacement of their home.

“That’s also the kind of thing that, in my opinion, the government should be taking steps to try and protect residents from these sort of outcomes,” Amittay said.

On its website, the North Carolina Home Builders Association said that “viable” code changes would have to be supported by data and follow proper processes.

“We work to develop and support cost-effective and affordable building codes, standards, regulations and state legislation in the construction area,” according to the website. “While safety is our priority, proposals also have to be examined for their cost-benefit and practicality.”

Typically, cities and towns in the U.S. base their building codes on recommendations that are updated every three years from the International Code Council, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit.

According to a Feb. 28 Swiss Re Institute report, at $97 billion, or 0.38% of gross domestic product, the U.S. suffers the highest economic cost “in absolute terms” from weather events in the world, mostly related to hurricanes. The Swiss Re Group is a leading global provider of reinsurance and insurance.

“The first step towards cutting losses is to reduce the loss potential through adaptation measures,” the report found. “Examples of adaptation actions include enforcing building codes, increasing flood protection, while keeping an eye on settlement in areas prone to natural perils.”

Each dollar invested in new building codes designed for construction that can better withstand storms can save $6 to $10 later, according to the report.

“Ultimately,” the report said, “losses as a share of GDP of each country will depend on future adaptation, loss reduction and prevention.”

Property owners on the Outer Banks and elsewhere on the North Carolina coast were shaken earlier this year by eye-popping proposed rate increases for homeowners insurance, averaging 42% statewide and as high as 99.4% in some coastal counties.

Rates in the state are set by the North Carolina Rate Bureau, which was established as a separate entity to represent insurance companies in the state, and operates independently of the insurance commissioner.

“It’s the largest rate request I’ve ever seen, (since 2017 when he took office) 42% state average, 99.4% in some counties. 25,000 letters and comments, including from associations and county boards, congressional delegations,” said Causey, who has challenged the Rate Bureau. But barring a negotiated agreement, Causey said he expects the rates will be adjudicated in court on Oct. 7.

“I haven’t seen the evidence to justify such a drastic rate increase on North Carolina consumers,” Causey said in a Feb. 6 press release.

Other insurance impacts weren’t as broad, but they can factor into future costs.

In February 2023, Nationwide insurance had notified the state that it would not be renewing 10,525 policies in North Carolina, about half of which were related to hurricane risk, spurring homeowners’ fears of more companies fleeing.

Then, in August, the legislature overturned Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of H.B. 488, allowing the building code bans to go into effect.

Causey’s office had opposed the bill, and he said that his office “weighs in” on insurance company actions in the state such as Nationwide’s decision.

At the same time, a volatile property insurance market can spook real estate investors, and eventually, economic stability.

“It’s not going to be, ‘Can you afford it?’” Tanner Coltrain, agency manager at Farm Bureau Insurance in Swan Quarter, told Causey at the Manteo meeting, referring to insurance availability. “It’ll be, ‘Can you even buy it?’”

There may be some comfort in that North Carolina has what many consider one of the most innovative programs in the nation that encompasses resilience, insurance and consumer incentives and costs in one fell swoop.

The North Carolina Insurance Underwriting Association, or NCIUA, offers grants up to $8,000 for eligible homeowners toward roof replacement with what’s known as a fortified roof through its Strengthen Your Roof pilot program.

Studies have shown that as much as 90% of catastrophic insurance claims from storm damage are related to roof failures, and the NCIUA program has shown the effectiveness of fortifying roof construction.

But despite its proven track record, funds for the program were decreased during the General Assembly’s last session.

“We’re looking for the legislature to put more money into resilience,” Causey said.

A North Topsail Beach couple and their contractor cited for damaging dunes hope to settle the alleged violation through mediation, a process allowed under a new state law.

The town’s zoning board of adjustment on Wednesday night agreed to push an evidentiary hearing on the case back by a month and, in the interim, try and resolve the matter in mediation.

The new law allows mediation “or other forms of alternative dispute resolution” on appeals to local boards of adjustment.

Steve Coggins, a Wilmington-based attorney representing the property owners, requested the mediation, noting that the law stipulates both parties had to agree to mediation in order to proceed.

That triggered a discussion on how the process of mediation should be navigated.

The state statute does not offer guidance as to which local government officials — town staff, members of the board of adjustment, or both — should be involved in mediation.

To avoid a quorum, the town’s attorney advised the board to appoint two of its members to sit through arbitration. North Topsail staff will also take part in the mediation.

The board appointed Chair Hannah McCloud and member Lisa Lee Kozlowski. Town staff, including North Topsail’s attorney Brian Edes, will also be involved in the mediation.

Property owners Philip and Kristen Buckley are appealing a citation they received Feb. 1 that alleges their contractor, Coastland Construction LLC, violated North Topsail Beach’s development ordinance by installing deck pilings within the town’s 5-foot dune buffer zone.

The citation included a $10,000 civil penalty and ordered that the natural area damaged or excavated be restored within one week.

Matthew Davis, the contractor the Buckleys hired to rebuild the two-story rear deck of their oceanfront home at North Permuda Wynd Drive, notified the state that the original layout of the stairs leading from the deck to the ground did not meet the current building code.

To meet the code, Davis said he would have to rotate a newly constructed staircase in a direction that would move the stairs into the frontal dune.

The N.C. Division of Coastal Management exempted the project from a Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, minor permit, giving the contractor the greenlight to rotate the staircase so that it would be in compliance with the building code, according to information on the town’s website.

State coastal rules allow the repair of weather-related damage to oceanfront structures as long as the structure remains the same size, in the same location and the cost of the repairs does not exceed more than half of the market value of the existing structure.

State rules stipulate that “any and all necessary authorizations, approvals, or zoning and building permits” must be obtained at the local government level before work may begin on a project.

INDIANAPOLIS – The Society of Professional Journalists has named the North Carolina General Assembly the recipient of its annual Black Hole Award for violating the public’s right to know in the change of the state’s public records law.

The Black Hole Award is bestowed annually upon government institutions or agencies “for acts of outright contempt of the public’s right to know.” The recipient was announced Sunday, during Sunshine Week, March 10-16. Sunshine Week is “a nonpartisan collaboration among groups in the journalism, civic, education, government and private sectors that shines a light on the importance of public records and open government,” according to the organization’s website.

“The North Carolina law worsens a national patchwork of threats to state government transparency,” said SPJ Freedom of Information Committee member Howard Goldberg, a retired Associated Press bureau chief who noted that the news agency for years has been denied public records access to some state lawmakers’ office calendars and correspondence. “Legislatures in effect are exempting themselves from accountability to citizens who want to know how their laws are made and who is influencing their lawmakers.”

The group cited the General Assembly’s passage last fall of the state budget that included a new law that exempts state lawmakers from the state’s public records law.

“This means it is entirely up to North Carolina lawmakers to decide what public records, if any, to reveal,” the organization said. “The governor and other members of the Council of State, elected by voters statewide, are still subject to public records law.”

The group also noted that the budget also repealed a law requiring redistricting draft maps and communications to be made publicly available. Previously, communications created during the legislative redistricting process became public once the new maps became law.

“The core spirit of Sunshine Week is to uphold the most important principle of democracy, that the people are always in charge of their government,” said Sterling Cosper, SPJ Freedom of Information Committee co-chair. “This oversight does not just begin and end with elections but rather should happen all day every day. Citizens are the bosses and it is not becoming of their elected employees to dictate to them without consultation what information they have a right to when it comes to their money and vote. The assembly netted a hattrick of unethical and shadowy governance by introducing a measure to hide their day-to-day decisions with taxpayer dollars, and the process for redrawing the election map that affects their party’s job security as well as the citizens’ right to choose all within the annual budget, essentially holding it hostage for these provisions and disallowing the government to continue properly providing services.”

The group also noted that opposition to the legislature’s changes was bipartisan.

A 2023 law that shifted gubernatorial appointment powers of North Carolina’s environmental and coastal commissions does not violate the state constitution, a three-judge panel unanimously ruled.

The Wake County Superior Court judges late last week concluded that the state’s executive branch, including the governor, agriculture commissioner and insurance commissioner, holds a majority of appointments to the Environmental Management Commission, Coastal Resources Commission and Wildlife Resources Commission, as well as two other boards, under the new law.

“Our Constitution does not create a unitary executive,” the Wake County judges ruled. “The General Assembly’s power to organize and reorganize the executive branch and to prescribe the functions, powers, and duties of executive officials, including for members of the Council of State, encompasses authority to divide between the Governor and other constitutional executive officers the power to appoint members of statutory boards and commissions.”

But judges John Dunlow, Dawn Layton and Paul Holcombe III also ruled that a portion of the law gave legislators too much control over the Board of Transportation and the Economic Investment Committee.

Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s partial victory is being challenged by GOP House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate leader Phil Berger, whose attorneys filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals on Friday, according to the Associated Press.

Cooper sued lawmakers last year two months after the Republican-led General Assembly passed the law last August. The law also restructures appointments to the Commission for Public Health and the Residential Code Council.

The Residential Code Council changes become effective Jan. 1, 2025. That council, which will consist of 13 members, will be tasked with reviewing and considering proposed revisions, amendments and appeals to the state residential code.

Seven of the members will be appointed by the governor. The General Assembly will select the rest of the members, three of which will be recommended by the House speaker and three by the Senate leader.

The Coastal Resources Commission is a 13-member panel that adopts rules for the state’s Coastal Area Management Act and the Dredge and Fill Act, and establishes policies for the state Coastal Management program. Under the new law, six of the commission’s members are appointed by the governor, six are chosen by legislators and one is appointed by the state insurance commissioner.

The commissioner of agriculture appoints two people to the 15-member Environmental Management Commission, while the governor selects seven members and the General Assembly appoints six.

Earlier last month, the same superior court judge panel struck down a previous court ruling from a single judge that temporarily blocked that commission from dropping its lawsuit against the Rules Review Commission.

The rules panel rejected in May 2022 a proposed rule by the Environmental Management Commission setting new state standards for 1,4-dioxane, a likely human carcinogen.

The Coastal Resources Commission is moving forward with a lawsuit it and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality filed against the Rules Review Commission last November in Wake County Superior Court.

The complaint asks the court to resolve deadlock over legal interpretations between the two commissions and restore 30 longstanding rules to which the Rules Review Commission had objected and kicked back to the Coastal Resources Commission last October.

In December, the Coastal Resources Commission adopted 16 of the rules as “emergency” to get them put back into the North Carolina Administrative Code.

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management officials say the 16 rules affect day-to-day decisions within the division.

The commission is holding a special called meeting at 11 a.m. March 13 to vote on whether to adopt the rules as temporary, a measure that would keep them in the administrative code for one year or until they are reinstated as permanent rules.

To view the meeting by video conference join webinar #2430 941 5858 via Webex and use password CRC2024 (2722024 from phones). To join by phone call 1-415-655-0003 and use access code 2430 941 5858.

A listening station will be made available at the Division of Coastal Management headquarters at 400 Commerce Ave. in Morehead City.

This special commentary feature is part of Coastal Review’s 12-month observance of the Coastal Area Management Act’s 50th year.

When first considered 50 years ago, the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) was the most controversial environmental legislation considered in the state. It was then and remains the state’s only attempt to forge a state-local government partnership for regional resource management. Many observers in 1974 thought that if not repealed, this new law would collapse from the weight of its overly ambitious design.

Yet CAMA is still with us. This article reviews how the law came to be, how it has worked, and the challenges it faces moving forward.

Adoption

Gov. Bob Scott first proposed a state coastal program in 1969. Given the complexity of developing a “comprehensive and enforceable plan” for the coastal zone, in 1971 a 25-member Blue Ribbon Committee with diverse interests was created to develop legislation. It took the committee two years to develop a draft bill that served as the framework for CAMA.

In early 1973, the administration of newly elected Republican Gov. Jim Holshouser supported moving forward with the bill. It was introduced by the Democratic chairs of the House and Senate committees that would consider the bill, Rep. Willis Whichard of Durham and Sen. Bill Staton of Lee County. Coastal local governments quickly expressed reservations about the state taking over traditional local powers relative to land use management. So, the sponsors decided to conduct a series of hearings in the coastal area between the 1973 and 1974 legislative sessions to further refine the legislation.

After these hearings and much deliberation, the bill was revised to that strengthened the role of local government and move most policy decisions to a Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) composed of citizens with a broad range of differing interests and expertise (rather than with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary as originally proposed). A Coastal Resources Advisory Committee with strong local representation was added to bolster local involvement. The bill still faced strong opposition from some in the development community, from private property rights advocates, and some coastal local governments. Most coastal legislators remained in opposition. But with strong bipartisan support from Gov. Holshouser and Lt. Gov. Jim Hunt (who at that time was the presiding officer in the Senate), and after several legislative near-death experiences, the bill was enacted on April 11, 1974.

This four-year effort to develop CAMA modelled what has been a defining feature of coastal management in North Carolina – proceeding cautiously but ambitiously and only after a great deal of discussion and consensus building amongst affected interests.

Judicial and Legislative Challenges

The threat of judicial invalidation was a serious immediate concern. The three principal legal challenges were that application of the law to coastal counties rather than making it a statewide program rendered it a “local law” prohibited by the state constitution, that the broad authority granted to the CRC constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative discretion, and that the development regulations would be an unconstitutional taking of private property. In 1978 the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the law on the local act and unlawful delegation claims and held the takings claim was premature.

There have since been nearly 30 state appellate court decisions regarding CAMA. Most have dealt with the process for making individual permit appeals to the courts, the details of specific enforcement orders, and the occasional interpretation of development standards and variance rules as applied to individual applications. No cases have found that CAMA rules unconstitutionally constrain private property rights, notably upholding decisions to deny permits for fill for a road in wetlands and for construction of shoreline erosion control structures.

The threat of legislative repeal of the law did not materialize. That is not to say there has not been ongoing legislative opposition. In the early 1980s a prominent coastal legislator threatened to “gut CAMA like a fish on the wharf in Wanchese” and unsuccessfully sought to eliminate most of its budget. While the General Assembly has continually tweaked and refined the law, most of the legislative changes strengthened or refined the details of the law rather than weakening it. Budgetary support has waxed and waned over the years, but as part of broader trends affecting all environmental programs.

Program Accomplishments

CAMA has successfully met most of its lofty goals.

Land use planning. When CAMA was enacted only a small handful of coastal cities or counties had land use plans and local development regulations. That was not surprising given the rural and small-town nature of much of the coastal region. So, building local institutional planning capacity was an early focus of CAMA. By 1993 all 20 coastal counties and 67 municipalities (including 59 cities with populations under 5,000) had adopted plans and had them approved by the CRC.

The state’s planning guidelines have evolved over time to promote local attention to key policy areas, including addressing storm hazards and rebuilding, beach access, coastal water quality, and more resilient and sustainable development patterns. Greater flexibility has been granted to local governments to tailor planning to their particular circumstances. While the quality of individual local plans still varies a good deal, the level of citizen and local government engagement in addressing future land use and development has moved from nearly nonexistent to robust. This would have happened for only a few local governments without the CAMA planning mandate and the substantial state and federal funding provided to prepare and implement local plans.

Development standards. The second early focus of the program was developing a permit program for critical coastal environmental areas. In 1977 the CRC designated coastal waters and wetlands and about 3% of the coastal land area as its permit jurisdiction. While the areas have been tweaked and modestly expanded several times since, the scope of CAMA permit jurisdiction has been accepted and noncontroversial. Initiatives to consolidate and streamline permit processing have been adopted over the years, including exemptions for minor development and expedited general permits for routine work.

The standards for development have prevented unwise and harmful development while not deterring beneficial and desirable development. The wholesale filling and excavation of coastal marshes taking place in the 1950s and 1960s was halted. Piers, bulkheads, and marinas are built without destroying critical fisheries habitats or interfering with public use of coastal waters. “Living shorelines” and other innovations for dealing with estuarine shoreline erosion are being encouraged. Redevelopment of urban waterfronts and enhancement of the state’s ports proceeds in a responsible fashion.

The standards adopted for development in ocean hazard areas are one of the more significant program accomplishments. Oceanfront setbacks have prevented construction of new structures that would shortly be in danger of falling into the ocean. When these setbacks were enacted in 1979, it was estimated there were nearly 800 existing oceanfront lots that could not meet the new setback requirements. The doubled setback later adopted for large structures further reduces future losses, particularly when major storms strike the coast. CAMA standards prohibit the construction of oceanfront bulkheads that would eventually destroy the public beach. These measures, which would not exist without CAMA, have been critical in preserving the attractive ocean beaches that are a beloved state treasure and essential to the tourism industry.

Beach and water access. The General Assembly significantly improved CAMA by adding an ocean beach access program in 1981 and extending it to estuarine shorelines and waters in 1983. These laws declared, and the courts subsequently confirmed, that the public has a right to free use of ocean beaches and public trust waters. These programs provided the walkways, dune crossovers, piers, parking, and restrooms needed for people to get to and use these public resources. Since an initial $1 million beach access appropriation in 1981, the state has provided over $50 million in grants to support nearly 500 access projects. This extensive access program has been a rousing success.

Preservation of natural areas. As with beach access, CAMA did not originally include a program for preservation of natural areas that were not already under public ownership. That was rectified when the state secured approval for a four-site National Estuarine Research Reserve in 1982. Additional sites were added in the mid-1980s as state protected areas. The General Assembly formalized this initiative with the adoption of legislation establishing a state coastal reserve program in 1989. There are now 10 coastal reserve sites containing over 44,000 acres, assuring the long-term preservation of important natural areas for research, education, and public enjoyment.

Challenges

Coastal management is never “solved.” The appropriate balance between competing legitimate public interests in development and conservation is always in flux. New issues and challenges emerge. Old conflicts and controversies are resurrected. Interest groups on all sides continually jockey for some new advantage.

Two additional factors will make resolution of ongoing coastal issues more challenging in the coming decades.

The state’s population, which was under 5.5 million when CAMA was enacted, is now over 10.5 million and is expected to top 14 million by 2050. While coastal population growth in the 1960s created the need for CAMA, the coming decades will see even greater growth. Six of our oceanfront counties are projected to have population increases of over 25% by 2050. Accommodating this growth will put significant pressures on natural resources and public infrastructure. Many of our beach towns are nearly built out at the current low-density levels desired by residents and visitors alike. Securing affordable housing and maintaining the traditional character and charm of coastal communities will be difficult. At the same time, six of our coastal counties are facing population losses of over 10% by 2050, which poses different but no less significant challenges for these more rural coastal areas.

There has been an understandable pressure on the state program since the mid-1980s to focus its efforts and attention on improving the permitting program that it directly manages. However, as those who crafted CAMA clearly understood, the permitting program alone will be inadequate to meet this coming growth challenge. Renewed funding and attention to the collaborative state-local land use planning built into CAMA will be necessary.

The second factor that will increasingly challenge CAMA success is the accelerating impacts of climate change in general and sea level rise particularly. Accommodating new development and protecting natural resources will be more difficult given more frequent and widespread flooding and storms, increasing habitat loss, threats to transportation and utilities infrastructure, and the near-certain eventual need to address major post-storm recovery and rebuilding. While meaningful attention is now being given to adaptation and resilience issues, going well beyond “business as usual” will be essential to deal with these longer-term impacts. The integrated use of regulation, planning, acquisition, and public education that is built into CAMA provides the opportunity to do this.

Keys to Continued Success

Legislative support and funding have always been and will continue to be fragile. Those disappointed by policies adopted by the CRC seek to persuade the legislature to intervene, a perennial practice that will no doubt continue. Building continuing and constructive legislative engagement is necessary for program success.

The question of who makes the key program policy decisions was one of the most hotly debated issues 50 years ago and continues today with debate on how the CRC should be composed and who should appoint its members. How that is resolved is critical as the program will thrive only with quality appointments. The CRC members’ expertise, judgment, dedication, and leadership are indispensable elements for program success.

Broad public engagement and education, which was absolutely essential to creation of the program and its early success, is all the more difficult with the loss of local newspapers, fractured electronic media, and increasingly rigid partisan and ideological polarization. Building a shared understanding of the impacts of and threats to coastal development is necessary to build the consensus needed to address coming challenges.

The guiding principle for those crafting CAMA and responsible for its early successes was an abiding dedication to long-term protection of the coast for the beneficial use and enjoyment of all its residents and visitors. In the early 1980s, then-CRC Chair Parker Chesson would often remind the CRC, CRAC, staff, and public at the end of long and sometimes fractious discussion, “We’ve heard from everybody and now it’s time to decide what is in the best long-term public interest.”

Adherence to that admonition, along with a lot of hard work by a lot of good people, will be necessary if we want to have a 100-year celebration of the enactment of CAMA.

Gov. Roy Cooper has launched an ambitious initiative to conserve and restore wetlands that lost state protections last year when legislators passed a law that aligns with more narrowly defined federal wetland rules.

Cooper announced late Monday afternoon that he had signed Executive Order No. 305, which establishes a goal by 2040 to permanently conserve 1 million new acres of forests and wetlands, restore or reforest 1 million news acres of forests and wetlands, and plant 1 million trees in urban areas.

“North Carolina’s rich natural beauty is not only critical in our fight against flooding and climate change, but important to our economy,” Cooper stated in a release. “As our state continues to grow, we must be mindful to conserve and protect our natural resources and this historic Executive Order sets clear goals and puts a plan in place that will help us leave our state better than we found it for generations to come.”

Cooper last summer failed to stop the annual legislative exercise, the Farm Bill, which includes a provision that boxes in how the state can define and, ultimately, protect wetlands, from becoming law after North Carolina legislators overrode his veto of the bill.

Wording tucked into the North Carolina Farm Act of 2023 aligned how the state defines wetlands with that of the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled last May that waters of the United States, or WOTUS, applies only to wetlands that have “continuous surface connection.”

Looking back: Digging into the Farm Act

The Farm Bill strips longtime state-enacted safeguards and compensatory mitigation for more than 2 million acres of wetlands unique to North Carolina like Carolina bays and pocosins, which have no inlet or outlet.

According to the order, pocosins cover a substantial portion of North Carolina, “offer extensive benefits through carbon storage and sequestration; enhance water quality through storage and filtration; contribute to biodiversity and ecological resilience and mitigate flood and fire risk that cause substantial economic cost.”

Looking back: Wetlands left unprotected

Under the order, state agencies are directed to avoid or curtail new projects that would harm these types of wetlands, including mountain bogs.

“The governor’s action today recognizes how vital wetlands are to North Carolina’s people and wildlife, fisheries and flood protection,” Mary Maclean Asbill, director of the North Carolina offices of the Southern Environmental Law Center, stated in a release. “North Carolina’s legislature set the wrong example by failing to protect our wetlands, increasing the risk of flooding to our communities and endangering North Carolinians and fisheries.”

The order also requires state agencies to study the social, economic and environmental value of protecting these and other types of wetlands and seek federal funding to protect and restore wetlands to minimize flooding, improve water quality and capture carbon.

Leaders of environmental organizations and state agency heads praised the order.

“Now more than ever, North Carolina needs to conserve our working lands—including wetlands and forests that reduce flooding, clean our drinking water, and sustain fish and wildlife,” Grady O’Brien, policy associate with North Carolina Conservation Network, said in a release. “We’re grateful for the robust commitment this executive order makes toward protecting natural resources and providing good stewardship of our state’s valuable lands.”

Katherine Skinner, executive director of The Nature Conservancy North Carolina Chapter, said efforts to protect and restore natural areas is “vital” for the state’s future.

“They ensure clean air, clean water, and recreational opportunities in a rapidly growing region,” she said in a release. “And, they are also crucial to our continued economic growth, most of which is centered on our natural resources.”

The state is experiencing more intense hurricanes, flooding, extreme temperatures, droughts, sea level rise and saltwater intrusion – all effects of climate change that have caused more than $250 billion in damages over the last few years, according to the executive order.

North Carolina has responded by investing millions in climate mitigation efforts, including the creation of the statewide Flood Resiliency Blueprint.

The goals and directives set in the order are derived in large part from the 2020 North Carolina Natural and Working Lands Action Plan, which was created with input from a group of nearly 100 expert stakeholders under the direction of the state Department of Environmental Quality, or DEQ. The plan lays out specific actions the state may take to reduce the impacts of climate change.

Looking back: Interactive maps show benefits of natural, working lands

Katie Warnell, a senior policy associate at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability, is part of the working group on natural and working lands.

“It is inspiring to see recommendations from the state’s Natural and Working Lands Action Plan being elevated as priorities in this executive order,” she stated in a release. “The order’s ambitious goals for land conservation and restoration will preserve and enhance the many benefits North Carolina’s natural and working lands provide to everyone who lives in or visits the state. The executive order also addresses many data gaps and limitations previously highlighted in the action plan, which hinder planning for the sustainable management of North Carolina’s lands and waters.”

The executive order also includes the following stipulations:

• A native plant policy for all future state-owned projects.
• Promotion and support from state agencies for new and ongoing conservation and restoration, and climate resiliency efforts within tribal communities.
• Research climate impacts on the state’s biodiversity.

“This Executive Order positions North Carolina to take a science-based approach to achieving mutually beneficial goals relating to environmental quality, economic development, resiliency, and ecosystem enhancement by identifying and protecting our forests and natural and working lands,” DEQ Secretary Elizabeth S. Biser stated in a release.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nature Based Resiliency Coordinator Sara Ward said the goal set in the order is a “game-changing target.”

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is particularly excited about the emphasis on the state’s internationally significant peatlands, known as pocosins, in today’s action,” she said in a release.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Executive Director Cameron Ingram called the order ambitious and important.

“Given all the tremendous pressures facing North Carolina’s lands and waters, we are excited to be a part of this ambitious and important initiative,” he said in a release. “We look forward to continuing to work with our State agency and non-profit partners to support the conservation of land to benefit wildlife and their habitats while providing opportunities for North Carolinians to enjoy hunting, fishing, boating, and wildlife associated recreation.”

After more than a year, a statewide flood-planning tool remains in development, but North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality officials said this week that their “goal is to begin helping some of the most impacted communities as soon as possible,” and they plan to use the nearly $100 million released to the agency in the last month to get there.

NCDEQ Secretary Elizabeth Biser outlined Tuesday for the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations, Subcommittee on Hurricane Response and Recovery, the progress made on the North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint, which the agency was tasked with creating in 2021. She and department Blueprint Manager Todd Kennedy also detailed how the department is spending state dollars.

Held in the legislative building auditorium with a handful of people in attendance and about 130 online, DEQ officials were joined for the hearing by AECOM Senior Program Manager Dave Canaan and John Dorman, who oversees strategic funding and disaster management. AECOM is the consulting firm contracted for the blueprint project.

The resiliency blueprint is a historic endeavor, Biser said, adding that the approach is the first of its kind in the country.

“I want to be clear that the end goal of this project is making North Carolina and our residents more resilient to storm events. The blueprint is the tool that will get us there,” she said.

With the state experiencing more frequent and more intense storm events, and hurricanes and tropical storms such as Fred, Florence, Michael, and Matthew causing billions of dollars of damage and loss of life, “we know it’s a matter of when, not if, we see another storm of that magnitude. At the same time we’re continuing to see flooding in communities without a major hurricane,” Biser explained.

And North Carolina’s economy is booming. “With that growth comes more people, more buildings, more roads and more infrastructure that we need to protect, more impervious surface that we need to account for because it does increase our flood risks, and it puts more of our residents at risk,” she said. adding, “Making our state and our residents more resilient to future storm events is what the blueprint will accomplish.”

House Majority Leader Rep. John Bell, R-Wayne, reminded the committee before Biser spoke that NCDEQ had been appropriated $20 million to develop the blueprint, to study river basins prone to flooding, and create a decision-making tool for flood mitigation, investments and strategies from local watersheds to the entire river basin. The “committee wants to know where we are in that process,” Bell said.

Of the $20 million from the 2021 allocation, close to $6 million has been obligated, Biser said.

Roughly $1.9 million was spent on contracting for the simultaneous development of the draft blueprint and draft Neuse River Basin Action Strategy, which is referred to as the blueprint’s Phase 1.

Both plans should be available to the public in the next few months, officials said.

For Phase 2, another $4.08 million is going to develop the online decision-support tool, which will allow decision-makers and the public to access and benefit from the data modeling and analysis that’s being done, expected later this year.

“The remainder — around $14 million — and I will note that we have been trying to be very good stewards of this $20 million because we know that it’s going to take a lot to get to this next stage — will support the development of river basin action strategies for the next five prioritized basins: the Cape Fear, the Tar-Pamlico, the White Oak, the Lumber and the French Broad,” or Phase III.  

They chose the Neuse River basin for the model strategy because it likely has the most data related to flooding compared to other basins in the state, a past report states.

As part of the allocation, the North Carolina General Assembly directed DEQ’s Division of Mitigation Services to contract with an organization to develop the blueprint, which is how AECOM, a global consulting firm that provides technical and consulting services with an office in Raleigh, was selected. The firm was given a statutory deadline of Dec. 31 for delivering the draft document.

An executive summary for the draft, was released Friday ahead of the meeting on the blueprint website, where other actions and reports can be found.

Once the agency had the draft, $96 million was released to implement flood resiliency projects.

NCDEQ Deputy Secretary for Public Affairs Sharon Martin told Coastal Review Wednesday that the agency is working to begin implementing the projects using the $96 million and what is learned from those projects will be incorporated into the blueprint and action strategies.

Biser, during the hearing Tuesday, explained that officials were in the process of looking at how to develop a phased approach to spending the $96 million.

“In the Neuse Basin, we’ve already identified a list of potential projects and are actively prioritizing them for quick implementation,” adding the agency will expand that to the other five basins over the next year,” Biser said. There’s about a thousand different mitigation strategies in the Neuse River action strategy and now the key is “prioritizing those projects because we don’t have an infinite amount of funding available. So, we’re having a look at what’s going to be most impactful to spend money on.”

Kennedy, DEQ blueprint manager, said the process to prioritize those projects had begun and that they’re in “high gear” to begin the implementation process.

“I anticipate the first wave of projects coming here over the next six months or so. Things that we can again, implement more quickly, and then expect a second wave coming after that, both within the Neuse and those other five basins where we’ll look to get projects on the ground.

Biser said that the data from the initial projects would be incorporated into the blueprint as strategies continue to be developed, and there are plans to provide a list of available funding.

Biser responded during the questioning that there are different levels of capacity in various local governments. “You’ve got some local governments who are going to have engineering staff on hand or at the call, and they’re able to really have their own staff to work through it. Other small, smaller, rural municipalities may have a harder time with capacity.” She in turn asked legislators, “how much technical assistance and engaging with a tool do you want to see?”

Biser was asked about the draft blueprint document, which she reiterated was still in draft form. “I will put emphasis on the word ‘draft’ at the moment,” she said.

Currently, the 150 technical experts from state agencies, academia, nonprofits and other organizations that have been working with NCDEQ to build the blueprint over the last year “are in the process of reviewing the work AECOM gave to us,” Biser said, adding that the Dec. 31 deadline was met.

Kennedy noted during the meeting that there is an executive summary on the website and the larger draft document would be refined over the next few months and then made public.

Sen. Steve Jarvis, R-Davidson, clarified that they expect it to take months to refine the draft, adding “I understand the executive summaries there. But as soon as possible. I think we need to see the draft. We would like to make that public.”

Biser said they want to make sure that they’re not creating any confusion.

“I think that’s the biggest part of this is making sure that we’ve got everything refined to the point where it’s going to be most useful. But we hear you in terms of the timeframe and we’re we are working as quickly as possible to get that public and to get it ready and in your hands.”

Bell, when it was his opportunity to ask questions, began by saying, “first, will be a probably a little snarky comment, but it needs to be said $2 million on a very, very rough draft. Probably not the best use of taxpayer money. You know, we should have a better draft than very, very rough draft.”

Reprinted from SamWalkerOBXNews.com.

A decades-long battle to restore navigable access on the Currituck Sound off Corolla appears to have taken a more upbeat tone at a recent meeting between representatives from Currituck County and Army Corps of Engineers staff.

County Manager Ike McRee and state Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, met with Corps officials Jan. 12 in Wilmington to discuss allowing dredging of a channel in the sound from the Whalehead Club public docks and ramp, and inside the Historic Corolla Park boat basin.

“Going down there and spending time with them had a big impact on them,” Hanig said. “It was a very good meeting.”

A channel has existed in various forms through the shallow waters off Corolla since before the Currituck Beach Light Station was built in the 1870s.

Efforts to dredge a channel since the 1990s have been blocked by state regulators on the grounds that it would harm submerged aquatic vegetation, and the Corps has used various other regulatory and technical reasons to turn it down.

Attempted illegal dredging of the channel using the propellers of three boats led to the conviction of two NC Ferry Division employees and guilty pleas by two others to federal charges in the early 2000s.

Prior to January, the last meeting between the county and the Corps on the Whalehead channel was in 2018, when the county was essentially told it would ever happen.

McRee shared with the Currituck Board of Commissioners at its Jan. 16 meeting some of the details that came out of the gathering with the Corps.

“I thought (it was) a positive meeting, partially because they have a new team there,” McRee said. “(A) new colonel, new regulatory affairs director… their attorney was also there as well as the deputy for the Corps and the Wilmington district.”

“They did not say no, they didn’t say yes, but they said there’s a possible path forward,” McRee said. “They would like us to put together again a more defined statement of purpose.”

Hanig noted that they were very prepared heading into the meeting, with detailed information about the history of not only the channel and the Whalehead Club itself, but also the millions of dollars invested in the mansion and grounds that have been owned by the county since 1991.

“Jenny Kelvin from the (state) Senate President Pro Tem’s office did a remarkable job,” Hanig said. “Her research was spot on; we had all the information from previous attempts.”

McRee and Hanig also noted that staff from the office of state Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, were also very helpful, spending the week prior to the meeting gathering information and making contacts at both the federal and state level on behalf of the county.

“I think we have an opening that will allow us to attempt to move forward again to (with an) application to hopefully be successful this time,” McRee said.

Local officials and residents are hopeful that the dredging would not only allow boats to access Historic Corolla Park, but also improve waterflow and help address invasive submerged aquatic vegetation that choked the boat basin this past summer.

Low oxygen levels caused by high temperatures led to at least one fish kill in the boat basin, while decaying mats of Eurasian watermilfoil and alligator weed were responsible for a noxious smell across the Currituck Outer Banks on strong southwest winds.

Following Hanig’s comments to the board, County Commissioner Paul Beaumont noted that the state senator, who was previously a Currituck commissioner, having direct involvement at the meeting made an impact on Corps officials.

“It adds credibility that the state is very interested in this as well,” Beaumont said. “You’re about as busy right now as you could possibly get … taking the time and going down there. Thank you so much.”

“(The Corps was) very forthcoming with how … to make it a good application to get it across the finish line,” Hanig said. “We do have our challenges — it’s going to be a process.”

Hanig expressed that everyone needs to have patience with the process, estimating it may be up to two years before a final decision is made.

This story was provided courtesy of SamWalkerOBXNews.com, a membership-supported news service covering the Outer Banks. Coastal Review has partnered with Sam Walker to help expand our coverage of news relevant to the North Carolina coast.

More than a dozen longstanding coastal rules now part of a lawsuit between two state-appointed commissions will be temporarily reinstated.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission during a special called meeting Wednesday morning adopted 16 emergency rules that, by being classified “emergency,” will be entered into the state Administrative Code by early January and without public input, a concern raised by at least one member of the commission.

Mary Lucasse, the commission’s legal counsel, and North Carolina Division of Coastal Management staff explained that, without the rules in place, vulnerable coastal cultural resources lose certain protections and the commission is limited in how it can fulfill its legislatively charged duties.

The Coastal Resources Commission adopts rules for the state’s Coastal Area Management Act and the Dredge and Fill Act, and establishes policies for the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.

“What we have is a situation that the Division of Coastal Management cannot rely on those rules to issue permits for development for coasts, for development in the coastal counties and to make enforcement decisions,” Lucasse said. “You can’t comment on federal consistency, or DCM on your behalf, based on these rules so what’s happened is that we have lost rules and the loss of those rules seriously impacts the system’s ability to manage the Coastal Management Program, which is given to the commission by the legislature at your purview.”

The removal of these rules, which have been around for many years, strips protections for coastal lands and waters and is a threat to public safety, she said.

The emergency rules are among 30 rules the Rules Review Commission objected to based predominately on technical wording and kicked back to the Coastal Resources Commission in early October. Shortly after the Rules Review Commission’s decision, the state’s Codifier of Rules Ashley Snyder pulled the rules from the Administrative Code.

Lawsuit seeks rules restoration, resolution

The Coastal Resources Commission and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality responded by filing a lawsuit in Wake County Superior Court in early November.

The Nov. 3 complaint asks the court to resolve the deadlock over legal interpretations between the two commissions and restore the 30 rules.

“DCM receives permit applications almost daily, and the lack of these thirty regulations will immediately cause an impact to any applications relying on these rules,” the lawsuit states.

Lucasse on Wednesday said that she and DEQ officials selected the 30 rules to be placed back on the books as soon as possible based on the division’s use of them on a day-to-day basis.

“These 16 rules are the ones that staff feels there’s public safety reasons that you need to move forward immediately and get these back in the code so they can use them,” she said. “The other 14 will be resolved through the litigation.”

She and Division of Coastal Management Deputy Director Mike Lopazanski specifically pointed out that the emergency rules are needed to continue to protect places of significant cultural and ecological resources, including two places unique to North Carolina – Jockey’s Ridge State Park in Dare County and Permuda Island Reserve in Onslow County.

The Coastal Resources Commission submitted 132 readopted rules for the Rules Review Commission to review.

Lopazanski said that division staff had worked through many of the technical changes the Rules Review Commission requested, but that the rules commission continued to object to 30 of the rules.

The objections hinge on what the rules panel considers to be vague and ambiguous language, a need to clarify procedures and definitions, and references addressing statutory authority, according to Lopazanski.

Objections to rulemaking authority

The Rules Review Commission is a legislature-appointed, 10-member body created by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1986 that could object to, but not veto, proposed rules. A series of amendments made to the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act in the mid-1990s shifted more power to the commission.

In 2003, rulemaking agencies were granted the right to file for court-issued judgments in cases where the commission vetoed proposed rules.

If the rules commission rejected a rule, the agency that submitted the rule had to request the rule be returned to make changes. That changed on Oct. 3 of this year with the adoption of the state budget. Language in the budget gave the rules commission additional powers, and now it’s essentially challenging the Coastal Resources Commission’s rulemaking authority.

During a special called meeting two days after the state budget went into effect, the Rules Review Commission voted to return the 30 rules to the Coastal Resources Commission. The Rules Review Commission argued that language in the proposed rules did not meet the definition of a “rule” per state statute.

DEQ and the Coastal Resources Commission argue that the rules do meet the definition because “they establish guidelines, objectives, standards and policies” for defined areas of environmental concern, or AECs, as set forth by the General Assembly.

“These rules are not newly adopted and since the 1970s and 1980s have been part of the Code pursuant to the very same statutory authority,” according to the lawsuit.

The structure of the Rules Review Commission has, for years, been subject to lengthy legal debates, and its decisions have been challenged numerous times over the years. Since the turn of the century, both the Environmental Management Commission and North Carolina State Board of Education have sued the Rules Review Commission.

In August 2020, Gov. Roy Cooper filed a lawsuit challenging legislative control of the rules commission. The governor dropped his lawsuit in October 2022.

Public hearings set on ‘stopgap’ rules

The Coastal Resources Commission will consider adopting the 16 rules as “temporary” during its Feb. 22, 2024, meeting. If approved, the temporary rules will be forwarded to the Rules Review Commission for reconsideration.

Coastal Resources Commission member Lauren Salter explained to fellow commission members that the emergency rules are a “stopgap” until the board can push temporary rules through to the Rules Review Commission and that the public is not being shortchanged in being allowed to comment on the rules.

The emergency rules have “been in place for a very long time,” she said. “This is just the most expedient, fastest way to bridge the gap between those things and I’m having trouble understanding the concern with public review since (the rules) did go through a great deal of public review. That’s how we got here.”

Public hearings on the proposed temporary rules will be hosted Jan. 9 and Jan. 10 in Onslow and Dare counties and in Morehead City.

Once the emergency rules are codified, they may be in place for up to 60 days.

Construction of a long-planned project to save Sugarloaf Island, the rapidly eroding, uninhabited barrier island across from the Morehead City waterfront, is officially underway. 

Morehead City Mayor Jerry Jones welcomed the handful of reporters, elected officials and partner representatives gathered Wednesday at Big Rock Landing on Shepard Street, facing the island that’s just south of the federal Harbor Channel, to celebrate the start of the project.

The gathering was also held to thank Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Pamlico, who also represents Carteret County, and Rep. Celeste C. Cairns, R-Carteret and Craven counties, both present at the media event, and former Rep. Pat McElraft of Emerald Isle for supporting the effort. 

The shoreline protection project has been appropriated a total of $6.6 million – $2 million in 2022 and $4.6 million in 2023 — to restore the island by using a hybrid approach of offshore wave attenuation breakwaters, expanding seagrass meadows, and building living shorelines.

Sanderson said Morehead City is a destination for many people in the state, across the Southeast and farther. He lauded local leadership for making the project happen, “because this is vital. It’s vital again for the citizens, for our tourists. It’s vital for the next generation. It’s vital for all of the people who want to come to Morehead City and enjoy what we get to enjoy every single day.”

Cairns added that when she was approached about the project, she was excited and thought “we can do this.” 

Jones said that when someone asked him a few minutes prior why they were there, “I said we’re here to celebrate. We have a celebration of protecting our future while preserving our past.”

For the last two years, Florida-based aquatic restoration company Sea & Shoreline, the nonprofit North Carolina Coastal Federation, engineering firm Quible & Associates, aquaculture firm Sandbar Oyster Co., and East Carolina University have been studying, designing, planning, and permitting the project, officials announced.

“Currently, the seaward shoreline of the Island is eroding, leaving uprooted trees and vegetation behind. In addition, wave exposure and swift currents are sweeping nutrient-rich sediment into the water column. The eroded sediments now released into the water are degrading water quality and visitor experiences to the Island,” officials continued. “Protecting the Island with an offshore wavebreak will mitigate shoreline and coastal habitat erosion, enhance coastal resilience, create seagrass habitat and increased fishing opportunities, improve water quality, enhance ecotourism by increasing the beach line, sequester carbon, and enhance shorebird nesting.”

Jones recalled Wednesday that the city had purchased Sugarloaf Island 20 years ago to prevent its development. 

“We had heard that a developer was coming. They wanted to build high-rises and boat marinas on the island, and we felt like the better use would be a public park,” Jones said. 

The city used grants, donations and tax dollars to purchase and conserve the island. 

“Today we’re here to preserve Sugarloaf Island for future generations,” he said, and to make sure that the Morehead City waterfront is protected. 

Brian Rubino, vice president of the engineering firm Quible & Associates in Currituck County, said that although Sugarloaf Island is a small barrier island — it’s only about 36 acres right now — it protects downtown Morehead City’s infrastructure, roads, homes and businesses. 

The island also is host to a number of different marine and coastal environments, such as sand flats, sandspits, low dunes, maritime forest and peat marsh, all of which is getting eroded at dramatic rates. 

“The erosion rates of the island vary, depending on where you are, but it’s anywhere from 5 to 15 feet per year and it’s not uncommon to lose up to 10 feet overnight in a big storm,” Rubino said. He added that sea level rise and large storms coupled with very strong currents creates a lot of erosion, leading to sediment washing away and going into the federal boat channel between downtown waterfront and the island.

The project, Rubino continued, is to protect what’s left and hopefully grow the island to create and expand shallow water habitats for fish and wildlife. 

Brian Henry, director of the Sea & Shoreline’s North Carolina and South Carolina offices, said state elected officials “saw the vision” to restore the small barrier island. 

Henry told attendees to expect Carteret County-based Sandbar Oyster Co. to be deploying soon its oyster tables on the east end of the island. Made of biodegradable hardscape formed in the shape of a table, these are designed to provide a surface for oysters to attach and grow and create an intertidal oyster reef and salt marsh habitat.

Henry continued that Sea & Shoreline has a construction area nearby where 400 of the 1,200 wave attenuation devices for the project have been built. The devices will be deployed from the west side of the island all the way around and leave room for boats to get through.

The concrete triangular structures are 7-foot-tall. The base measures 9 feet on each side. There are six triangular windows on each side, and a small opening on the top, officials said.

“These are the first wave attenuators that have been deployed in this area,” he said, adding they’re very excited to bring these here. 

The devices, which are supposed to withstand hurricane-force winds, are to be placed offshore to diffuse wave energy, help re-form the shoreline via sand accretion, support seagrass growth to enhance water quality, and create essential fish habitat, officials said. 

Henry added that the company plans to begin deploying the devices in January and complete work in June. 

Jones closed the press conference saying that the community was built on legacies.

“We would not be standing here today if it wasn’t for the people that came before us. The leadership that came before us. The generations that recognize the beauty that we have here to Morehead City,” he said. “We are protecting our legacies, we’re protecting the future of Morehead City for future generations because we don’t inherit the Earth, we borrow the Earth from our children. And we have a responsibility to protect that for our children for the future and our future generations.”

After the press conference, Sanderson told Coastal Review that the project could serve as a model for other communities looking to preserve their at-risk public lands.

“If they don’t, then they’re missing a great opportunity to preserve what God has given us here and be stewards. We’re supposed to be stewards,” he said, adding that it’s a challenge throughout the year. “We’re always fighting Mother Nature.”

Cairns added that one of the good things about this project is that everyone is on the same page, whether it’s the businesses, community, environmental groups and the city. 

“Everybody seems to benefit and I think when people are able to work together, then the project becomes much easier to come to fruition,” she said. “Success begets success. So if this project turns out as well as we expect and hope, then other towns will look at it as a model.” 

Coastal Federation Living Shoreline Program Director Dr. Lexia Weaver told Coastal Review that the nonprofit organization is eager to begin construction and that it will not only stabilize the shoreline of Sugarloaf Island and protect downtown Morehead City, but also restore valuable salt marsh and oyster habitats that have been lost through time. 

The Coastal Federation publishes Coastal Review. 

Salary increases for state employees included in the recently adopted budget are expected to help narrow the gap of staff vacancies within the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.

As of the first of this month, 256 out of 1,797 department positions were empty, holding the vacancy rate at just over 14%, according to DEQ Deputy Secretary for Public Affairs Sharon Martin.

Though that’s about a 5% decrease in the number of vacancies the department had around this same time a year ago, the department continues struggling to fill certain jobs where the pay is substantially more in the private sector.

The 2023 Appropriations Act that became law Oct. 3 includes state employee raises of 7% over two years and a laundry list of fee increases tacked on to permits and applications handled by DEQ’s various divisions.

Related: Budget strips certain powers from local governments

The legislative salary increase that is 4% the first year and 3% the second, fee hikes and money from the Labor Market Adjustment Fund of which more than $730,000 is included annually to recruit and retain critical staff positions “are helpful in beginning to address DEQ’s below market salaries,” Martin said in an email.

“However, we are still faced with the challenges of a highly competitive market, especially for engineers and environmental specialists,” she said. “DEQ continues to look for opportunities to address salary concerns and fill vacancies.”

DEQ’s vacancy rate is at 22% for engineers and environmental specialists.

Martin pointed out that the budget also includes 25 additional full-time positions, including one dozen jobs aimed at addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. PFAS are chemical compounds used in a variety of consumer products because of their resistance to heat, water, oil and grease.

There are well over 10,000 PFAS. Researchers are just scratching the surface on understanding how these chemicals, which are being released into the environment through the air, soil and drinking water sources, affect human health.

DEQ is monitoring PFAS in the Cape Fear River and other drinking water sources in the state, and the agency is working with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services to test fish for PFAS to issue fish consumption advisories based on those test results.

The department also oversees the North Carolina Resilient Coastal Communities Program, or NC RCCP, which received a $10 million budget allocation. 

NC RCCP aims to boost resilience efforts in the state’s 20 coastal counties and encourages those who live and work along the coast to participate in finding solutions and prioritizing projects designed to help their communities bounce back from flooding and storms. The program is a product of the state’s 2020 Climate Risk Assessment & Resilience Plan, which was the result of Executive Order 80 signed by Gov. Roy Cooper in October 2018.

Also included in the budget is $2 billion in investments for water and wastewater infrastructure throughout the state.

Fee increases range anywhere from around $200 to $400, and more in some cases.

Martin said more than 15 years have passed since the last fee increases had been implemented for many programs within the department.

The budget became law without Cooper’s signature. The governor, who is wrapping up his final term in office, called the budget “bad,” saying that, among other things, some provisions within it violate the constitution.

A provision of the law stipulates that DEQ cannot refuse to accept or issue an application for a permit, authorization, or certification if the applicant has not first received those from any other state or federal agencies “except to the extent required by federal or State law.”

The provision also restricts local governments’ authority by mandating that they cannot deny a draft erosion and sedimentation control plan if an applicant has yet to receive other environmental permits, “aside from a permit required for stormwater discharges from construction sites.”

Local governments must grant conditional approval on a draft plan “upon the applicant’s compliance with federal and State water quality laws, regulations, and rules.

Legislators also repealed a previous law that eliminated a fast-track permitting option for stormwater permits.

The fast-tracking process will exempt applicants who meet certain requirements from going through a technical review.

“DEQ will allocate the resources necessary to address required actions under the budget – including rulemaking,” Martin said. “On express permitting, the rulemaking requirement will allow for a public process as we codify the procedures governing existing express permitting.”

Other provisions in the Act prohibit the department, the state’s Utilities Commission and Environmental Management Commission, and the governor from requiring electric public utilities to participate in programs that offset carbon dioxide emissions.

DEQ and other state agencies, including the Department of Transportation, cannot adopt or enforce emissions control standards on new motor vehicles.

Reprinted from The Outer Banks Voice.

Less than three weeks after being surprised by the now infamous Dare County affordable housing provision inserted into the state budget, all six Dare County municipalities have signed on to a lawsuit filed against the State of North Carolina challenging that provision.

The housing measure, for which no one has yet acknowledged responsibility, would have restricted the towns’ ability to regulate affordable housing projects funded by $35 million in state money awarded to the county for that purpose. Various town officials have vocally criticized the measure for eroding and encroaching on local authority over development and zoning.

According to Andy Garman, town manager for Nags Head, the complaint, which was filed in Wake County Superior Court Friday, Oct. 6, seeks a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction and declaratory relief. Four different groups of lawyers, including those employed as town attorneys, are on the complaint on behalf of the six plaintiffs.

A joint statement released by the six towns on Oct. 6 noted that the effect of the budget provision “is to require Plaintiffs to allow these Dare County Affordable Housing Projects to be constructed within a town or area of a private party’s choosing and to be completely exempt from certain zoning and regulatory controls that otherwise apply to all other development of property within Plaintiffs’ jurisdictions…despite the fact that citizens throughout Dare County have expressed strenuous objection to the placement of these Dare County Projects in certain zoning districts and other parts of some of Plaintiffs’ jurisdiction.”

“In this action, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Dare County Local Act is a constitutionally prohibited local or special enactment and otherwise violates certain provisions of the Constitution of North Carolina and also deprives Plaintiffs of their property for a purpose other than a constitutionally permitted purpose,” the statement added.

In explaining the process that led to the towns agreeing to be plaintiffs in the suit, Garman said that “Basically, (the town managers) all found out about it on the nineteenth (of September) and we started talking about it among ourselves.” After that, the managers alerted the town boards and municipal councils and boards and brought in the town attorneys.

At the municipal level, the outcry against the mysterious provision was loud and instant, with local officials in all six towns writing letters of protests and/or passing resolutions calling for the removal of the budget item and for Dare County not to enforce it.

Passions on the matter flamed up at an Oct. 2 Dare County Board of Commissioners meeting during a contentious public comment session and a response by Board Chairman Bob Woodard. At the meeting, the county commissioners did move to establish an affordable housing task force that would include representatives from each of the municipalities.

At the same time, the county has consistently stated that it had no knowledge of, nor any role in the insertion of that affordable housing budget provision. At that Oct. 2 meeting, County Manager Bobby Outten told the towns that the county had no intention of “bulldozing” them with large unwanted housing developments — although it’s not clear how much that statement allayed the towns’ concerns.

When asked for a response to the litigation filed by the towns, Outten told the Voice that he was not aware of it.  For his part, Woodard declined to make a statement on the subject.

This story is provided courtesy of The Outer Banks Voice, a digital newspaper covering the Outer Banks. Coastal Review is partnering with the Voice to provide readers with more environmental and lifestyle stories of interest about our coast.

Despite the last-ditch efforts of environmental groups and local governments, the North Carolina General Assembly approved a long-awaited state budget that includes provisions that strip counties and municipalities of certain governing powers.

The Republican-controlled legislature last Friday passed a $30 billion budget, one that boosts Medicaid, bans local governments from regulating the use of plastics, grants millions in funding for living shorelines projects, and creates an animal-waste-to-fertilizer conversion cost-share program.

Shortly after legislature’s vote Friday morning, Gov. Roy Cooper announced that he will not sign the 2023 Appropriations Bill, but will allow it to become law.

“Make no mistake, overall, this is a bad budget that seriously shortchanges our schools, prioritizes power grabs, keeps shady backroom deals secret and blatantly violates the constitution, and many of its provisions will face legal action,” Cooper said.

In the hours leading up to the General Assembly’s vote, environmental groups and local governments scrambled to get the word out about provisions in the then-proposed budget that takes away some rule-making authority from counties and municipalities.

Cape Fear River Watch circulated an email citing a section in the bill that prohibits counties and cities from adopting rules, regulations, ordinances, or resolutions that restrict, tax, or charge fees on so-called “auxiliary containers.” This includes single-use plastic bags, cups, bottles and other types of food packaging.

Asheville officials have been debating banning single-use plastic bags and, in Durham, environmentalists were pushing for that city to require retailers tack on a 10-cent fee for each thin, plastic bag given out to customers in restaurants, grocery stores and shops.

Rob Clark, Cape Fear River Watch’s water quality programs manager, told Coastal Review in a telephone interview Monday that the organization is “obviously unhappy” with the legislature’s decision.

“If local governments want to pass sustainability policies, it’s unfortunate that the state is coming in and stepping over them and saying, ‘No, you can’t do this in your own county,’” he said. “They should have the ability to pass policies that they think are going to be beneficial to their community’s health and their community’s environment.”

Plastics make up a significant amount of the litter collected through various cleanup efforts the organization hosts in Wilmington and New Hanover County.

The bill does specify that counties may regulate the use of auxiliary containers on county-owned and county-maintained property.

“That’s good that that’s in there, but that is tiny compared to what we’re actually seeing in the field,” Clark said. “The vast majority of litter that I see in the environment comes from private industries. The plastic bags that I’m finding, or the plastic water bottles or the pieces of Styrofoam that I see, those aren’t coming from the government sectors.”

The ban on regulating single-use plastics would have broad effects, he said, because plastics break down into microplastics, which are being found in streams, rivers and in the deep recesses of oceans throughout the world.

Dare County housing provision

The appropriations bill also specifically targets how Dare County municipalities govern affordable housing projects.

Dare County has dedicated $9 million, and the state has allocated $35 million, to address what officials there call a housing crisis for essential workers – from teachers and law enforcement officers to restaurant cooks and waitstaff – earning low to moderate incomes.

Three towns in Dare County, Manteo, Kill Devil Hills and Nags Head, have rejected proposed affordable housing projects because of local zoning laws and concerns about proposed housing project locations and providing sewer service.

In July, Dare County officials returned to Manteo with a second request for the town to extend sewer service to 46 apartments that would be built just outside town limits and require about a little more than 11,800 gallons per day of service, Manteo Town Manager Melissa Dickerson said.

A provision in the appropriations bill mandates towns within a 1-mile radius of newly constructed affordable housing must supply utilities if that town has sufficient capacity to do so.

The rule also would exempt new construction of affordable housing from municipal and zoning regulations, which include public hearings and input, setbacks and height limits.

“That’s the big concern that comes to the municipalities when you think about how intentional our zoning is, you know, we don’t allow buildings taller than our fire department’s ability to fight a fire and if zoning isn’t applied then how do we ensure that those buildings aren’t taller than our ability to handle life safety issues?” Dickerson said.

Manteo commissioners at their meeting last week unanimously gave Dickerson the green light to draft a resolution opposing the provision. During that meeting, members of the board and residents called the provision “dirty politics,” “underhanded,” and questioned its legality.

“Obviously, it was kind of late, and I think now we’re at a point where we’re going to have to look at how to manage this on the back end,” Dickerson said.

The board’s next meeting is Oct. 4.

“I feel pretty certain that we’ll come up with a plan at that point,” Dickerson said.

Gambling expansion dropped

The General Assembly’s vote Friday ended months of gridlock over a proposal to expand Medicaid with the condition that the budget also include legalizing more casinos on and off tribal lands and authorizing thousands of video lottery terminals across the state.

That stipulation was dropped less than two days before the House voted last Thursday when Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore announced an agreement had been reached to keep Medicaid in and remove casinos from the budget.

Cooper called the decision to expand Medicaid, which will insure more than 600,000 North Carolinians, “a life-saving, monumental decision for our state.”

“However, we must recognize this irresponsible legislature’s decade of refusal to expand Medicaid, which has caused life and death situations for so many North Carolinians and threatened the very existence of numerous rural hospitals,” he said. “I will not allow people who are crying for help to wait any longer, so I am directing our Department of Health and Human Services to begin today the process for expanding Medicaid while allowing this budget to become law without my signature.”

Nature-based solutions

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality has been provisioned $7.5 million to provide grants for the North Carolina Coastal Federation for stormwater management, living shorelines and marine debris removal.

“These funds support innovative work by the Coastal Federation that allows us to advance the use of nature-based solutions that protect water quality, reduce flooding and enhance fishery habitats. In addition, they will help to develop the first of its kind shellfish logistics hub that will support small businesses making a living off of our productive coastal waters,” Coastal Federation Executive Director Todd Miller told Coastal Review.   

The Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, will use $5 million of that for a Stormwater Retrofit Pilot Cost-Share Program. The nonprofit organization and DEQ are to work together to create guidelines to provide for upgrades and repairs to stormwater control measures.

The nonprofit has been provisioned $2 million to provide up to a 50% match for federal, state, or private funds for living shoreline projects in coastal counties. Residents must be able to demonstrate how their receiving these funds will benefit the public to be considered.

The organization’s Lost Fishery Gear Recovery Program has been allocated $500,000. The program takes place in late winter each year to remove debris from coastal waters employs area fishers and other private partners to remove debris from coastal waters. The funds also will go to the investigation, removal and disposal of abandoned and derelict vessels in state public trust waters in coastal counties.

There is a directed grant of $800,000 to the Coastal Federation for capital costs and equipment associated with an aquaculture hub project, as well.

Infrastructure funding

Several local governments and public entities have been allocated funding for water and wastewater infrastructure projects.

The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority was allocated $35 million. Of that, $18 million is to go to drinking water extensions to unserved communities in New Hanover County impacted by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. The remaining $17 million is for municipal consolidation and regionalization of water and sewer systems in New Hanover County impacted by PFAS.

Regarding the $18 million for unserved communities, a spokesperson said Monday that the public utility will work with state and local partners to determine where the water service extensions will be constructed. The remaining $17 million is for system consolidation. 

“CFPUA and Wrightsville Beach are currently reviewing the possibility of a consolidation, in which CFPUA would take ownership of water and sewer infrastructure in Wrightsville Beach. The terms of that consolidation are still being reviewed by both parties,” they said. “We are very grateful to our region’s legislative delegation for securing funding to benefit CFPUA’s customers and our community.”

Currituck County Manager Ike McRee told Coastal Review that the county appreciates the $16 million allocated for utility infrastructure. There is $6 million for the Mainland Water Treatment Plant project, and $10 million for the Moyock water or wastewater system.

“The appropriated funds will ensure water capacity for the county’s growing population.  The funds will also allow for the replacement of a wastewater treatment plant that is unable to meet discharge permit limits,” he said. “The new wastewater treatment plant will meet permit discharge limits and accommodate expected population growth and economic development in the county.”

Other provisions

Other notable provisions in the budget include a plan for animal waste, several million for water quality, stormwater management, resiliency and recovery efforts, and mitigation strategies.

A five-year statewide cost-share program to use technologies that convert sludge from animal waste, including hogs and cattle, into fertilizer has been established. The program would match dollar-for-dollar with farmers who own or operate animal waste lagoons.

DEQ is allocated $20 million for the Coastal Storm Damage Mitigation Fund, which provides grants to local governments, and $16.1 million for the Local Assistance for Stormwater Infrastructure Investments Fund to provide grants to improve or create infrastructure for controlling stormwater quantity and quality.

DEQ’s Division of Coastal Management will receive $10 million for the Resilient Coastal Communities Program to provide funding for the implementation or construction of planned, prioritized, and engineered resilience projects in the 20 coastal counties.

The Department of Public Safety’s Division of Emergency Management is allocated $30 million for long-term recovery and mitigation grants, at least $5 million of which will go to transportation resiliency projects.

The division has $5 million for the Local Disaster Shelter Capacity Grant Program to fund upgrades for emergency shelters, and $5 million to conduct flood studies, risk assessment, and building mitigation strategies through the State Floodplain Mapping Program.

There is $3.3 million for detailed mapping and risk impact studies for 250 existing flood gauges to provide baseline information on those gauges for use in the Division’s Flood Inundation Mapping and Alert Network.

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is allocated $10 million for the Lake Mattamuskeet outfall canal, and $1 million to provide a grant to the nonprofit Nature Conservancy for a pilot project to protect and restore critically important peatlands in eastern North Carolina for the purpose of increasing community flood resilience, improving water quality and wildlife habitat, and reducing wildfire risk.

The North Carolina Collaboratory at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill will see $340,000 for the FerryMon program, and $320,000 for the ModMon program, both are water monitoring projects.

The Office of State Budget and Management has been allocated $2 million for the North Carolina Insurance Underwriting Association for the Coastal Resilient Roof Grant Pilot Program, $1 million to North Carolina Resource Conservation and Development Association for flood mitigation projects, and $755,000 to nonprofit United Way of Coastal Carolina Inc. to support the Pamlico County Disaster Recovery Coalition.

The Department of Insurance for the State Property Fire Insurance Fund will receive $20 million to help cover the budget gap from increases in expenditures related to recent natural disasters.

The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has been allocated $20 million for the Streamflow Rehabilitation Assistance Program, which provides grants to projects that help reduce flooding and restore streams across North Carolina.

Second in a series.

A little-noticed rule in the North Carolina Farm Act of 2023 could bring noticeable changes to North Carolina’s streams, lakes, reservoirs, ponds and estuaries, and some conservation advocates are worried. 

This new provision limits civil penalties for removing timber in a riparian buffer “in violation of rules applicable to that riparian buffer” from a maximum of $25,000 per violation to the civil penalty being capped at no more than the value of the timber removed.

A quarterly report released last week by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension forestry office shows that the most recent state-wide average standing timber prices range from $7.57 to $41.44 a ton, depending on the species, quality and product.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Deputy Secretary for Public Affairs Sharon Martin explained last week that the agency is incorporating the legislative changes into the enforcement process and each civil penalty is determined based on the specific details of the case and the applicable rules and regulations. 

“The changes may limit the maximum amount of the penalties that can be issued,” she said.

A riparian buffer is a vegetated area with native trees, shrubs and plants adjacent to an estuary, stream, lake or pond that stabilizes the shoreline, provides habitat and filters pollutants. The Division of Water Resources established riparian buffer rules to protect water quality in the Neuse River, Tar-Pamlico River and Catawba River basins and Randleman Lake, Jordan Lake and Goose Creek watersheds.

NCDEQ’s Division of Water Resources finds out about potential violations through complaints from residents or referrals from the North Carolina Forest Service, Martin explained.

“After an investigation, DWR determines the appropriate course of action and amount of civil penalty, if appropriate. If a civil penalty is assessed, severity of impact is one of the main considerations when determining amount,” she said.

This is the same Farm Act, also known as Senate Bill 582, that sparked outcry over a provision that amended how the state defines and protects wetlands. The act passed in late June, despite the governor’s veto that he based on objections over the wetlands provision. 

Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Adviser Derb Carter told Coastal Review Monday that while none of the other provisions in the Farm Act received as much attention as the repeal of the state wetlands protections, this gutting of riparian buffer regulation is also now law. 

With this civil penalty change, you can sell the timber for what it’s valued, then use that money to pay your fine. If you’re allowing trees to be cut and presumably sold – and they can fine you no more than what you receive for cutting the trees — “It’s made the tree protection and buffers pretty much a joke,” Carter said.

Sound Rivers Executive Director Heather Deck said Thursday that she is concerned the lowered penalty will simply become the “cost of doing business.”

Sound Rivers is a nonprofit organization that works to protect the neighboring basins of the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico rivers that extend from the Piedmont to the coastal plain and have sizable drainage areas entirely within the state. Both empty into the Pamlico Sound. 

These two basins require a 50-foot riparian buffer, with the 30 feet closest to the water, or zone 1, required to remain undisturbed, and the outer 20 feet, or zone 2, can be managed vegetation. In the 20 coastal counties, the riparian buffer is measured from the landward edge of the Division of Coastal Management’s wetland boundary, according to NCDEQ.

Deck said that riparian buffers, or treelined waterways, are the most cost-effective tool at keeping our waterways clean and healthy for all uses. 

“Keeping trees on the banks of rivers and streams and creeks is the simplest, most-efficient, cheapest option for protecting waterways and trying to keep them clean,” Deck continued. “Now you basically cut out that financial penalty for enforcement that would have incentivized some not to cut trees.”

The legislature has been for the last decade undermining environmental protections in favor of developers, and this is no different, Deck said.

“This move, in our opinion at Sound Rivers, takes away incentives not to cut trees while also putting a greater burden on the Department of Environmental Quality who is already overworked and under-resourced,” Deck said. This penalty change will result in more buffer violations and tree loss along river and stream banks, putting additional strain on the already understaffed agency. 

Deck recognized that many remove trees to have an unobstructed view of the water, and “you can either have that, or have water that you want to swim and fish in. It’s as simple as that,” she said. “Keeping trees where they’re meant to be along the rivers, creeks and streams is very important. And this legislation will make it harder for us to do that.”

Coastal Carolina Riverwatch Executive Director Lisa Rider agreed that recent legislative actions have caused the state to move backward from “any progress we’ve made to protect the quality of water and life in coastal North Carolina.” The nonprofit advocates for the White Oak River Basin.

Rider added that, as a whole, some of the components to the recent Farm Act will have devastating outcomes with long-term effects on the local economy, just as much as the ecology. 

“Here on the coast, downstream of the cumulative impacts, we are continuing to hear an outcry of concern from local commercial and recreational fishers about the lack of water and habitat protections by the state. We hope that in the future, these coastal voices are heard much louder by decision makers in Raleigh,” she said.

North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation Natural Resources Director Keith Larick told Coastal Review that while the buffer violation penalties language would restrict the amount of the civil penalties, he believes the state can still require the landowner to replant trees to replace those removed.

The provision went into effect July 1, just before the standing timber price numbers for the second quarter of 2023 were released last week by the Cooperative Extension’s forestry office. The quarterly report is through an agreement with Timber Mart-South, a nonprofit that provides trend data for timber.  

This quarter, the statewide average prices for pine pulpwood is $7.57 a ton, pine chip-n-saw is $21.10 a ton, pine sawtimber is $30.02 a ton, hardwood pulpwood is $4.49 a ton, mixed hardwood sawtimber is $28.77 and oak sawtimber is $41.44 a ton. 

Pulpwood is a tree or log used to manufacture paper, absorbent pulp, cardboard, fiberboard and other wood fiber-based products, and are typically the lowest-value product. Chip-n-saw is lumber produced from medium-sized pine trees, and sawtimber is a log or tree large enough and of suitable quality to be sawn into lumber, according to the North Carolina Forest Service. 

N.C. State University College of Natural Resources professor and Department Extension Leader Dr. Robert Bardon said in an email response to questions that these standing timber prices are average prices for all of North Carolina. “This is the price paid to the landowner who owns the timber prior to it being harvested,” he said. 

Bardon, referencing information from Forest2Market, explained that an acre that is clear-cut can produce, on average, about 87 tons of sawtimber-size trees and smaller. If an area is being thinned, or pulpwood-size trees are removed, then it would produce on average about 32 tons an acre. 

If the state uses these recent numbers to determine the civil penalty, an acre of sawtimber would be valued between $2,612 and $3,605, depending on the tree species. An acre of pulpwood-sized pine trees would be valued at $242 and hardwood pulpwood at around $143.

Other provisions

The Farm Act adds to the farm digester system general permit that the “collected gases shall be used as a renewable energy resource as quickly as feasible, but within six months of the collection of the gases, and during that period the gas shall be flared rather than vented.”

Martin with DEQ said that this digester section adds specific guidance on the usage of the collected gases as a renewable energy resource and sets timelines for utilizing the collected gases, which is within six months of starting gas collection.

Larick said that the digester provision allows a farmer some flexibility — up to six months — to line up an outlet for the collected gas while still qualifying for the digester general permit instead of an individual permit. “The condition about flaring the gas for a maximum of six months was added to ensure that the methane was not just vented to the atmosphere in the meantime.”

Also in the Farm Act, the Environmental Management Commission has been directed to withdrawal the aquaculture national pollutant discharge elimination system, or NPDES, general permit that took effect Dec. 1, 2021, for discharges from seafood packing and rinsing, aquatic animal operations, and similarly designated wastewaters and revise the permit to be “substantively identical to the previous general permit.”

Martin clarified that this provision primarily applies to trout farms in western North Carolina.  

Larick reiterated that the section of the Farm Act that requires changes to the NDPES permit was added at the request of trout farmers. 

“The main issue that they had was the expense and time needed for the sampling in the most recent permit. The sampling frequency and number of parameters were increased, and they would be required to conduct composite samples instead of grab samples. The smaller trout farmers were especially concerned about the monitoring provisions,” he said.

Read part 1: Analysis: Farm Act strips wetland safeguards, mitigation

First in a series.

Nearly a month has passed since the North Carolina legislature overrode Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of the annual Farm Bill that includes a provision boxing in how the state can define and, ultimately, protect wetlands.

Though Senate Bill 582, otherwise known as the North Carolina Farm Act of 2023, covers more than 30 topics hitting on everything from padding buffers by trout streams and upping the penalty for animal waste spilled along state roads, to mandating muscadine grape juice in all public K-12 schools.

But the provision that prompted the governor’s veto and that raised the loudest alarm bells among environmentalists strips state-enacted safeguards and compensatory mitigation for wetlands that have been in place for years by aligning the law with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

In May, the nation’s highest court ruled that the definition of waters of the United States, or WOTUS — the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act jurisdiction — applies only to wetlands that have “continuous surface connection.”

“What qualifies as surface conveyance?” asked Norton Webster, treasurer and consultant with the Carolina Wetlands Association and chief strategy officer at Eco Terra, an Atlanta-based environmental services company that specializes in mitigation and alternative energy. “This is what the (Army Corps of Engineers) and the EPA are wrestling now.”

Webster, who works out of Eco Terra’s Cary office, explained that North Carolina has unique wetlands features like Carolina bays and pocosins, which have no inlet or outlet, can be wet for part of the year, and in some cases take up a large part of the landscape in the state’s coastal plain.

“They are wetlands, but some of them may not have federal protection now because they don’t have that surface conveyance,” he said.

The degree to which the wetlands provision’s effect will have on future protection of wetlands in North Carolina will not likely be fully understood until the Environmental Agency and Corps issue a final rule on revisions to the definition of “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS. That ruling is expected to be issued by Sept. 1.

“It’s really difficult at least at this moment to be able to quantify what the exact impacts are because we, unfortunately, really can’t predict the future,” Webster said.

The overwhelming consensus among environmental groups: It’s not going to be good.

Proponents of the Farm Act argue environmentalists are overstating the impact of the wetlands provision.

Mike Carpenter, general counsel for the North Carolina Home Builders Association, told the Associated Press that the provision pertains to isolated wetlands and was “not as gloom and doom and disastrous as our friends in the environmental community would like to believe it is.”

Carolina Wetlands Association Executive Director Rick Savage disagrees.

“Realize it’s more than isolated wetlands,” he said. “It’s a lot more with the (Supreme Court) case. It really is.”

How a new definition may cut mitigation

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality estimates that more than half of the state’s wetlands – as much as 2.5 million acres – could lose protection.

Opponents of the wetland provision point out that the state is allocating millions of dollars to create nature-based solutions, including wetlands, to mitigate flooding of riverside communities, yet state lawmakers have enacted a bill that diminishes protecting those wetlands and curbing water pollution.

In his written objection and veto of the bill, Cooper stated that severely weakened wetlands protections will equate to more flooding and dirtier water, especially in eastern North Carolina. According to Savage, 90% or more of the state’s wetlands are east of Interstate 95.

“This bill reverses our progress and leaves the state vulnerable without vital flood mitigation and water purification tools,” the governor wrote.

Nonjurisdictional wetlands, or those not defined under WOTUS, have under state statute been included in the state’s Stream and Wetland Mitigation Program, but that may no longer be the case with the passage of the Farm Bill.

“Mitigation was created to allow for landscape changes, but to try to make sure that the overall quality in those respective areas were not diminished,” said Amanda Mueller, program director of North Carolina State University’s Kenan Institute, Engineering, and Technology Science Climate Leaders Program and a former environmental specialist with DEQ. “That’s come up, especially now with the increased frequency of flooding in a lot of areas. I started to say coastal, but it’s not just coastal any more. So, the services and values of those wetlands, even though they are not continuous with the waters of the U.S. as they’re termed, those services have the potential of being removed by those wetlands not being protected.”

Webster said the answer as to how the state wetland provision will affect the future of wetlands mitigation is simple.

“If a wetland’s not jurisdictional it’s not going to be protected under the Clean Water Act,” he said. “If (wetlands) aren’t jurisdictional and because the state’s protections are gone there will be no mitigation required for those. It’s that simple, unfortunately. The reason it’s going to hurt the mitigation industry is because there’s going to be less mitigation required because there’s going to be less jurisdictional wetlands.”

The state’s compensatory mitigation program is designed to offset what are deemed unavoidable impacts to wetlands by a proposed development.

There are three options for compensatory mitigation: mitigation banks where an applicant can buy credits from an approved bank; in-lieu fees where credits may be purchased through the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services; and project-specific mitigation, which allows an applicant to mitigate at the project at or off the site.

A mitigation plan must be implemented or constructed before the developer can build.

Mitigation bank sites are the physical acreage in which wetlands can be established, restored, enhanced or preserved.

Sites are vetted through requirements established by a handful of federal agencies, including the Corps and EPA, that look at features including the size of the area, hydrologic sources and watershed management plans.

The system works like a commercial bank, but instead of having a cash asset to loan, mitigation banks loan mitigation credits to sell to anyone who has to offset mitigation debits.

In North Carolina, more than 400 mitigation banks have been approved and “many more” are in the review process, according to Joseph Pitchford, division public information officer.

Nearly 300 of those banks are Division of Mitigation Services sites and 123 are private.

Mitigation must occur within the same geographical service area, or watersheds, as the area in which wetlands are being impacted.

In areas of the state where it is difficult to establish a mitigation bank, particularly small watershed, developers have the option of paying in-lieu fees, when the permittee of a development project pays an in-lieu fee sponsor, such as a public agency or nonprofit organization.

North Carolina has one of the largest and oldest in-lieu fee programs in the country, according to DEQ.

The agency credits the success of the program to Division of Mitigation Services’ partnership with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, which accounts for about 80-90% of mitigation in the state. DOT forecasts an estimate of the department’s mitigation needs and provides that information to the division.

“For mitigation banking we have to have regulation because that’s what defines our market,” Webster said. “And, right now I don’t believe from a political perspective people really see what the value of clean water is because if you look at how dire the environment was back in 1972 when we had the National Environment Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, all these environmental regulations came to be because we were having all these issues and now it’s like, oh well everything’s good, we’re on the status quo, we don’t need to protect these resources anymore. Generally, if you look at the amount of land that has been protected through mitigation and you look at some of the pretty significant wetland banks – there’s some pretty large areas in the coastal region that have been protected and they’ve been protect in perpetuity because there are conservation easements.”

Now that the North Carolina Farm Act of 2023 has become law, its opponents say about 2.5 million acres of the state’s wetlands are vulnerable to development.

The Senate voted 29-17 Monday evening and the House voted 78-40 Tuesday afternoon to override Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of Senate Bill 582, “An Act to Make Various Changes to The Agricultural and Wastewater Laws of This State,” commonly called North Carolina Farm Act of 2023.

Both votes essentially were down party lines, but six House Democrats voted in favor of the override.

Cooper vetoed the bill Friday citing a provision in the bill “that severely weakens protections for wetlands means more severe flooding for homes, roads and businesses, and dirtier water for our people, particularly in North Carolina.”

Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Pamlico, Sen. Brent Jackson, R-Sampson, and Sen. Buck Newton, R-Wayne, introduced the bill with the provision to “Clarify Definition of Wetlands,” which restricts wetlands that the state can regulate to those considered “waters of the United States,” often called WOTUS, and specifies that wetlands do not include prior converted cropland, consistent with the existing rule.

The Environmental Protection Agency, because of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the case of Sackett v. EPA, is defining “waters of the United States” to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision that the Clean Water Act only extends to “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right.”

The ruling and now the veto override make isolated wetlands outside of both state and federal jurisdictions.

Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, during floor debate Tuesday, urged her fellow representatives to let the veto stand because of the wetlands provision that Cooper had cited.

Harrison noted that agriculture was exempt from wetlands regulation under the measure, so the provision doesn’t affect the agriculture industry. “This is about the ability to fill in and develop wetlands that play a very important role and are protecting our water quality and preventing flooding.”

The exemption states that wetlands do not include prior converted cropland as defined in the National Food Security Act Manual.

Harrison said that the U.S. Supreme Court decision left it up to the states to protect wetlands. After the Sackett decision, Tennessee and South Carolina looked at their wetland protections to make sure that they’re filling the void created by the Supreme Court decision.

“I want to remind you what the implications are going to be for our state,” Harrison continued, adding that the state is facing increasing numbers of high-energy storms, and the flooding in eastern North Carolina has been tremendous.

“Wetlands provide a very important role for flood resiliency. They can slow down water, something like a million gallons per acre. They also filter for water quality for those of you who care about clean drinking water, and they also provide wildlife habitat for those of you who like to fish and hunt,” Harrison said. “So wetlands play a very important role and our state and the function of our state.”

If the veto is overridden, “we’re going lose 2.5 million acres of wetlands to vulnerability for development because they will no longer have the protection that they had before and that’s 7% of the landmass of the state. A significant portion of that — 800,000 (acres) — are actually in the Cape Fear and Neuse River basins alone. We are looking at significant impact.”

Rep. Deb Butler, D-New Hanover, said that these wetlands are magic and they do the work themselves if they’re left alone. “This approach that we use feel so schizophrenic. On the one hand we do great work and on the other hand, we shoot our own foot off,” she said before the override vote.

Monday evening, after the Senate voted to override the veto, Jackson, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Energy, and Environment Committee and primary sponsor of the bill, said in a statement, “North Carolina’s farmers work day-in and day-out to make sure we all have enough food to feed our families, and it’s a shame that after originally supporting the North Carolina Farm Act of 2023, several Democrats turned their backs on farmers. This year’s Farm Act is good legislation that will help our farmers, growers, producers, and distributors. I appreciate my Republican colleagues for standing strong to override the governor’s ill-advised veto and supporting North Carolina agriculture.”

Gov. Roy Cooper on Friday vetoed recently passed legislation that he said would undo protections for half of the state’s wetlands.

Language in Senate Bill 582, the 2023 Farm Act, would restrict the wetlands that the state can regulate to those that are considered waters of the United States, often called WOTUS. This means that the state would no longer have the authority to protect federally nonjurisdictional, or isolated, wetlands.

“The provision in this bill that severely weakens protection for wetlands means more severe flooding for homes, roads and businesses and dirtier water for our people, particularly in eastern North Carolina,” Cooper said in a statement.

“This provision coupled with the drastic weakening of federal rules caused by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Sackett case, leaves approximately 2.5 million acres, or about one half of our state’s wetlands, unprotected,” he continued. “The General Assembly has allocated tens of millions of dollars to protect the state from flooding and my administration is working to stop pollution like PFAS and other contaminants. This bill reverses our progress and leaves the state vulnerable without vital flood mitigation and water purification tools.”

Related: Bill limiting NC wetland protections sent to Gov. Cooper

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, in a memo Thursday, said that based on preliminary analysis and data, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision combined with Section 15 of the bill could result in loss of wetland protections for an area that’s more than 7% of the state’s total landmass.

Based on data from a 1990s analysis, DEQ researchers put areas such as pocosin, maritime forests, managed pinelands and pine and hardwood flats at high risk of losing the protections if the Farm Bill were to be enacted.

The estimates were qualified based on the age of the data, DEQ noted. “Some of these wetlands may no longer exist or may no longer be protected under existing state law. The estimate also does not include wetlands smaller than an acre.

Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Derb Carter applauded the veto and sent a letter to Cooper. 

“Our wetlands have incredible value with the ability to retain flood waters, filter pollution, replenish groundwater that most of our citizens rely on for drinking water, and provide habitat to fish and wildlife,” Carter said in a statement, adding that he couldn’t think of another single action taken during his 40-year career that would have “a greater long-term adverse impact on North Carolina’s water quality and natural resources than abandoning state wetlands protections — harm that will be made even worse by the loss of federal protections from the recent Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA. From our unique mountain bogs to namesake Carolina Bays, bottomland swamps, and unique pocosins, our wetlands are a state natural treasure.”

A veto-override is expected unless a Republican can be persuaded otherwise.

Cooper also on Friday signed into law numerous other bills. One with potential environmental implications was Senate Bill 673. The Wastewater Regulatory Relief Act sets requirements for sewer line extension permitting, including engineering evaluations of projected needs. It features a provision that allows counties with projected yearly population growth above 2% to allocate wastewater treatment  system capacity beyond the system’s design as long as a contract to expand the plant is signed or ongoing expansion is to be complete within prescribed time periods.

Senate Bill 22 renames the Outdoor Heritage Advisory Council to the North Carolina Youth Outdoor Engagement Commission. The commission is under the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for organizational and budgetary purposes only and advises state agencies and the General Assembly “on the promotion of outdoor recreational activities, including, but not limited to, hiking, horseback riding, boating, sport shooting and archery, bird watching and wildlife watching, camping, swimming, hunting, trapping, and fishing in order to preserve North Carolina’s outdoor heritage for future  generations and  use grants and programming to promote the outdoor recreational activities …” according to the measure.

Cooper’s office said the governor declined to sign into law House Bill 130, which among other things sets requirements for decommissioning and site restoration for utility-scale solar projects, including financial assurances. But the measure also bars counties from adopting ordinances that limit “energy choice,” such as those that prohibit connections to certain energy sources or against the sale or installation of appliances such as gas stoves.

Reprinted from NC Health News

State lawmakers discussed on June 14 this year’s regulatory reform bill and, despite a bevy of amendments and question marks about its effects on the environment and potential conflicts with the Clean Water Act, the bill received a favorable report and is moving on in the state Senate.

At first glance, House Bill 600 appears poised to weaken some hard-won protections dealing with water runoff and quality issues. In the coming days, representatives from the state’s environmental community will attempt to weigh-in on the proposed legislation.

One lawmaker who raised concerns during the discussion in the Senate Judiciary Committee is Natasha Marcus, D-Mecklenburg. Initially, Marcus directed her attention to language that, in part, would limit the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s ability to regulate how much chemical discharge that industry can dump into state waterways.

Some of the chemicals that lawmakers were fretting about include per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, commonly called “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in the environment.

“Section seven, I think, relates to this committee’s work,” Marcus said. “It prohibits DEQ from limiting PFAS levels by law and other toxic chemicals, and I think that’s a big problem.”

Brooks Rainey Pearson, a lobbyist for the Southern Environmental Law Center, shares Marcus’ concern.

“(It) would disallow DEQ from writing permits for chemicals that don’t have numeric standards,” Rainey Pearson said. “This includes all of the PFAS chemicals (and) 1.4 dioxane … those would not be able to be limited in discharge permits.”

“And I don’t think anybody actually wants that,” Rainey Pearson said. “The legislative bodies should not want that. All of their constituents benefit from DEQ being able to limit harmful pollution in their drinking water.”

The not-too-distant past

Discussion of the Regulatory Reform Act of 2023 comes a week after NC Health News reported that Chemours, DuPont and Corteva announced a billion-dollar settlement fund to address pending lawsuits brought on behalf of several states, environmental advocacy groups and individuals.

The proposed bill’s discussion also follows a protest rally held in Fayetteville, near the Chemours Fayetteville Works Facility. The protest organized by North Carolina Stop GenX in Our Water took place June 10, the week of the six-year anniversary that Wilmington StarNews reported that GenX was detected in the Cape Fear River. 

The environmental advocacy group, along with other groups based in the Cape Fear River basin, has worked to spread awareness about PFAS and to hold Chemours accountable for polluting the Cape Fear River as well as fouling the air, soil and groundwater with particulate matter emitted from its Fayetteville Works facility.

Although all the health effects of PFAS are not yet known, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says they are believed to impact the immune system and may reduce antibody responses to vaccines.

Additionally, a 2021 study suggests a possible link between childhood exposure to PFAS and the development of hyperlipidemia and cardiovascular disease later in life.

Research on laboratory animals has found a link between PFAS and liver, kidney, testicular, pancreas and thyroid cancers. Studies also suggest that PFAS can cause high cholesterol, pregnancy problems and immune suppression.

A call to action

Given the state’s recent history with PFAS and other water quality issues, it’s understandable that some would have strong reactions to parts of House Bill 600.

“Forever chemicals like PFAS are a serious concern. I am disappointed but not necessarily surprised that the Republican supermajority would block NCDEQ’s ability to protect the public from these carcinogens and contaminants,” Marcus said in an email to NC Health News.

Cape Fear River Watch, a Wilmington-based environmental advocacy organization, issued a call to action hours after the Judiciary Committee meeting concluded.

A statement sent out to supporters reads: “Practically speaking, this amendment would mean that toxic chemicals without numeric standards (like PFAS, 1,4-dioxane, etc.) could not be limited in discharge permits — resulting in free-flowing toxic contamination.”

The organization said the provisions in the bill would be “in blatant violation of the Clean Water Act.”

“None of the permits that DEQ has issued on Chemours to this point would have been legal under this rule!!” the statement continued.

The group encourages supporters to add their names and comments to an electronic letter that Cape Fear River Watch is sending to lawmakers to express their opposition. 

A break for large hog farms?

Marcus and others also point to issues in another section of the bill that, they argue, would weaken DEQ’s ability to enforce federal and civil rights laws on the massive hog farms that dot the landscape throughout eastern North Carolina.

The proposed bill could have a chilling effect on efforts by environmental activists and rural communities of color. They have long fought for protection from uncovered hog lagoons and spray fields, which have contaminated the environment and affected the quality of life of those who live near the massive hog farming operations.

Critics argue section 12(b)(c) is at odds with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, an executive order signed by former president Bill Clinton, established in 1994, that directs “Federal agencies to incorporate achieving environmental justice into their mission.”

That order also requires that entities that receive federal funding “that affect human health or the environment do not directly, or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria, methods, or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.”

Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Carteret, Craven and Pamlico, who presided over the proceedings, acknowledged that the bill has a way to go before it’s ready to be voted on. He said that he and other bill sponsors are working to make sure that environmental safeguards will not be lost.

“We are really tuned into PFAS (and) we’re still working with DEQ to make sure that they’re OK with (the bill). So we’re not through with it yet,” Sanderson said. He noted that the bill has to get through another committee before reaching the floor of the Senate for a vote. “Conference (committee) is probably where we’re going to make the final changes.”

Sanderson admitted that addressing stakeholders’ and lawmakers’ concerns when drafting or amending legislation is challenging.

“Sometimes we’re on the same page, sometimes we’re not,” he said. “We’re just trying to do what’s right for our own state. And I think with that intent, that purpose in mind, we’re not going to put something in before its time.”

This article first appeared on North Carolina Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license. Coastal Review partners with NC Health News to provide our readers with more news relevant to the North Carolina coast.

A bill that targets standards known as environmental, social and governance criteria, or ESG, has cleared the North Carolina General Assembly and was on its way to the governor Wednesday.

Republican Rep. Celeste Cairns, who represents Carteret and Craven counties, is a primary sponsor of House Bill 750, which prohibits state hiring and investment policies or criteria that consider environmental or socioeconomic factors. It passed the Senate Tuesday 29-18 with all present Democrats opposed.

It passed the House May 3 76-41 mostly along party lines but with no Republican opposition.

The measure also prohibits economically targeted investments, or ETIs. Both ESG and ETI are terms that the legislation defines as “using a set of standards to screen potential investments based upon the perceived impact to the environment and the social relationships between a company’s employees and the community.”

The terms also describe how a company’s leadership is structured in support of those standards, according to the bill language.

The bill allows environmental or social considerations only when “they present economic risks or opportunities that qualified investment professionals would treat as material economic considerations under generally accepted investment theories.”

The measure would forbid any state agency, political subdivision of the state, trust, committee, or commission of any political subdivision of the state from using, enforcing or providing data for use in, or otherwise participate in the creation or use of ESG or ETI policies related to hiring, firing or evaluating employees.

Except as allowed by law, ESG, ETI or related criteria shall not be considered in the awarding of state contracts.

The bill also includes a caveat that If any section or provision of the act “is declared unconstitutional or invalid by the courts, it does not affect the validity of this act as a whole or any part other than the part declared to be unconstitutional or invalid.”

Extraterritorial jurisdictions

Another measure that advanced Tuesday would eliminate a widely used local planning tool.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-New Hanover, is the primary sponsor of a measure that would eliminate extraterritorial jurisdictions, or ETJs, a zoning or planning designation extending 1-3 miles beyond corporate limits that municipalities typically use to control development and prepare for future growth.

Senate Bill 675 passed a first reading in the House Tuesday and was referred to the House Rules Committee. It passed a third reading in the Senate Thursday with all but one Democrat, Sen. Paul Lowe Jr. of Forsyth County, opposed.

Lee said that the bill would apply only to cities in counties with between 25,001 and 50,000 residents effective Oct. 1, 2025, and cities in counties with 25,000 and fewer people effective Oct. 1, 2024. He said the reason for having ETJs was eliminated when the legislature restricted involuntary annexations.

A previous version of the measure had included language prohibiting local governments from setting a minimum lot size larger than 8,700 square feet or prohibiting residential density of fewer than five units per acre. Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, said last week that both provisions had been removed, the Elizabeth City Daily Advance reported.

A bill that significantly scales back wetland protections is now on Gov. Roy Cooper’s desk.

The 2023 Farm Act restricts state regulation of wetlands to those classified as waters of the United States, often called WOTUS, and a Clean Water Act definition that the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed in May to include only wetlands that have “continuous surface connection” to other water bodies.

The measure was ratified Monday and sent to the governor Tuesday.

The bill removes the state’s regulatory authority that now protects federally nonjurisdictional wetlands. Advocates and scientists say these isolated wetlands serve important hydrological and ecological functions.

“The anti-wetlands provision in the Farm Act is disappointing and dangerous. If it becomes law, we estimate that the provision will leave at least half of the state’s 4 million acres of wetlands without federal or state protection. Wetlands hold and slow floodwaters. When they are paved over, downstream communities and farmland suffer increased flooding and dirtier water,” North Carolina Conservation Network Policy Director Grady McCallie said in a statement.

An analysis by the Southern Environmental Law Center found that, in the Neuse and Cape Fear River basins alone, about 900,000 acres of wetlands could be put at risk of pollution and destruction.

“Protecting wetlands protects our communities,” said Geoff Gisler, program director at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “By eliminating laws that have been in place for years, the legislature puts wetlands and our communities in harm’s way. This bill is the single most destructive action taken in North Carolina in decades — the legislature has abandoned our great natural resources, the rivers we depend on, and communities across the state.”

The bill — a 28-page mashup of agricultural and other provisions — passed the House 77-38 June 7 with the Senate voting 37-6 to concur with House amendments the next day. The primary sponsors were Sen. Brent Jackson, R- Bladen, Duplin, Jones, Pender and Sampson; Sen. Norm Sanderson, R- Carteret, Chowan, Dare, Hyde, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Perquimans and Washington; and Sen. Buck Newton, R-Greene, Wayne and Wilson.

It’s unclear whether Cooper will veto the measure, sign it or allow it to become law without his signature. The vote margins point to a likely veto override.

The North Carolina Home Builders Association had pushed for the rollback of wetland protections.

“This bill contains an important provision that restores the state definition of wetlands to language consistent with what remained in place for almost three decades in North Carolina,” Association Director of Legislative Affairs Steven Webb, said in an online video posted earlier this month.

The definition established by the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers in the 1980s included all waters, wetlands and intermittent streams which, if degraded, could affect interstate or foreign commerce. This included wetlands adjacent to waters. The definition has been targeted numerous times over the years by litigation.

The Obama administration in 2015 expanded protections under the Clean Water Act, protections the Trump administration in 2020 repealed and replaced with the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which narrowed the definition of waters and wetlands subject to regulation. The definition was revised yet again and expanded by Biden administration this year, but the Supreme Court in May scaled it back in its decision.

“The uncertain meaning of ‘the waters of the United States’ has been a persistent problem, sparking decades of agency action and litigation,” according to the opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito and known as “Sackett v. EPA,” which also stated that, “The EPA’s insistence that ‘water’ is ‘naturally read to encompass wetlands’ because the ‘presence of water is ‘universally regarded as the most basic feature of wetlands’ proves too much.”

Mary Maclean Asbill, director of the North Carolina offices of the Southern Environmental Law Center, said it was difficult to describe how harmful the Farm Act is to North Carolina’s water quality, wildlife, fisheries and communities.

“North Carolina is setting the wrong example by failing to protect our wetlands after the Sackett opinion,” she said.

The law center noted that an acre of wetland can store about a million gallons of water, “so when developers and industry destroy wetlands, communities lose flood protection.”

It also noted that the state’s nearly $300 million wild-caught seafood economy could be put at risk.

Updated at 11 a.m. Tuesday: Gov. Roy Cooper signed into law Friday Senate Bill 465, “Cities/Remove & Dispose of Abandoned Vessels.”

Original report “Bill to OK removal of abandoned vessels awaits signature,” follows below:

Cities and now all county governments have the authority to remove abandoned vessels from navigable waters within their jurisdictions under a bill passed recently by the North Carolina General Assembly.

Legislative action on Senate Bill 465 came to a close on Thursday morning when the House approved the bill in a 108-0 vote.

The bill must be signed into law by Gov. Roy Cooper, who was presented the proposed law Friday.

The bill adds language to an existing general statute that allowed only the 20 Coastal Area Management Act counties to adopt ordinances to manage removal and disposal of abandoned vessels.

Abandoned vessels are defined as those either moored, anchored, or located more than 30 consecutive days within a 180-consecutive-day timespan without a dock owner’s permission, or a boat in danger of sinking, already sunk or resting on the bottom, poses a navigation hazard or is an immediate danger to other vessels.

Underwater archeological remains including shipwrecks, vessels, cargoes, and tackle in place for more than a decade are not considered abandoned and may not be moved without the approval of the N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.

Sens. Michael Lazzara, R-Onslow, Tom McInnis, R-Cumberland, and Norm Sanderson, R-Pamlico, introduced the bill April 3.

This story has been updated to clarify study findings.

Thousands of acres of wetlands in North Carolina stand to lose state protections under a new farm bill that would restrict how the state’s wetlands are defined.

The N.C. Farm Act of 2023 proposes to limit the definition of “wetlands to waters of the United States,” a rule that is currently being challenged in the nation’s highest court.

Environmentalists say the bill, if enacted, would strip the state’s ability to fill in gaps to protect federally nonjurisdictional wetlands, including isolated wetlands, which are those not directly connected to any body of water, but are hydrologically and ecologically valuable.

Concerns are also being raised about a provision in the bill that would change a rule requiring gases captured from hog waste lagoons be used to produce renewable energy.

The North Carolina General Assembly in 2015 passed a law regulating impacts to isolated wetlands, and the state Environmental Management Commission has adopted a temporary permitting rule for wetlands the state has identified as federally nonjurisdictional.

Those protections would be eliminated if the new farm bill passes, said Julie Youngman, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center.

“Wetlands act like a sponge in that they can absorb a lot of water,” she said. “When you have big storms and protected wetlands that are healthy and functioning as they should be functioning upstream, they’re absorbing water and keeping massive amounts of water from moving downstream and flooding downstream communities. To the extent you protect fewer wetlands you’re reducing that capacity.”

Isolated wetlands recharge groundwater and can store a lot of water, a function particularly important during coastal storms.

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-funded study several years ago assessed isolated wetlands in an eight-county area of southeastern North Carolina and northeastern South Carolina. The study concluded that there are about 50,000 isolated wetlands in the study area, including about 30,000 in the North Carolina portion, each averaging about two-thirds of an acre.

“The General Assembly passed a law setting aside tens of millions of dollars to help local governments prepare for flooding and recover from flooding and it just seems irresponsible and kind of wasteful of government resources and our taxpayers dollars to, on the one hand, pass a law designed to react and prevent and prepare and recover from flooding and then within a year and a half or two years, pass a law that will inevitably increase flooding or reduce the state’s ability to prepare for flooding,” Youngman said.

Earlier this year, the Biden administration released its final rule defining “waters of the United States”, or WOTUS.

Related: House falls short in move to override WOTUS-rollback veto

The rule reinstates federal protections for millions of acres of wetlands in North Carolina, putting back into place longstanding clean water protections for streams, lakes, ponds and upstream wetlands that significantly affect what are considered traditional navigable waters. Those include waterways that are used for commercial recreational use, territorial seas and interstate waters.

Both the U.S. House and Senate voted to overturn the Biden WOTUS rule, but efforts to halt the rule fell short last week when the House failed to clear the two-thirds mark needed to override Biden’s April 6 veto.

The final rule will ultimately be determined in the courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule any day now on a case challenging the legality of the testing method used for determining whether wetlands are “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.

There are also cases in Kentucky, North Dakota and Texas challenging the rule.

Solely relying on the WOTUS rule to classify wetlands would leave states at the mercy of a change in the federal landscape.

Grady McCallie, policy analyst with the N.C. Conservation Network, said the provision in the farm bill would hook the state to a contested question of the limit of federal authority under the U.S. Constitution.

That should not decide state policy, he said.

“What should decide our policy is what do we need to protect North Carolina communities and residents,” McCallie said. “In this case, it’s really clear we need to protect wetlands because they hold water and they prevent flooding downstream. That’s the chief reason this provision is a bad idea. We need to protect our wetlands for our own reasons. It doesn’t matter what the federal government does.”

Will Hendrick, the network’s environmental justice director, explained that the proposed bill would allow digesters, which are used to capture methane gas produced by hog waste, to be permitted, but not used.

“We’re particularly concerned that it could allow constant flaring of that gas,” he said.

North Carolina Pork Council Director of Government Affairs and Sustainability Angie Maier told WRAL that farmers are not going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to install digesters and not sell the gas.

The farm bill would require a new 25-foot buffer between farms and trout streams and raise the penalty for spilling animal waste along state roads.

Leaders of North Carolina’s House and Senate have announced committee appointments, including numerous legislators representing coastal districts, for the 2023 long session that begins next week.

House Speaker Tim Moore announced Tuesday that state House committees had been formed. Senate Leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, announced his chamber’s committee appointments Jan. 10.

Both chambers of the North Carolina General Assembly are scheduled to convene at noon Wednesday, Jan. 23.

“As the long session gets underway, I look forward to working with this bipartisan group of leaders to ensure an even stronger North Carolina. We have a strong group of committee chairs this session, and I am confident that they will continue to propel our state forward and to the top of the pack,” Moore said in a statement.

Legislators representing coastal districts were appointed to House committees as follows:

• Agriculture – Rep. Edward C. Goodwin, a Republican representing Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Perquimans, Tyrrell and Washington counties, as member; and Rep. Keith Kidwell, a Republican representing Beaufort, Dare, Hyde and Pamlico counties, as member.
• Alcoholic Beverage Control – Rep. Shelly Willingham, a democrat representing Bertie, Edgecombe and Martin counties, as chair.
• Appropriations – Reps. George G. Cleveland, R-Onslow; Ted Davis, Jr., R-New Hanover; Rep. Goodwin; Frank Iler, R-Brunswick; Charles W. Miller, R-Brunswick and New Hanover; Phil Shepard, R-Onslow; and Carson Smith, R-Onslow and Pender, as vice chairs. Reps. Celeste C. Cairns, R-Carteret and Craven counties; Bill Ward, R-Camden, Gates, Hertford and Pasquotank; and Rep. Willingham as members.
• Appropriations, Agriculture and Natural and Economic Resources – Rep. Goodwin as chair and Rep. Cairns as member.
• Appropriations, General Government — Rep. Cleveland as chair and Rep. Ward as member.
• Appropriations, Justice and Public Safety – Reps. Davis, Miller and Smith as chairs.
• Appropriations, Transportation – Reps. Iler and Shepard as chairs and Rep. Willingham as a member.
• Banking – Rep. Deb Butler, D-New Hanover; Rep. Cairns; Rep. Kidwell; Steve Tyson, R-Craven, as members.
• Commerce – Rep. Tyson as vice chair and Reps. Butler, Iler and Shepard as members.
• Disaster Recovery and Homeland Security – Rep. Davis as a member.
• Education – Community Colleges – Rep. Tyson as a member.
• Education – K-12 – Reps. Iler and Shepard as members.
• Education – Universities – Rep. Davis as a member.
• Election Law and Campaign Finance Reform — Reps. Davis, Iler and Willingham as members.
• Energy and Public Utilities – Rep. Miller as a vice chair and Rep. Cairns as a member.
• Environment – Rep. Iler as a chair, Davis as a vice chair and Goodwin and Kidwell as a member.
• Ethics – Rep. Davis as a member.
• Federal Relations and American Indian Affairs – Rep. Willingham as a member.
• Finance – Rep. Kidwell as a senior chair, Tyson as chair and Butler as a member.
• Health – Reps. Tyson and Shepard as a members.
• Insurance — Rep. Willingham as a vice chair and Reps. Cleveland and Tyson as members.
• Judiciary 1 – Rep. Davis as chair.
• Judiciary 2 – Rep. Miller as vice chair, Rep. Smith as a member.
• Judiciary 3 – Rep. Kidwell as a member.
• Local Government — Rep. Miller as a member.
• Marine Resources and Aquaculture – Rep. Cleveland as chair, Rep. Cairns as vice chair and Reps. Goodwin, Iler, Kidwell and Miller as members.
• Military and Veterans Affairs – Rep. Goodwin as a chair, Rep. Cleveland as a vice chair and Rep. Cairns as a member.
• Oversight Reform – Reps. Cleveland and Willingham as members.
• Pensions and Retirement – Rep. Smith as a chair.
• Regulatory Reform — Reps. Butler and Kidwell as members.
• Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House – Reps. Davis, Tyson and Willingham as members.
• State Government — Rep. Ward as member.
• State Personnel – Reps. Goodwin and Willingham as members.
• Transportation – Reps. Tyson and Shepard as a chair, Reps. Cleveland and Iler as vice chairs and Reps. Butler, Goodwin and Miller as members.
• UNC Board of Governors Nominations – Rep. Davis as a vice chair.
• Unemployment Insurance – Rep. Butler as a member.
• Wildlife Resources – Rep. Smith as a member.

A complete list of committee assignments is available on the House speaker’s website.

Senate committee appointments

Berger, in his announcement earlier this month, described committees as “integral” to the legislature’s work.

“The committee meetings allow for debate, compromise, and public input, to produce legislation that becomes law,” Sen. Berger said in a statement. “I want to thank all of the Senators for their willingness to bring their expertise to help create a better North Carolina.”

Sen. Berger plans to appoint the following legislators representing coastal districts:

• Agriculture, Energy, and Environment — Sens. Brent Jackson, a Republican who represents Bladen, Duplin, Jones, Pender, Sampson counties, and Norman W. Sanderson, a Republican who represents Carteret, Chowan, Dare, Hyde, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Perquimans and Washington counties, as chairs. Sens. Bobby Hanig, a Republican who represents Bertie, Camden, Currituck, Gates, Halifax, Hertford, Martin, Northampton, Tyrrell and Warren counties, and Bill Rabon, a Republican who represents Brunswick, Columbus and New Hanover counties were named as members.
• Appropriations/Base Budget — Sens. Jackson, and Michael V. Lee, a Republican representing New Hanover counties as chairs and Sens. Rabon and Sanderson as members.
• Commerce and Insurance — Sens. Brent Jackson and Jim Perry, a Republican who represents Beaufort, Craven and Lenoir counties, as members.
• Education/Higher Education — Sen. Lee as chair and Sens. Hanig, Michael A. Lazzara, a Republican representing Onslow County, and Sanderson as members.
• Finance — Sens. Rabon and Perry as chair and Sens. Jackson, Lazzara and Lee as members.
• Health Care — Sen. Perry as member.
• Judiciary — Sens. Lazzara, Lee and Sanderson as members.
• Pensions and Retirement and Aging — Sen. Hanig as member.
• Redistricting and Elections — Sens. Jackson, Perry, Rabon and Sanderson as members.
• Rules and Operations of the Senate — Sen. Rabon as chair with members Sens. Jackson, Lee, Perry and Sanderson.
• State and Local Government — Sens. Hanig and Lazzara as members.
• Transportation — Sen. Lazzara as chair with Sen. Rabon as member.
• Joint Legislative Committee on Governmental Operations — Sen. Burger as chair. Sens. Jackson, Lee, Perry, Rabon and Sanderson as members.
• Select Committee on Nominations — Sen. Rabon as chair. Sens. Jackson and Sanderson as members.
• Appropriations on Agriculture, Natural, and Economic Resources — Sen. Sanderson as chair.
• Appropriations on Education/Higher Education — Sen. Hanig as member.
• Appropriations on Justice and Public Safety — Sen. Sanderson as member.
• Appropriations on Department of Transportation — Sen. Lazzara as chair and Sen. Rabon as member.

A complete list of Senate committee assignments is available on the Senate leader’s website.

Several North Carolina environmental groups are backing Gov. Roy Cooper’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the legislature-appointed commission tasked with reviewing and approving rules adopted by state agencies.

The Southern Environmental Law Center recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Wake County Superior Court on behalf of the groups supporting the governor’s challenge to the North Carolina Rules Review Commission.

The governor’s office filed a lawsuit in the same court two years ago, arguing that the commission, which was created by and whose members are selected by the General Assembly, violates the state constitution’s Separation of Powers clause.

That clause mandates that the legislative, executive and supreme judicial powers of the state government “shall be forever separate and distinct from each other.”

The environmental groups supporting the governor’s challenge include Cape Fear River Watch, Carolina Wetlands Association, CleanAIRE NC, Democracy Green, Haw River Assembly, MountainTrue, North Carolina Black Alliance, Sound Rivers, West End Revitalization Association and the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review.

“The groups we represent in the amicus wanted to join to show how this matters in real life and demonstrate that this isn’t just a meaningless power struggle between the governor and the legislature. This is about things that affect real people,” said Kym Meyer, a senior attorney with Southern Environmental Law Center.

The case is pending before a three-judge panel of state Superior Court judges and a hearing has been set for Nov. 9.

Challenging absolute power

Whether the rule is one that a state agency has created about wetlands protections or cadmium exposure in the workplace, the Rules Review Commission determines which rules do and do not make it on the books.

“It’s not about something about a license plate,” Meyer said. “It’s about E. coli in your water or which wells we’re going to protect or climate change issues and so the stakes are really high and dramatically affect the interests of all the client groups who signed on who are working really hard to protect resources, but can only do so if government agencies are going to be able to do their job and enforce the law.”

In the decade before the General Assembly created the Rules Review Commission in 1986, legislators had formed the Administrative Rules Review Commission, a panel of nine legislators who could object to, but not veto, proposed rules.

Related: Rules Review Commission meets Sept. 15

The Rules Review Commission, a 10-member body for which the legislature’s appointees serve two years, remained an advisory board until the mid-1990s when a series of amendments were made to the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act.

In 2003, rulemaking agencies were granted the right to file for court-issued judgments in cases where the commission vetoed proposed rules.

The structure of the Rules Review Commission has, for years, been subject to lengthy legal debates and its decisions have been challenged over the years.

In 2004, the Environmental Management Commission sued the Rules Review Commission for declining proposed stormwater rules opposed by real estate developers and homebuilders. A few years later, the General Assembly approved a compromise that included scaled-back requirements for protecting water quality.

In 2014, the North Carolina State Board of Education filed a lawsuit against the commission, arguing the board of education was not constitutionally bound to submit its policies to the Rules Review Commission.

Three years later, an appellate court overturned a lower court’s ruling in favor of the board of education.

Two of the three appellate court judges who reviewed the case determined the Rules Review Commission is authorized to review and approve the board’s policies.

The dissenting judge argued that the state constitution gives the state board of education, not the Rules Review Commission, the power to administer and supervise public education.

A roadblock in the process

The environmental groups, Meyer said, are starting to feel like the commission is putting a roadblock in the rule implementation process by either slowing it down, stopping it, or potentially leading to agencies shying away from creating rules.

A 2004 paper published in the North Carolina Law Review points out that unlike administrative agencies, the commission is not restricted from being contacted by lobbyists.

Powerful lobbying groups get a voice in the legislative process, one that includes votes that go before both the House and Senate and, if passed, are signed off by the governor.

“That’s how we make law,” Meyer said. “But the problem here is this isn’t about making law. This isn’t the legislative process. This is about how, once laws are on the books, how they’re actually enforced in real time and that’s the governor’s job.”

Environmental justice groups that have aligned with the governor’s challenge to the Rules Review Commission depend on the governor to be able to do that job, Meyer said.

“They don’t have the same level of voice in the legislative process that powerful, rich interests might have so you can see the more political all of these processes become the more problematic it is for marginalized communities,” she said.

The Rules Review Commission is expected to consider proposed, temporary and permanent rules submitted by several state commissions and boards, such as the Environmental Management and Coastal Resources commissions when it meets in September.

The Rules Review Commission meets in-person Sept. 15 at 1711 New Hope Church Road in Raleigh, with limited capacity for the public. The public can view the meeting online using WebEx. Password is 1234. To listen by phone, call 1-415-655-0003 and use access code 2429 743 6092.

The Rules Review Commission is the executive agency created by the General Assembly in 1986 and charged with reviewing and approving rules adopted by state agencies.

The Environmental Management Commission is on the agenda because of an objection by the rules commission made during its May meeting. The Coastal Resources Commission asked for an extension to give staff more time to address technical changes in dozens of rules during the July meeting, which is to be followed-up during the September meeting.

The agenda, which includes links detailing the actions taken so far with the review of these rules and others, is available on the state Office of Administrative Hearings website.

The public may submit written comments or sign up to speak at a commission meeting, but the commission may only consider comments based upon statutory authority, clarity, necessity and compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

To submit comments on a permanent rule, email rrc.comments@oah.nc.gov and copy the agency’s rulemaking coordinator on the email by Sept. 8. 

To submit comments on a temporary rule, email rrc.comments@oah.nc.gov and copy the agency’s rulemaking coordinator on the email by Sept. 14.

To speak for or against a rule during an commission meeting, email the staff attorney handling the rule to request to speak and state whether you will speak in favor of or in opposition to the rule. 

Staff attorney assignments are noted next to rules on the agenda below and contact information can be found online. The deadline to sign up to speak regarding a permanent rule is Sept. 13, and the deadline to speak regarding a temporary rule is Sept. 15. 

Reprinted from The Daily Advance

Elizabeth City has never paid a lobbyist to advocate for the city before the General Assembly but that is about to change.

City council’s finance committee unanimously voted last week to begin the process of hiring former state Sen. Bob Steinburg as the city’s lobbyist in Raleigh. All eight councilors serve on the finance committee.

Steinburg, who lost his bid for reelection in the May Republican primary, resigned from the state Senate July 31 to pursue work as a lobbyist.

While Steinburg is able to recruit clients, he can’t officially begin lobbying efforts until Feb. 1. State law requires that state lawmakers spend a “6-month cooling off period” after leaving the General Assembly before becoming a lobbyist. Steinburg resigned in July so he could begin lobbying efforts in next year’s session of the General Assembly.

City Councilor Johnson Biggs raised the issue of hiring a lobbyist at Monday’s meeting so that the city can have someone in the state’s capital seeking state money for projects. Pasquotank currently retains Jackson Stancil as its lobbyist. It previously retained the McClees Consulting firm.

The General Assembly is scheduled to reconvene for a long session sometime in January.

“What (Steinburg) would be providing us with is access to leaders, budget writers in the General Assembly,” Biggs said. “(Steinburg) could uncover opportunities for additional funding that we may not know about. (Steinburg) could also help us get appointments that we otherwise wouldn’t get with leadership on both sides in the House and Senate.’’

Steinburg served six years in the House before being elected to a pair of two-year terms in the state Senate, which Biggs said is a plus.

“Given Sen. Steinburg was a colleague of these individuals, it is going to give us a little better access than if one of us picks up the phone and calls one of the chief budget writers,” Biggs said. “Those people at the table making these decisions are not from northeast North Carolina.”

Biggs said a strong estimate of paying Steinburg would be $36,000 a year, or $3,000 a month. Council unanimously approved negotiating an agreement with Steinburg that would be brought back to City Council for final approval.

“We will hammer out some details and bring it back,” Biggs said.

Mayor Kirk Rivers said that the city needs representation in the state capital. Rivers does not vote unless there is a tie among the eight councilors.

“I know in the past several weeks, I’ve said I am going to go to Raleigh but it seems that something always comes up and we never make it to Raleigh,” Rivers said. “We have a lot of needs and we need to have someone constantly in Raleigh to call.”

Councilor Johnnie Walton agreed with Rivers, saying the city needs someone “at the table” in Raleigh.

“If you are not at the table, you don’t know what is on the menu,” Walton said. “(Steinburg) has been touching shoulders with a lot of the people that are in Raleigh and that will be an asset. We need contacts and I think it possibly could be a good thing.’’

Councilor Javis Gibbs said Steinburg’s service in the General Assembly speaks for itself.

“(Steinburg) has a passion for northeastern North Carolina,” Gibbs said. “Sometimes you have to spend money to make money and I think this will be a good investment overall.’’

Councilor Joe Peel, who is a former mayor, said in the past the city felt it didn’t need a lobbyist because the area’s representatives “were fairly local.” Steinburg, of Chowan, was defeated in the GOP primary by state Sen. Norman Sanderson, R-Pamlico, in the newly configured 1st Senate District that stretches all the way to Carteret County.

“We knew them and that has changed,” Peel said.

If the proposal is approved, the city wouldn’t start paying Steinburg until February.

“My whole purpose is to only have clients in northeastern North Carolina to work with them and help them,” Steinburg said.

Steinburg said that even though he couldn’t be paid until next year he would be willing to meet with city leaders to discuss priorities for next year’s legislative session. He said he can now legally go out and solicit clients like the city but that any contracts he signs have to have a start date of Feb. 1, 2023.

“I can meet with them, plan with them, but I can’t advocate for them until Feb. 1,” Steinburg said. “I can’t be paid 10 cents until Feb. 1.”

Steinburg said he will also advocate for the city at the federal level if needed, most likely with the assistance of another lobbyist. If that happens, Steinburg would pay that lobbyist out of the money he receives monthly from the city.

“The city would not have to pay anybody else,” Steinburg said. “I would be able to use my contacts with the folks up in Washington after Feb. 1.”

Rivers said that City Council will need to also need to be involved in lobbying efforts going forward.

“We still have to follow up,” Rivers said. “We have to go up at least once every two months to make sure we are constantly contacting our legislators.’’

The city may be just the first of Steinburg’s potential clients in the area. Camden County Manager Erin Burke confirmed Friday that Camden commissioners plan to hold a special meeting Wednesday where one of the topics for discussion will be a proposal to hire Steinburg as a lobbyist.

Burke said the county previously retained a paid lobbyist but hadn’t had one in at least three years.

According to Daily Advance archives, Camden commissioners hired McClees Consulting in January 2015 and then voted to end the contract nearly four years later, in December 2018. At the time, the county was paying McClees $20,000 a year for two years.

The Daily Advance is a newspaper based in Elizabeth City and serving Chowan, Camden, Currituck, Pasquotank and Perquimans counties. Coastal Review is partnering with The Daily Advance to provide readers with more stories of interest about our coast.

Reprinted from the Daily Advance

EDENTON — State Rep. Bobby Hanig is headed to the state Senate.

Republican officials from the 11 counties in the 1st Senate District unanimously selected Hanig to replace former state Sen. Bob Steinburg, who resigned last month.

Hanig, R-Currituck, was the only candidate nominated at a meeting attended by 41 GOP officials at the Historic 1767 Chowan County Courthouse Thursday night.

Hanig will be sworn in no later than next Friday. Gov. Roy Cooper has seven days to approve the move and if he doesn’t, then Hanig’s nomination will automatically take effect. Cooper cannot veto the local GOP’s decision.

“It was beyond humbling,” Hanig said after the unanimous vote. “The enthusiasm of everybody there just blew me away. After the vote was finalized the ovation and the cheers just blew me away.”

Steinburg, R-Chowan, resigned July 31 to become a lobbyist when the General Assembly convenes in January. State law requires former legislators to have a six-month “cooling off” period — be out of office — before beginning lobbying activities.

Hanig will serve until December when the next General Assembly is sworn in. Hanig is currently running for the 3rd Senate District seat and faces Democrat Valerie Jordan in the November election.

The Daily Advance is a newspaper based in Elizabeth City and serving Chowan, Camden, Currituck, Pasquotank and Perquimans counties. Coastal Review is partnering with the Daily Advance to provide readers with more stories of interest about our coast.

ROANOKE ISLAND — Back in 1995 when people mostly used landlines, my home phone rang late one afternoon. Answering, I heard a cheery voice, thick with an Outer Banks brogue, asking for me: “This is Senator Marc Basnight. What can I do to help you?”

Then, widely considered the most powerful man in North Carolina, Basnight served for a record-breaking nine terms as Senate leader out of a total of the 13 terms he served from 1985 until his retirement in early 2011. Since his death Dec. 28, 2020, many have remembered the profound impact Manteo’s native son had on not only higher education and roads, but the state’s environment.

“He was a major force when it came to shaping the environmental policy,” said Todd Miller, founder and executive director of the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review and is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. “I think he made it acceptable to be an environmentalist. As one of the most powerful people in North Carolina, he gave the whole movement legitimacy.”

Basnight’s unlikely rise to power and his remarkable career is the topic of the 88th annual Daniels Day Family Reunion set for 3:30 p.m. Sunday at Bethany United Methodist Church in Wanchese. The featured speaker is Alex Gottshalk, who grew up in Currituck County and had written his senior thesis on Basnight while attending the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. The public is welcome.

The Manteo Democrat was a huge force on the Outer Banks, where his family went back generations. When I realized who I was talking to on that early spring day, I was taken aback. I was a newcomer to North Carolina, and Basnight knew nothing about me.

But just days before, I had called his office to complain about a local health food store banning children from coming inside the building. Soon enough, his chief of staff had followed up with helpful information. I learned that constituent service was not a periodic campaign pledge to Basnight, it was a practice.

From his earliest days in the public eye, Basnight ended up being a lot more than his humble style revealed.

Miller said he first encountered Basnight around 1986, when he talked about the importance of estuaries at an early meeting about the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Partnership.

“You know, he’d been in the development business in Dare County,” Miller said, referring to the Basnight family construction company. “He really emerged over the years. He was such a quick study and learned as he went.”

As time went on and Basnight got a deeper understanding of an issue, Miller said, he could become as much of an advocate for environmental rules as sometimes a critic.

“He really emerged over the years. He was such a quick study and learned as he went. I think some of these early concerns about how we were managing the environment, as he got more deeply into the issue, he began to better understand the rationale and was as much of an advocate for these rules as sometimes a critic. “

Miller worked with Basnight on numerous environmental issues, including water quality and oyster restoration, and witnessed his active engagement on environment protection.

He was critical of the state Department of Transportation’s use of sandbags as a Band-Aid approach, Miller recalled. He disliked them for “hardening” the beach, and favored beach nourishment as a more compatible approach to protecting the roads. He championed passage of legislation that put into law the state Division of Coastal Management’s regulation banning seawalls.

In 1994, to mark the 20th anniversary of the Coastal Area Management Act, Basnight gave a talk at a conference in Wilmington in support of more state investment in land acquisition for environmental protection. By the next year, he initiated work on legislation creating and funding what would soon be known as the Clean Water Management Trust Fund.

“But that was the first time in public that he really spoke about the need for such an initiative,” Miller said. “And then he made it happen.”

“It definitely put us on the map in terms of state investments,” he said. “Up until that time trying to find money to buy environmentally sensitive properties or to do habitat restoration was really, really difficult to get any state money to do that. And for a number of years, they had more than $100 million to spend.”

Although there was concern after Basnight retired that the trust fund — regarded as one the most important state environmental stewardship programs — would be eliminated, it not only survived, but it is continuing to grow in popularity as a bipartisan program.

But Basnight “had his hands in so many things,” Miller said.

“I think he was always an advocate for what he viewed as sort of the normal working person in the state,” he said. “So he saw things through the eyes of ‘What does it really take to improve the way of life in communities?’ And he wasn’t shy about trying to give resources to the causes.

“He was a hands-on individual. He could be your best friend or your worst nightmare.”
That rapport was likely a big reason for his effectiveness as a politician.

“I think he related to the people he was representing very closely. They were very important to him. And it is through his understanding of their needs and perspectives, he tried hard to represent them. At the same time, he liked to learn new things and advance new ideas. He wasn’t stuck in the past.”

He had the legislative building switch to LED lighting and to use real silverware and compostable paper products. He embraced living shorelines early on. He pushed for energy efficiency. He banned plastic bags on the Outer Banks, a measure since repealed.

“He tried to understand really what was behind the environmental concerns. I think he wanted common sense tech solutions. He wasn’t in favor of regulating people out of business or making it so tough that people couldn’t comply. If it made sense and if it was practical and it could be done, he wanted to see it done. “

Rolf Blizzard, who had served as Basnight’s chief of staff, said that Basnight’s visionary environmental policies were directly influenced by his life near, on and in the Outer Banks’ ocean and sounds.

“I think it was a genuine appreciation and respect for the water and what it provided that drove that environmental support,” he said in an interview.

But Basnight was able to understand the comprehensive nature of what it took to clean up the environment, and was willing to apply policy not just to where the problem was, but what was creating it.

Blizzard said that Basnight always liked to be outside. Even in Raleigh, he would change into his shorts and T-shirt and take a walk for a couple of hours. At the Outer Banks, he’d walk on the beach and jump into the ocean for a swim.

Blizzard would accompany the senator when they drove back and forth across the state, and most of the time Basnight would drive. Their talks along the way covered multiple subjects, including Basnight urging Blizzard to marry his then-girlfriend Ashley.

“Those rides with him were just legendary,” he said.

Blizzard said that Basnight’s impressive constituent service was inspired by Republican U.S. Sen. Jesse Helm’s office, where anybody could call and they would get help. Basnight expected his staff to not only be responsive, he said, but also to “press the bureaucracy.” It was not unusual for Basnight to answer the phone at the office if his staff couldn’t pick up quick enough.

“We were probably getting a couple of hundred calls a day in the office,” he said. Blizzard joked that instead of hiring a lobbyist, people could just go buy a $16 meal at the family restaurant in Nags Head, Basnight’s Lone Cedar Cafe, and chat with the senator, who routinely greeted customers and even served tables.

“Every Monday, you knew there was going to be a crush of calls coming in because he would be in the Lone Cedar pouring tea over the course of the weekend,” said Blizzard.

Basnight saw helping people as not only a rewarding mission, but as a responsibility.

“I mean, his support of the university system was legendary, but his just everyman approach, to being able to connect and build relationships regardless of your status in life was honestly what his legacy was,” Blizzard said.

But Basnight also went to bat for state agencies, fighting for more funds or staff.

“He fought just as vigorously for the bureaucracy,” he said.

For his part, Gottshalk, who never got to interview Basnight, said that the environment was the winner in the senator’s mastery of politics.

“The best benefit that Basnight had with respect to the environment, besides just caring about it, was the fact that he knew how to navigate the system. And so rather than just enact programs, he funded — and knew how to fund — the programs.”

The last time I saw the senator was a few years after he retired, standing at the takeout counter at a Nags Head eatery. He was wearing a salmon-colored polo shirt, and looked trim and tan. When I greeted him, he responded warmly and we shared some small talk.

“It’s so great to see you,” I said, as he grabbed his order and turned to leave. “We all miss you.”

Basnight looked directly at me, smiling his crooked grin

“Oh, bullshit!” he said, chuckling.

That’s when I knew the master politician really had retired.

A bill in the North Carolina General Assembly would hold Chemours Co. financially liable for contaminating drinking water supplies in the Cape Fear region.

Rep. Ted Davis Jr., R-New Hanover, recently introduced House Bill 1095, which would authorize the Environmental Management Commission to adopt maximum levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, safe for human consumption. It would then give the state environmental secretary power to order the responsible party to pay a public water system for any unnecessary costs to remove, correct or evade any adverse effects on the water supply from PFAS contamination.

Rep. Frank Iler, R-Brunswick; Rep. Charles Miller, R-Brunswick-New Hanover; and Minority Democratic House Leader, Rep. Robert Reives II, D-Durham, are cosponsors.

Davis, speaking during a press conference Thursday, said that in North Carolina, everyone should have access to clean drinking water.

“For too long residents in my legislative district in New Hanover County have dealt with contamination from a known polluter,” he said, adding that residents in other nearby counties had the same concerns.

Residents shouldn’t have to pay for safe water when there is a known responsible party for contamination, Davis said, referring to the Chemours Co.’s Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County.

“Since 2017, the public water system has incurred enormous expenses to identify and install treatment methods to reduce the PFAS contamination in the drinking water that they give to their customers to consume,” Davis said. “The intent of House Bill 1095 is to make such calls payable by a responsible party and not the ratepayers of that public system.”

The bill passed a first reading May 27 and was referred to a House judiciary committee that met Thursday after the press conference.

The measure would include a $2 million appropriation to the Department of Environmental Quality for implementation of the bill’s provisions and $2 million to the North Carolina Collaboratory to research the maximum contaminant levels that the department would establish for PFAS. The bill would provide retroactive relief to Jan. 1, 2017, the year the news of PFAS contamination was first reported by the Wilmington StarNews.

DEQ Secretary Elizabeth Biser also spoke Thursday during the press conference, saying that the department was committed to addressing the contamination by holding polluters accountable and protecting communities from the effects of PFAS contamination. She said the adoption of enforceable drinking water standards for PFAS would be a critical step forward because there are no federal drinking water standards for PFAS.

Davis said the bill would apply only to businesses in North Carolina that manufacture PFAS and discharge it into the environment, affecting public water systems. The measure would not apply to fire departments that use PFAS-containing firefighting foam.

The North Carolina League in Municipalities supports the measure, as do utilities officials. Brunswick County Public Utilities Director John Nichols and Cape Fear Public Utility Authority Executive Director Kenneth Waldron expressed support for the bill during a public comment portion of the judiciary committee meeting. Both utilities are spending millions to make the water safe to drink. Brunswick is working on a $100 million upgrade and Cape Fear has invested $46 million to date.

Chemours opposes the measure. Jeff Fritz, the company’s state government affairs lead, called it unnecessary. He said the bill would “undermine due process.”

The North Carolina Manufacturers Alliance and NC Chamber are also among the bill’s opponents.

Last year was a banner year for farmed oyster production in North Carolina, with a 111% increase compared to the previous year.

The state’s shellfish industry had $27 million in economic impact and supported 532 jobs in 2019, according to the latest available economic totals, and various groups are working together to double the number of jobs by the end of the decade.

Legislation introduced last week would fund numerous projects to protect coastal water quality to the tune of $8.5 million. Of that, $1 million is to match a federal grant for oyster sanctuary development, which is seen as key to growing oyster populations, improving water quality and supporting the shellfish industry.

On Thursday, Rep. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, filed House Bill 1151, which would provide money for living shorelines, oyster sanctuaries, marine debris cleanup and other water quality projects and for promoting the North Carolina Oyster Trail, a collaborative effort to promote oyster-based tourism experiences aimed at culinary travelers. The measure passed a first reading Tuesday and was referred to the House appropriations committee.

Hanig introduced the measure after a meeting Tuesday of the Marine Resources and Aquaculture Committee, which he chairs. The meeting included presentations by various groups seeking to advance the oyster farming industry and wild oyster restoration efforts, including seafood purveyors and the nonprofit North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, North Carolina Sea Grant and the North Carolina Shellfish Growers Association.

“This bill provides policy guidance and more financial resources to enhance water quality and the resiliency of our coastal communities while increasing the productivity of our coast’s fishery habitats,” said Coastal Federation Executive Director Todd Miller.

Demand for NC oysters outpacing supply

Ryan Speckman and Lin Peterson launched Locals Seafood out of the back of a truck in Raleigh in 2010, specializing in North Carolina seafood. They told the House committee that back then, the product was all wild oysters.

Now, Speckman said, they’re probably the largest distributor of different varieties of North Carolina farmed oysters. The seafood company trucks in oysters from all along the state’s coastline to distribute to restaurants, markets and stores in the Triangle. The company also operates two oyster bars, one in downtown Raleigh and the other in downtown Durham. 

Speckman said the oyster industry is “definitely an area that we can see more growth, and there’s a lot more potential.”

Peterson added that even though the company is built on connecting North Carolina consumers with North Carolina products, demand is greater than supply and the company must bring in oysters from out of state.

But, there’s evidence that the state’s oyster industry is growing to meet the demand.

Jane Harrison, North Carolina Sea Grant coastal economics specialist, told the committee that the goal of a $100 million shellfish industry in North Carolina that supports 1,000 jobs by 2030 was possible, “looking at our trajectory over the last few years.”

The goals had been set as part of the 2019 North Carolina Strategic Plan for Shellfish Mariculture that the legislature had mandated two years earlier.

Harrison said that 2019 was the first year that farmed oysters contributed more than wild oysters in total economic value. Although there were over the past decade declining production values for wild oysters and clams, market growth for farmed oysters is “really bringing the value to our shellfish industry these days,” she told the committee.

Evidence of that growth can be seen in the number of shellfish farming leases. From 2020 to 2021, Harrison said there was a 10% increase in the number of leases. She added that North Carolina is seeing mostly water column leases, which allow floating cages, and bottom leases where oysters are grown below the surface. “We see higher productivity, really a better investment,” with water column leases, she said.

During the period, there was a 22% increase in water column lease acreage.

“Why does that matter? Again, because these (water column leases) are more productive. So because we have more productive farms coming online, we’re going to hopefully have much higher production numbers, shellfish landings and economic value,” Harrison said.

Although hurricanes and the coronavirus pandemic had slowed interest somewhat, the trend is improving again.

“We are seeing a pickup just from last year,” Harrison said, “a 16% increase in the number of applications to establish these kinds of farms.”

Along with the growth in oyster farming, Harrison said the decline in wild oyster harvests could be reversed.

“We can bring those back if we improve water quality, if we invest in oyster sanctuaries, in the habitat that supports them. The farmed oysters are making up some of the some of the losses,” she said.

Closed to shellfishing

The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has an interactive map on its website that shows where waters are temporarily or permanently closed to shellfishing because of pollution. Other waters are off-limits to shellfishing because of moratoriums on shellfish leasing. 

Sanctuaries not only create oyster habitat, they also lead to improved water quality.

Erin Fleckenstein, coastal specialist with the North Carolina Coastal Federation and a presenter during the committee meeting, told members that much progress had been made in the year since the most recent update on the North Carolina Oyster Blueprint, a plan for restoring and protecting oyster habitat. More than 50 stakeholders across the state worked on the blueprint.

“We’ve made a lot of progress in the last year since that blueprint has come out,” Fleckenstein told the committee, adding that the successes have been because of the state’s investment in the oyster industry and improving water quality.

A program to build oyster sanctuaries is on track to reach the Oyster Blueprint goal of building an additional 100 acres of oyster sanctuary in Pamlico Sound by 2025. Fleckenstein said the sanctuary program had a 25-year track record of success and “we’re poised really well to reach that goal of 500 acres of oyster sanctuary by 2025.”

There are currently 15 oyster sanctuaries in Pamlico Sound as part of the Sen. Jean Preston Oyster Sanctuary Network that together cover about 260 acres. Oyster sanctuaries make up only about 6% of all oyster reefs in Pamlico Sound but contribute nearly 40% of the sound’s oyster population.

Harvesting is prohibited in oyster sanctuaries. They are protected to encourage growth of large, healthy oyster populations. Each year, the oysters produce millions of eggs that are carried by currents and tides to surrounding areas.

Jason Peters, who oversees the sanctuary, artificial reef and cultch planting programs for the North Carolina Division Marine Fisheries, told the committee that oyster sanctuaries are half of a two-prong approach to restoring the oyster population. The other prong is the open-harvest cultch-planting program, which supports the wild-harvest industry. The division builds the open-harvest reefs, and when the oysters reach the right size they can be harvested.

Pamlico Sound is the primary focus of the sanctuary program, Peters said.

Each oyster sanctuary site covers about 80 acres. Work began last year on Cedar Island sanctuary, the current project, which is permitted to be about 75 acres and expected to be complete in 2024.

“Oyster sanctuaries do in fact strengthen and support the oyster population in Pamlico Sound,” Peters said. The sanctuary sites produce lots of oyster larvae, which is dispersed into the water column and then settles on reef sites.

While the sites represent a small fraction of the total oyster habitat in Pamlico Sound, sanctuaries in the sound are producing about 25% of the larvae that are supplied to the ecosystem.

Peters emphasized the sanctuary network’s role in supporting the entire Pamlico Sound oyster population.

“Those larvae spread all throughout the Pamlico Sound and support reefs that are open to harvest. They subsidize commercially harvested reefs with critically important larvae,” he said. “And among other benefits, they are spectacular water filters, filtering dramatic amount of water with a small area so quite a benefit. and they last a long time and then.”

Not only are the oyster sanctuaries providing habitat for fish and oysters, but they’re also creating economic opportunities in coastal communities, said Fleckenstein, who cited Stephens Towing Co. as an example. The company has long worked with the federation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in building reefs in Pamlico Sound.

Will Hollowell, the company’s operations manager, told the committee that the company was equipped to build reefs at the right pace and at the right price. With one barge, more than 1,000 tons of rock or other materials can be placed in a day. And the work also employs others, such as the truck drivers who are moving rock from North Carolina quarries to the barge operators who are coastal residents. 

Along with reefs, demand for living shorelines has continued to grow, Fleckenstein told the committee. She said living shorelines also provide oyster habitat and they gird shorelines from erosion and protect and improve water quality, which is key to supporting the shellfish industry.

“We don’t want to risk the great reputation of North Carolina oysters by having people getting sick (from) eating oysters that are grown in poor water quality,” she said.

Fleckenstein told Coastal Review that Hanig had requested annual updates to the committee on the progress. She said the legislature’s desire to understand the progress being made in North Carolina’s oyster work was encouraging.

Less encouraging, as members of the committee noted, were moratoriums that prevent development of oyster farming operations in certain waters.

One moratorium in Brunswick County dates back to 1967 and another for a portion of Core Sound to 1993. The General Assembly in 2019 enacted shellfish moratoriums in waters from the Wrightsville Beach drawbridge through Masonboro Inlet to the mouth of Snows Cut in New Hanover County and in Bogue Sound in Carteret County that were to expire in 2021 but were extended last year until 2026.

Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, suggested that the committee consider ways to address the moratoriums. Hanig agreed, saying it was imperative.

“This industry impacts traditionally low-wealth counties, and we do everything we can to build them up,” Hanig said.

Chris Matteo, head of North Carolina Shellfish Growers Association, a trade association representing about 70 growers in the state, and owner of Carteret County-based Chadwick Oysters, explained how much the shellfish industry means economically. North Carolina oysters are being sold out of state and that money is coming back into the state’s economy, he said.

“The impact on the state’s rural economic development is also meaningful and expanding every year. A lot of us grow oysters in areas that are not a great place to make a living, and it’s really impacting the local economies in a positive way,” said Matteo.

He told the committee that investments made in the shellfish industry “are really beginning to pay off.” The fact that the industry continues to grow after storms and during the pandemic, he said, “is really a testament to your support and to the tenacity of the group that grows shellfish in the state.”  

Reprinted from Carolina Public Press

North Carolinians know, finally, what political maps they will use to elect representatives to the U.S. House in 2022. 

On Monday evening, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request from state Republican legislative leadership to stop an order from state courts from going into effect. 

North Carolina will go forward with its primary elections on May 17, the candidate filing period that completed on Friday will stand, and a map that a panel of trial court judges drew will be used to elect the state’s 14 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, but only for this year’s election.  

Three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dissented and wrote they would have stopped that map from being used, instead reverting to the map the state Supreme Court declared an unconstitutional gerrymander and which would have all but guaranteed Republicans at least 10 of the state’s seats in the U.S. House. 

The congressional maps in use for 2022 are most likely to result in seven Republican seats, six Democratic seats and one toss-up seat, according to the data of how voters in each district voted in previous elections. 

“Today’s move by the court reinforces that legislatures do not have a ‘free pass’ to violate protections against partisan gerrymandering when drawing districts that undeniably hurt voters,” said Hilary Harris Klein, a voting rights lawyer at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which represents one of the plaintiffs, good-governance group Common Cause, in the lawsuit. 

Not over yet, maybe

A fourth conservative justice, Brett Kavanaugh, agreed that state Republicans’ arguments were strong but said it would be too disruptive for the federal courts to intervene this close to an election. 

“The issue is almost certain to keep arising until the Court definitively resolves it,” Kavanaugh wrote in his concurrence. 

Republicans may still get that chance, just not as soon as they would have liked. Kavanaugh suggested the case, or one raising similar constitutional questions, should be taken up for consideration in the next judicial term, which will get underway in the fall. 

In a press release Monday, N.C. Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger suggested state Republican leadership may do just that. 

“While we’re focusing on the 2022 elections, we will continue to evaluate this decision and next steps in this case,” Berger said. 

Berger, along with House Speaker Tim Moore and other Republicans responsible for drawing the state’s political maps, were the defendants in the redistricting lawsuits. 

Should the legislative Republicans request further review of the case, Kavanaugh along with the three dissenting justices have enough votes to put the case on the court’s docket, per the U.S. Supreme Court’s rules. To grant a stay, which is what Republican legislators requested in this filing, they would have needed five votes in favor.

Two more conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, voted with the majority this week. But Roberts has previously expressed interest in the legal theory that North Carolina’s legislative Republicans used in this case. 

Republican arguments rest on Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which says the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

That should mean, North Carolina legislative Republicans argue, that state courts should not be able to put a check on the rules state legislatures make for federal elections. Only federal courts and Congress could check state legislative power over making those rules. 

The justices also denied a request for review coming out of Pennsylvania, which raised similar legal questions. 

North Carolina’s General Assembly will still get the chance to draw a new congressional map for the 2024 election cycle that, should it withstand lawsuits, could hold for the rest of the decade until the 2030 census triggers another round of redistricting.

Coastal Review is partnering with Carolina Public Press to provide readers with more stories relevant to the coast. 

Reprinted from Carolina Public Press

This is an updated version of reporting published Wednesday.

Within hours of a three-judge Superior Court panel’s decision in North Carolina’s redistricting lawsuit, all four parties involved filed appeals spanning hundreds of pages to the state Supreme Court. 

Then, at 10 p.m. Wednesday, the state Supreme Court denied every appeal. Candidate filing was set to open at 8 a.m. Thursday. 

County elections staff worked feverishly with the N.C. State Board of Elections ​​in the 20-hour window from when they received the latest maps to the opening of candidate filing to be ready to place state and local candidates in the right districts. 

“As elections officials, we have become accustomed to adapting to quick-changing situations,” said Pat Gannon, spokesperson for the State Board of Elections.

Elections officials had to rush to prepare, not knowing if any of the appeals would be successful and if filing would start on time or be delayed yet again. 

For now, it looks as if the 2022 primaries will be held May 17. But there’s one possible legal twist yet to play out.

Republican leadership in the legislature, named as defendants in the redistricting case, are unhappy with part of the Superior Court panel’s decision, claiming it violates the federal constitution. 

Now that their appeal has been denied by the state Supreme Court, the defendants have an option to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Those appeals usually take some time, and the high court accepts very few cases. It turned down appeals based on similar federal arguments from North Carolina Republicans in November 2020.

But with one new conservative justice on the U.S. Supreme Court and a new federal hook for state Republicans, it’s anyone’s guess what will happen this time around. State Republicans have not yet released a formal statement saying they will make a federal appeal.

How we got here

The Superior Court panel, consisting of Judges Graham Shirley II, R-Wake, Nathaniel Poovey, R-Catawba, and Dawn Layton, D-Richmond, managed to upset every party with its ruling on the maps Wednesday. 

The judges were guided by three special masters — former state Supreme Court Justices Robert Orr and Robert Edmunds Jr. and former UNC System President and Superior Court Judge Thomas Ross — who were themselves assisted by four nonpartisan experts in political map-drawing. 

The state Supreme Court had tasked the judicial panel with judging whether redrawn political maps were fair under the state’s constitution after the higher court declared the Republican-controlled General Assembly’s previous maps to be unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. 

In a unanimous decision Wednesday, the Shirley panel said the redrawn state House and Senate districts were constitutional. But the judges ruled that the redrawn U.S. congressional map was still not fair under the state Supreme Court’s new standards. 

As a remedy, the Shirley panel adjusted the General Assembly’s map to make it fair under political science measurements that the state Supreme Court had suggested, called “efficiency gap” and “mean-median difference.” This map, the panel suggested, could be used for the 2022 election, and the General Assembly could redraw the map that would be used from the 2024 elections until the state redistricted again in 2031. 

Legislative defendants appeal

Republican legislative leaders Phil Berger, Senate president pro tempore, and Tim Moore, House speaker, both among the defendants in this case for their official roles in drawing political maps, said they will challenge the panel’s decision on the congressional map. 

“Today’s ruling is nothing short of egregious,” Moore said in an official statement. 

“The trial court’s decision to impose a map drawn by anyone other than the legislature is simply unconstitutional and an affront to every North Carolina voter whose representation would be determined by unelected, partisan activists.” 

Each of the Superior Court judges is in fact elected, as are the Supreme Court justices who ruled the prior maps were unconstitutional and who will review the appeals. Judicial elections were nonpartisan for 22 years and were publicly financed for nine until the General Assembly, led by Moore and Berger, made the elections partisan again and eliminated public funding in 2018 and 2013, respectively. 

Legislative defendants think that Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, often called the “time, place and manner restrictions,” give state legislatures exclusive jurisdiction over drawing federal election districts. 

Under this argument, the state courts cannot legally intervene when the state legislature draws maps for federal elections. The state Supreme Court previously dismissed this claim, meaning the legislative defendants will likely have to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to have a chance to win on this argument. 

Plaintiffs appeal 

Three groups sued the state in November and December to block the political maps the Republican-led General Assembly passed over Democratic opposition. Those maps were the ones ultimately overturned by the state Supreme Court on Feb. 4.

The General Assembly had two weeks to redraw the maps to seek Superior Court approval on Wednesday. 

In the mirror image of the legislative defendants, all three groups suing the state supported the Shirley panel’s intervention on the congressional map. 

One group, the good-governance and nonpartisan nonprofit Common Cause, appealed both the state House and state Senate maps. 

The group recognized that the General Assembly passed the House plan with near-unanimous bipartisan support, yet still opposed it and the Senate map, passed by Republicans on strict party-line votes, because each map still “dilutes the voting power of Black communities and relies on misleading data to cover up extreme partisan gerrymanders,” according to the group’s press release. 

The Common Cause plaintiffs were especially focused on the voting power of Black North Carolinians in the eastern part of the state, centered on Wayne County for the House map and Edgecombe, Wilson and most of Wayne in the Senate map. 

“We appreciate the bipartisan efforts of the trial court and special masters to remedy illegalities in the congressional map, but justice that is partial is no justice at all,” said Hillary Klein, senior voting rights lawyer at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which represents Common Cause, in the press release. 

Two other two plaintiff groups, the nonpartisan N.C. League of Conservation Voters and the National Redistricting Foundation, which is backed by the national Democratic Party, appealed only the state Senate map. 

The NCLCV plaintiffs also asked for the U.S. congressional map to last the rest of the decade, rather than allowing the General Assembly to try drawing the map again. 

In its opinion, the Shirley panel stated North Carolina’s political geography, or the way Democratic and Republican voters self-sort in where they live, explains why the Senate map favors Republicans. Even so, the panel stated in its opinion, the difference is within the fairness boundaries the state Supreme Court laid out. 

In their appeals, both the NCLCV and foundation plaintiffs disputed the panel’s analysis and claimed the map would only ever allow Republicans to have a majority in the state Senate, despite North Carolina being near a 50-50 state in partisan vote share. 

Coastal Review is partnering with Carolina Public Press to provide readers with more stories relevant to the coast. 

Reprinted from WRAL

Plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit that could settle North Carolina’s legislative and congressional districts next week submitted recommendations to the court Friday as a key deadline passed in the case.

Their proposed districts join a trio of maps approved Thursday by the North Carolina General Assembly, as required under a state Supreme Court order. Parties in the case had until 5 p.m. Monday to comment on all the submissions, then a panel of three Superior Court judges overseeing the case, assisted by three retired judges the panel brought in for advice, will approve final maps.

That’s expected to happen by noon Wednesday.

If anyone wants to appeal that decision back to the state Supreme Court, they must do so by 5 p.m. the same day. Otherwise the plan is to open candidate filing with the new districts at 8 a.m. Thursday. That will last until March 4, then the ballots will be set, and the primary is planned for May 17.

Because many people vote consistently for Republicans or Democrats, and because past election results are easily accessible, the maps can be scored district-by-district to predict future election results.

That allows mapmakers to draw districts likely to boost political power for one party or the other, and the state Supreme Court said earlier this month that maps drawn by the General Assembly’s GOP majority were unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders meant to lock in Republican control.

There are three plaintiff groups. The following are their submissions:

Harper plaintiffs. The group of voters challenging the legislature’s original maps, including a voter named Rebecca Harper, submitted two full map proposals: One for congressional districts and another for the state Senate. It didn’t submit a state House proposal, noting that plan passed the legislature this week on a bipartisan vote.

The state Senate and congressional plans, though, “were forced through the General Assembly by Republicans, were passed on strict-party line votes,” the Harper legal team said. They remain “partisan gerrymanders that flout the Supreme Court’s decisions in this case,” the group’s brief states.

This submission particularly complained that the legislature’s proposed congressional map “once again divides the cities of the Piedmont Triad into three separate districts to dilute the voting power of Democratic voters there, with ripple effects throughout the map.” Instead the Harper plaintiffs proposed a congressional map submitted by Sen. Jay Chaudhuri, D-Wake, back in October, saying Democrats could expect to win eight seats on this map based on results from the 2020 governor’s race, and that Republicans would likely win six.

The map Republican lawmakers approved last week leans more toward the GOP, but it includes four competitive seats that either party could expect to win. Catawba College political scientist Michael Bitzer called this map “shockingly competitive” when it was released, but legislative Democrats voted against it, citing many of the same reasons the Harper plaintiffs detail in their brief.

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, whose redistricting group helped fund the Harper team’s legal efforts, in a statement Friday called the legislature’s new congressional and Senate maps “an abomination.” Holder, a Democrat, said GOP lawmakers “arrogantly decided to draw congressional and state Senate maps that continue to lock in an artificial and unjust advantage for their party.”

Senate Preside Pro Tem Phil Berger‘s office responded on Twitter, saying that, in 2020, Gov. Roy Cooper won half the districts in the legislature’s proposed Senate map. Berger’s office also noted the congressional map has four “highly competitive districts.”

“Denying the competitiveness of these maps is just another one of Eric Holder’s ‘sue-til-blue’ tactics,” Berger’s office said.

The Harper plaintiff’s Senate plan is based off an ensemble of maps generated by a Duke University mathematician’s algorithm. Professor Jonathan Mattingly, who testified for the plaintiffs as an expert in this redistricting lawsuit, compared those computer-generated maps to the General Assembly’s initial proposed maps, showing the legislature’s maps to be outliers and, thus, partisan gerrymanders.

N.C. League of Conservation Voters. The group submitted proposed maps for all three redraws: state House, state Senate and congressional.

It went with the same maps it submitted during trial, saying they’ve already been tested by that process and are “uniquely suitable.” The league said in its brief that, on average, Democrats have gotten 49% of the vote statewide in North Carolina over the last decade.

“The NCLCV Maps give Democrats 49% of congressional seats, 46% of Senate seats, and 47% of House seats,” the group said in its brief.

Common Cause. Common Cause, a government accountability watchdog group, didn’t submit full maps but asked the court to redraw a pair of districts: one in the state House, one in the state Senate.

The changes are needed, not to address partisan gerrymanders, the central issue in this redistricting case, but to avoid diluting the voting power of minority voters, the group said in its filing.

The proposed changes tinker with districts in Greene, Lenoir, Wayne, Duplin, Edgecombe and Pitt counties.

“There is racially polarized voting in this area, such that the white majority vote sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidate,” Common Cause said in its filing.

Coastal Review is partnering with WRAL.com to provide readers with more news from the state capitol that is relevant to the coast.

Reprinted from Carolina Public Press

Political gerrymandering is dead in North Carolina, at least for now. 

The state Supreme Court issued an order late Friday striking down the Republican-drawn political maps slated to be used for the rest of the decade. Groups challenging the maps hit a grand slam, winning on each of their constitutional claims. 

A 4-3 majority of the Supreme Court found that the state legislative and congressional maps were “unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under the free elections clause, the equal protection clause, the free speech clause and the freedom of assembly clause of the North Carolina Constitution,” according to the order, written by Democratic Justice Robin Hudson. 

The North Carolina General Assembly will have to redraw maps and submit them by noon Feb. 18 to a three-judge panel in Superior Court for approval.

If the panel decides the General Assembly’s new maps don’t meet the court’s new standards, it can select maps submitted by the groups who sued the state. Whatever the trial court selects, the state or any of the challengers can appeal the decision by 5 p.m. Feb. 23. 

That’s the day before candidate filing is set to open again, so there is a chance North Carolina will see a repeat of what happened in December, when the courts shut down candidate filing — then reopened it, then shut it down again. 

Because of the tight timeline, the Supreme Court only issued an order, not an opinion, meaning that it told the relevant groups what they had to do next but did not describe the full legal justifications underpinning the decision. The opinion will be submitted later, according to the document. 

Chief Justice Paul Newby, a Republican elected in 2020, expressed his frustration with the decision in a snappy dissent, writing that the Democratic-majority court interpreted the constitution in such a way that left “no limits to this Court’s power.” 

Since the state constitution does not put an explicit limit on partisan gerrymandering, Newby argued, the only ways to do so are by statute or a constitutional amendment. Both would require the legislature to act to limit its own authority to draw partisan maps. 

Either the General Assembly takes the Supreme Court’s order and attempts to draw constitutional maps or takes the risk that the courts will choose maps submitted by the groups that sued. It will also have to submit the data it used to draw the maps and the methods used to measure partisan fairness. 

The Supreme Court recommended, but did not require, five different metrics for measuring the partisan fairness of a map. 

“​​To comply with the limitations contained in the North Carolina Constitution, which are applicable to redistricting plans, the General Assembly must not diminish or dilute any individual’s vote on the basis of partisan affiliation,” the majority wrote.

But Newby wrote those guidelines are “vague and undefined,” meaning only the court itself will be able to define the constitutionality of new maps. 

“The question of how much partisan consideration is unconstitutional remains a mystery, as does what is meant by ‘substantially equal voting power on the basis of partisan affiliation,’” Newby wrote. 

The Republican-controlled legislature, which drew the maps and whose leaders are the named defendants in the case, can partially appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, at least regarding the congressional map.

Though it’s speculation, that appeal is likely, according to Catawba College political science professor Michael Bitzer. 

Coastal Review is partnering with Carolina Public Press to provide readers with more stories relevant to the coast. 

Politicians are maneuvering, the courts are set to deliberate, and voters are continuing to wait for finalized political maps and a date for the North Carolina 2022 primary elections. 

On Wednesday, Republicans passed a bill on party-line votes in the House and Senate to again delay the primary elections, this time until June. This comes in the context of the political and legal fight over the state’s redistricting maps, which could shape the political future of the state’s legislature and U.S. congressional delegation for at least a decade. 

The current maps, which the legislature drew in the fall, would all but lock in Republican control over state politics. If the court overturns those maps, Democrats have a chance to land on a more even playing field in a state whose geography slightly favors Republicans but votes nearly 50-50 in statewide races. 

After a Democratic Party-affiliated group and two pro-democracy advocacy groups sued the state legislature over the maps they drew in the fall, the state Supreme Court delayed the elections from March to May to give courts time to review the case. 

Republicans now aim for an additional delay to give the legislature time to redraw the political maps should the court rule the current maps violate the state constitution. 

In the state courts’ landmark redistricting case from 2002, called Stephenson, the courts ruled the maps were unconstitutional, created some new requirements for drawing maps, and then asked the legislature to try again, said Michael Bitzer, a professor of political science and history at Catawba College. 

Political map-drawing “is an inherently legislative duty,” Bitzer said. 

Both through legal filings in the lawsuit and in public statements supporting postponement of the primaries until June, Republican leadership stresses the importance of the North Carolina General Assembly being able to draw and then redraw the maps.

But courts can and have, both at the state and federal levels, put conditions on how legislators can redraw maps once their first attempts are deemed unconstitutional. The courts could appoint a “special master,” or independent outside expert, to review the maps before approving them, Bitzer said. 

The state Supreme Court could also decide to go with an entirely different process should it deem the maps unconstitutional. In 2018, the Republican-controlled legislature made appellate judicial elections partisan. Now, the state’s highest court sits four Democrats and three Republicans, perhaps explaining Republican anxiety over the decision and timing of drawing new maps. 

Coastal Review is partnering with Carolina Public Press to provide readers with more stories relevant to the coast. 

Reprinted from Carolina Public Press

A three-judge panel ruled against the challengers to North Carolina’s latest political maps, setting the stage for the N.C. Supreme Court to be the first appellate court in North Carolina to consider whether “extreme partisan gerrymandering” violates the state Constitution.

North Carolina’s political future rests heavily on the outcome of the case.

If the Supreme Court upholds the current maps, Republicans will very likely control the legislature for the next decade and help tip the balance in the U.S. House toward Republicans, even in elections where Democrats win upward of 55% of the statewide vote.

State lawmakers drew the maps after the latest census in a process that normally happens once a decade.

Three groups — N.C. League of Conservation Voters, the National Redistricting Foundation and the North Carolina chapter of Common Cause — filed suit against the state’s Republican legislative leadership and representatives who drew the maps.

The Superior Court judges, Graham Shirley II, a Republican of Wake County, Nathaniel Poovey, a Republican of Catawba County, and Dawn Layton, a Democrat of Anson County, acknowledged the influence of partisanship on the map-drawing process.

“This court has not been asked to eliminate all partisan gerrymandering, only ‘extreme’ partisan gerrymandering,” the order said. “In short, we are asked to decide how much partisanship is ‘extreme.’”

The 260-page order upheld the maps drawn to give a likely 10-4 advantage to Republicans in the U.S. House and similar advantages in the state legislature.

The judges said the maps are skewed with partisan intent to favor Republicans but that the courts do not have the power under the state Constitution to interfere in the map-drawing process, which the court called a political decision.

The court reached the same decision in the preliminary injunction state of the trial, leading to widespread anticipation of Tuesday’s outcome. But now that the ruling has been made, all three groups said they will appeal to the state Supreme Court, which is expected to hear the case in the next few weeks.

Each of the three groups of plaintiffs called the decision “disappointing” and “wrong.”

“If allowed to stand, these extreme gerrymanders would cause profound and lasting harm to the people of our state, especially hurting Black communities, by depriving voters of a voice in choosing their representatives,” said Bob Phillips, executive director of the North Carolina chapter of Common Cause, one of the plaintiffs.

N.C. House Speaker Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, one of the named defendants in the case, celebrated the ruling.

“I am pleased the trial court has ruled in our favor, upholding the maps drawn by the General Assembly in the most transparent process in North Carolina history,” Moore said.

Secret maps, partisan intent

During the trial, Rep. Destin Hall, R-Caldwell, said he drew the maps for the state House legislative districts using “concept maps,” or maps drawn by third parties, in creating the lines — a direct contradiction of his earlier statements.

He previously told Democratic lawmakers in October in the redistricting committee that he had not looked at any concept maps in drawing the legislative districts. At that point, he hadn’t, Hall said, but he started using them shortly thereafter.

But he again told Democratic lawmakers in November, during debates before Republicans passed the maps on a party-line vote, that he did not consult any concept maps. At that point, Hall had consulted the outside maps for about three weeks, according to his testimony during the January trial.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs asked for copies of the concept maps, but Hall said they have since been lost or destroyed. The failure to retain them could be a violation of state law.

A lawyer for the Common Cause plaintiffs, Allison Riggs, discovered the discrepancy during Hall’s deposition the week before the trial. She argued the maps could have used partisan and racial data, both of which were banned in the map-making process by the legislature’s own rules, but since they were destroyed there is no way to know.

The secret maps, misleading Democratic lawmakers and the maps’ destruction all pointed to intent, Riggs said.

In an earlier ruling, the trial court declined to impose sanctions for the failure to produce the maps, saying the assistant to Hall who had the maps is no longer a legislative employee.

What the ruling said

Relying heavily on historical analysis, the three-judge panel rejected the plaintiffs’ claims that the new maps violated state constitutional guarantees of free elections, equal protection, freedom of assembly and free speech.

The judges also condemned gerrymandering and its ill effect on the body politic but said the courts did not have the power to interfere.

“This court neither condones the enacted maps nor their anticipated potential results,” the order said.

“Despite our disdain for having to deal with issues that potentially lead to results incompatible with democratic principles and subject our state to ridicule, this court must remind itself that these maps are the result of a democratic process.”

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the legislature drew the maps with partisan intent meant to discriminate against the political interests of Democrats and Black North Carolinians.

Intent is important, according to the trial court order, but there is a lack of racially motivated action in the current map-drawing process.

“Plaintiffs have shown, and the court agrees, that a substantial number of Black voters are affiliated with the Democratic Party,” the order read.

“What plaintiffs have not shown, however, is how the General Assembly targeted this group on the basis of race instead of partisanship. Black voters who also happen to be Democrats have therefore been grouped into the partisan intent of the General Assembly.”

During the trial, the plaintiffs’ academic experts in political science and mathematics testified that the Republican-drawn maps heavily favored Republican candidates.

If the maps were used, Republicans would essentially guarantee majority control over the state legislature, with a real chance at a veto-proof supermajority. Republicans would also send a disproportionate majority of the state’s representatives to the U.S. House, according to the expert testimony cited in the order.

While that outcome might be natural in a heavily Republican state, Republicans actually trail both Democrats and unaffiliated voters in registration in North Carolina.

Registration is no guarantee of voting habits, but recent statewide elections suggest the state is nearly evenly split between voters backing each party in a given race. In 2020, Democrats carried the governor’s race, but Republicans had a plurality victory for president in North Carolina, while eking out a narrow win for state Supreme Court Chief justice.

What’s next

The state Supreme Court did not set out a specific timeline for reviewing the case but required anyone wanting to appeal to do so in the next two days. The court said to expect expedited hearings.

Democrats occupy four seats of the state Supreme Court while Republicans hold three.

The plaintiffs asked Republican Justice Phil Berger Jr. to recuse himself from the case as Berger’s father is a named defendant and the Republican leader of the state Senate.

The defendants asked Democratic Justice Sam Ervin to recuse himself, as he is up for reelection this year and the decision he makes “may impact voter turnout or other factors of the general election,” according to the request.

Neither justice has yet responded. Their decisions over their own ability to rule impartially are final, according to a state Supreme Court order from Dec. 23.

Unless the justices decide to delay the state primaries yet again, they will need to make their ruling and finalize any new maps, if necessary, before Feb. 24, the date submitted by the State Board of Elections and ordered by the trial court to resume candidate filing.

The high court moved North Carolina’s 2022 primaries to May 17. Every state House and Senate seat is up for election, as are all 14 seats for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Coastal Review is partnering with Carolina Public Press to provide readers with more stories relevant to the coast. 

From a Carteret County News-Times report

Rep. Pat McElraft, of Emerald Isle, who has represented Carteret and Jones counties in the North Carolina General Assembly for eight consecutive two-year terms, said Dec. 28 she will not seek reelection to the state House of Representatives in November.

McElraft’s term expires on Jan. 1, 2023.

Before being elected to the state House in 2006 to replace Rep. Jean Preston, who successfully ran for the state Senate, she served three terms as an Emerald Isle commissioner and part of a term as a Carteret County commissioner.

 “I think it’s time to let someone younger and with new ideas come in,” the soon-to-be 75-year-old Republican legislator said in an interview. “I’ve done more than 20 years in public service and had a sales job for 30 years. I think it’s time to spend more time with my husband, children and grandchildren.”

McElraft said she has enjoyed “every minute” serving the people of Carteret and Jones counties and is proud to have represented them and helped them during often hard times, including hurricanes and the COVID-19 pandemic.

McElraft said she’s proud of her record of good constituent service and credited her great staff for that.

“I’ve always stressed how important constituent service is,” she said.

McElraft said she’s also proud that while she’s been in office, the state has lowered taxes and yet dramatically improved its financial situation.

“When I came in, our ‘rainy day fund’ had never been more than $100 million,” she said. “Now it’s $4 billion. We all worked hard to do that. That’s how we’ve been able to help local governments with money for things like (climate) resiliency and dredging and beach nourishment and water access.

“I’ve tried to balance the environment and economics,” she continued. “If they’re not balanced, then you lose jobs, and if you lose jobs, then you can’t pay for the ecology. There has to be a balance.”

She’s especially proud of this year’s 2021-23 budget, which was passed by a bipartisan majority and included millions of dollars for specific projects in Carteret and other coastal counties.

This term, McElraft has served as vice chairperson of the House Appropriations Committee, chairperson of the House Environmental Committee, and co-chairperson of the House Environmental Review Committee.

“I think our coastal legislators have been able to show those inland legislators how important the coast is to the state and get their support,” she said.

This story is provided courtesy of the Carteret County News-Times, a newspaper published in Morehead City. Coastal Review partners with the News-Times to provide our readers with news of the North Carolina coast. 

Major new policies on resilience and flood mitigation and a return to high levels of conservation and water quality funding have been hailed as the major win in this year’s state budget, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t large swaths of concern amid the more than 1,200 pages of fund allocations and policy provisions.

The two-year budget is the first full biennial budget to become law since 2017. The resilience and flooding provisions will be put into action with allocations totaling close to $1 billion, much of that legislation received the strong backing of the state’s environmental organizations.

Cassie Gavin, senior director of governmental affairs with the North Carolina Sierra Club, said the initiatives showed strong commitments on resiliency and conservation, but there were provisions scattered through the document that wouldn’t have passed scrutiny otherwise.

“There were some big highlights,” she said, “and then definitely, we had some special provisions that shouldn’t belong in the budget at all.”

‘Snag and drag’

One section that’s drawn criticism would pump $38 million into a program for stream debris removal that allows contractors to operate outside water-protection and fire-control rules.

“We’re very concerned about snag and drag and all the exemptions in the provision,” Brooks Rainey Pearson, attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, recently told Coastal Review.

The program would direct the money from a state capital and infrastructure fund to the Department of Environmental Quality.

DEQ would then develop a plan and schedule for stream debris removal within five “targeted watersheds” — the Neuse River basin, Cape Fear River basin, Lumber River basin, Tar-Pamlico River basin and White Oak River basin.

DEQ is to contract with private companies to do the work, but budget language authorizing the program restricts the department’s authority over the projects and exempts contractors from requirements for stormwater or water quality permits as well as all state game laws and forestry statues on open burning. It also directs DEQ to waive any rights of certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for projects funded by the program.

Rainey Pearson said the combination of exemptions means contractors will be able to drag debris up on the banks and burn it with little oversight.

Grady McCallie, policy director for the North Carolina Conservation Network, said the provision as written would greatly reduce the amount of input state regulators would have in reviewing projects, even if they’re required to have a federal permit.

“If you have to get Army Corps of Engineers-permitted for doing stuff in waters of the United States, you still have to get that permit. This doesn’t change that, but it does eliminate the state’s ability to condition and comment on that permit to protect water quality,” McCallie said. That takes the state out of its role in water quality protection and reduces the input of people with on-the-ground familiarity with the watershed. “It’s not a good idea to get rid of that.”

The legislature did delay funding any stream debris removal projects under the program until at least the first draft of a statewide flooding blueprint is completed. That could give the legislature time to go back and tweak the oversight exemptions as well as analyze the impacts, McCallie said.

“It would be really dumb just to spend this money and end up increasing flooding, by speeding up the movement of water downstream on to other communities,” he said. “There’s every chance that you can do that if you do without studying what you’re doing and without environmental review. You could think that you’re taking water off one community but what you’re really doing is just speeding it down to the next and flooding them.”

Career jobs to become political appointments

Another provision that’s getting attention from environmental groups would shift five positions in the Office of Administrative Hearings from career positions to political appointees.

Although those positions haven’t been named, Rainey Pearson said the worry is how the shift could impact administrative hearings going forward. 

“That’s often the first stop for environmental cases,” she said.

McCallie said the administrative judges oversee challenges to environmental permits known as contested cases.

“What we don’t know is whether these five positions would be administrative law judges. There’s been nothing in writing to say that one way or another, but we’re concerned about the politicization of that office,” he said. “They need to be impartial, and having career civil servants doing that makes them more familiar with the laws that they are reviewing. That makes a lot of sense.”

The provision would give the chief administrative law judge authority to designate the five from existing positions. The chief judge is appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Last summer, new Chief Justice Paul Newby appointed Donald van der Vaart, who served as DEQ secretary under Gov. Pat McCrory, to the position.

Local government wins, losses

Gavin said that as the negotiations were winding up, there was an all-out effort to dial back many of the environmental provisions aimed at restricting local governments.

Earlier versions of the budget included limitations on local governments to implement tree-protection ordinances and water-quality requirements.

Those provisions were stripped in the final round of talks on the bill, Gavin said. So was another provision aimed at reducing wetland protections.

One long-sought set of changes benefitting the billboard industry did make it into the final bill. Gavin said those changes further reduce authority over billboards by both local governments and the Department of Transportation and could clear the way for more digital signs as well.

“It’s all the little things that the outdoor advertising industry has previously sought before but not gotten,” she said. “It’s essentially a previous bill that was vetoed by the governor in past years and it’s stuck in there to get through the legislature even though it wouldn’t normally.”     

Updated Thursday:

Gov. Roy Cooper on Thursday signed the state budget and two other bills into law, his office announced.

Cooper had said during a press conference Tuesday that he would sign the $53 billion spending plan unveiled Monday, clearing the way for passage of the first biennial state budget since 2017.

“This budget moves North Carolina forward in important ways. Funding for high speed internet, our universities and community colleges, clean air and drinking water and desperately needed pay increases for teachers and state employees are all critical for our state to emerge from this pandemic stronger than ever,” Cooper said Thursday in a statement. “I will continue to fight for progress where this budget falls short but believe that, on balance, it is an important step in the right direction.”

Cooper also signed House Bill 404, which provides limited civil immunity for 911 call service providers, and Senate Bill 183, which expands the use of ignition interlock systems to reduce alcohol-related accidents.

Original report, “State budget sails toward passage,” published Nov. 16 follows below:

The long-running standoff between state House and Senate leaders and Gov. Roy Cooper ended Tuesday, clearing the way for passage of the first biennial state budget since 2017.

The plan would spend $25.9 billion this year and $27 billion next year and includes pay raises for state employees and cost-of-living adjustments for retirees, along with significant funding increases for coastal infrastructure, flood resilience and the largest appropriations for land conservation, parks and clean water projects in more than a decade.

The legislation, the product of a lengthy, drawn-out negotiating process between the legislative chambers and Cooper, was announced Monday and cleared its first vote in the Senate 40-8 Tuesday, shortly after Cooper announced he would sign the bill.

The Senate is expected to give the bill final approval Wednesday and send it on to the House, where it requires two votes over two days before it goes to the governor.

In a noon press conference detailing the pros and cons of the budget plan, Cooper said he was disappointed with education spending totals, lack of Medicaid expansion — a major hitch in the 2019-2020 negotiations — and GOP tax policies, but added that the bill and the state needed to move forward.

“There are critical funding opportunities in this budget that we must seize now, in this extraordinary time,” Cooper said. “Many of those opportunities would evaporate if I vetoed the budget and Republicans simply left Raleigh rather than reenter negotiations.”

Cooper also objected to several provisions that he said were unconstitutional and predicted they would ultimately be overturned in a court challenge.

Among the dozens of other policy provisions are two that make the both the North Carolina Policy Collaboratory and the North Carolina Office of Resiliency and Recovery permanent parts of state government.

NCORR was formed in the wake of Hurricane Florence to administer extensive federal aid programs and coordinate resiliency policy. In the new budget, NCORR’s work is expanded as part of a broad framework of flooding initiatives and resiliency projects, including development of a statewide blueprint to detail risks and strategies to prevent flooding.

The blueprint is part of more than $1 billion in spending on water and sewer infrastructure, flood prevention and resilience grants.

The Collaboratory, which was started in 2016 to tap into university science resources and coordinate policy research, has been involved in environmental issues around emerging contaminants and water quality as well as coastal efforts on shellfish leasing, oyster promotion and marine fisheries policy.

In this year’s budget, the Collaboratory is charged with conduction a comprehensive study of fisheries policies.

Coastal and environmental advocates praised the measure.

Todd Miller, executive director of the North Carolina Coastal Federation and publisher of Coastal Review, called the budget historic for the North Carolina coast.

“It makes investments in flood resilience, water quality, living shorelines, oysters and the shellfish industry and coastal debris clean up at a scale that we have not seen before. Thank you to all the legislators and Gov. Cooper for working together on this bipartisan compromise spending plan,” Miller said.

“North Carolina’s budget includes historic investments in flood resilience and the highest level of state funding for conservation in over a decade. This is the kind of bold investment North Carolina needs to protect and restore our state’s natural landscapes in a way that benefits everyone. We’ll get cleaner air and water, more habitat for birds, and safer, healthier communities for people,” said Zach Wallace, senior policy manager at Audubon North Carolina.

Will McDow, the Environmental Defense Fund’s director of Climate Resilient Coasts and Watersheds, said the budget was “an important down payment” for a more flood-resilient future.

“Investments in natural infrastructure will deliver increased flood protection for more communities, more farmers and more businesses across the entire state — creating jobs while also improving the quality of our environment,” he said. “No region of our state is immune to the threat of flooding. Investments in natural solutions, such as floodplain and wetland restoration, help reduce the risk of flooding, while also increasing the health and vitality of our environment and delivering quality of life improvements for communities from the coast to the mountains.”

Kirk Ross and Mark Hibbs contributed to this report.

Denouncing Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly for the recently enacted congressional redistricting that carves out some of his Democratic base, longtime 1^st District Congressman G.K. Butterfield announced Thursday that he will not seek reelection again.

In a video announcement, Butterfield, who has served since 2004, said he was disappointed in the legislature’s GOP majority, saying the recently enacted map was gerrymandered.

“It’s racially gerrymandered, it will disadvantage African American communities all across the 1st Congressional District. I am disappointed, terribly disappointed with the Republican majority legislature for again, gerrymandering our state’s congressional districts and putting their party politics over the best interests of North Carolina and while I am hopeful that the courts will also play overturn this partisan map, and see that a fair map is enacted, I have made the difficult decision that I will not seek reelection to the United States House of Representatives. It is time for me to retire and allow the torch to be passed to someone who shares the values of the district and can continue the work,” Butterfield said in the video.

A number of legal challenges to the redistricting have been filed, including this week by the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, seeking to stop the state from holding elections using the new congressional and legislative maps.

Butterfield was appointed in 2007 as chief deputy whip of the House Democratic Caucus, and in the current session was elevated to replace the late Rep. John Lewis as a senior chief deputy whip, the first Democrat from North Carolina to serve in this role.

Legislators are expected to begin voting on new congressional and state legislative districts next week.

Mapmaking for the new districts is drawing to a close after a series of hearings and public comment sessions held over the course of the last month on a variety of proposals for redrawn districts for Congress and the state House and Senate.

Versions under consideration, including maps and statistics can be found at the North Carolina General Assembly website at www.ncleg.gov, including the following:

• House redistricting plans.
• Senate redistricting plans.
• Public comments form.

A House plan introduced Thursday is set to be heard at 2 p.m. Monday by the chamber’s redistricting committee, but congressional and state Senate plans have yet to be finalized.

Legislative leaders said they expect the plans to be voted on by the end of next week and told legislators to be prepared to stay in session through Friday.

The state constitution gives the General Assembly sole authority in mapmaking and plans adopted by the legislature are not subject to veto by the governor.

That doesn’t mean that any maps voted out next week are set in stone.

Once passed by each chamber, the new plans would be likely to face extensive legal challenges in both federal and state courts. Maps for the last two redistricting cycles were repeatedly challenged at the state and federal levels and final sets of districts weren’t in place until the last election cycle in each decade.

The legislature is adding a 14th district this year since the state was awarded an additional congressional seat following the 2020 Census.

After years of on-and-off negotiations, a set of sweeping energy policy changes sailed through the North Carolina General Assembly this week after a deal by legislative leaders and Gov. Roy Cooper cleared the way for its passage.

On Thursday, House Bill 951, Energy Solutions for North Carolina, was approved by a vote of 90-20 in the House after passing the Senate 42-7 a day earlier.

Cooper was expected to sign the bill as soon as this weekend.

The legislation would require Duke Energy and other major electricity producers to reach carbon-reduction goals of 70% by 2030, and a zero-carbon goal by 2050.

The goals are in line with Cooper’s 2018 Executive Order 80, which called for the state to commit to aggressively lowering its carbon dioxide emissions.

General Assembly leaders were cool to the idea at the time and both chambers have generally avoided taking up carbon-reduction goals directly.

An earlier version of the new energy legislation did not include the targets but relied on an extensive framework of rules and standards for a mix of energy sources that would have the effect of reducing emissions. That version of the bill, which passed the House in mid-July, ran 49 pages. At the time, its sponsors admitted it was imperfect and promised it would be very different once it returned from the Senate.

As predicted, it is.

Trimmed down to 10 pages, most of the proscriptive language on the mix of energy sources has been cut and the bill puts the responsibility for creating the rules and standards for the strategy, including the phaseout of Duke’s fleet of coal fired units, with the North Carolina Utilities Commission.

The commission is a seven-member board whose members are appointed by the governor but who must be confirmed by the Senate.

The new legislation, put together and negotiated in a behind the scenes stakeholder process over the course of the session, started on its quick course to passage last week following the announcement of an agreement.

On Friday afternoon, in a rare moment of unanimity in messaging Cooper, Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, and House Speaker Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, put out identical statements heralding the deal.

The bill quickly moved through the Senate Tuesday and Wednesday without amendment, although Sen. Paul Newton, R-Cabbarus, a key negotiator, acknowledged that he would seek changes in response to criticisms through a technical corrections bill later in the session. 

The House took up the legislation Thursday as a concurrence vote on the Senate version, which does not require a committee hearing, and passed it shortly after noon as the last item of the week.

During floor debate, Rep. Dean Arp, R-Union, an original House sponsor, said the Senate simplified the legislation by removing carve-outs and mandates for use of specific energy sources and putting policy choices like the mix of sources and the schedule for phaseout of coal-fired units in the hands of the Utilities Commission. He stressed that the commission was charged with doing so in a way that prioritizes using a “least-cost” method to protect consumers and an array of sources that guarantee reliability.

Opposition to the bill focused on the potential impact of sections of the bill that could allow multiyear rate hikes, instead of the current system which requires utility companies to take rate hikes to the commission on an annual basis.

Opponents said the bill allows too much wiggle room for Duke Energy to get around goals and raise prices.

House members who voted against it said it was being rushed through and that Newton’s promise of tweaks to the plan weren’t enough to satisfy concerns.

“I do like what we have in part one, about the carbon reduction,” Rep. Marcia Morey, D-Durham, said Thursday. “I think we are in a climate crisis. I think science has proven it, and we should have these goals to reduce the carbon, and to go down 70% by 2030. I think is admirable, but I think it’s aspirational.”

Morey said she was worried that the goals would never be met without more teeth in the bill because the bill allows the commission to reset the goals every two years. She also questioned whether it would be able to keep rate hikes from hurting low-income customers.

Environmental and consumer advocates have also expressed a divided view of the bill.

A statement from the Southern Environmental Law Center said the bill did not go far enough to make sure reductions would actually be achieved. 

“While the Southern Environmental Law Center strongly supports the goals to reduce heat-trapping carbon pollution in House Bill 951 and appreciates the efforts to negotiate a bipartisan energy bill, we are concerned that the current bill will not achieve those reductions and fails to spread the clean energy transition to include low-income customers,” according to the statement.

House and Senate members who shared similar concerns but opted to vote in favor of the bill, said it was important to move forward in climate policy.

Rep. Graig Meyer, D-Orange, said he wanted to support the spirit of compromise among legislators who came together to advance the goals in the bill. He said he was disappointed the legislature deferred to the Utilities Commission to work out the details, but said that there is a consensus to put a process in place to reduce carbon emissions is significant.

“I think that’s why I’ll end up voting for the bill, because it sets a goal that I think is so critically important,” Meyer said, “and I appreciate those members of the Republican Party who haven’t been very vocal in support of major climate change legislation for being willing to vote and be on board for this bill.”

In all, a dozen Democrats voted against the bill. They were joined by eight Republicans, including Rep. Larry Pittman of Cabbarus County, who gave a lengthy speech in support of carbon dioxide, called anthropogenic climate change “a farce and a fraud” and called on members of his caucus to vote against the bill.

“All this hysteria about the production of CO2 and the supposed need to reduce it is nothing more than a not-so-well-hidden agenda of government control of the people and our lives,” Pittman said.

It is not.

Despite objections from both sides of the aisle, the bill has enjoyed strong support.

Sen. Julie Mayfield, D-Buncombe, and co-director of the Southern Blue Ridge advocacy organization Mountain True, said it marks a tangible change in attitudes on climate change.

“This is a first step to protecting future generations of North Carolinians,” Mayfield said in a statement after the Senate vote. “With this legislation, we can say that combating climate change is a bipartisan issue.” 

Andrew Hutson, Audubon North Carolina executive director and National Audubon Society vice president, also called it a turning point. 

“We know the stakes of climate change for birds and people, especially communities on the front lines who are already facing the impacts of extreme weather and air pollution. This bill will clean up our power sector and deliver carbon reductions at a time that we can’t afford more delays,” Hutson said.

State House and Senate leaders signed off on a new budget plan last week, kicking off the next phase in negotiations with Gov. Roy Cooper and the potential for an agreement that could end years of budget standoffs.

House Speaker Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, and Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, announced that House and Senate conferees reached a deal Wednesday morning. They said they had previewed portions of the plan with Cooper’s staff and hope to avoid another protracted budget fight.

This year’s budget process is running months behind schedule, but the downside to that is overshadowed by the prospects of a deal that would avoid the kind of bitter veto and override battles of the last three years.

State government has not operated under a formal two-year budget since 2018, the last year both chamber of the legislature were controlled by Republican supermajorities.

In 2019 and 2020, a budget standoff between Cooper and the legislature led to a series of minibudgets to fund agencies and proposals where the two sides agreed. Other parts of the government have operated under an automatic budget law that funds departments and agencies at the prior year levels until a new budget is passed.

The reduced spending, a massive influx of federal COVID-19 and disaster relief, and a larger than expected jump in revenues have given lawmakers plenty to work with on a spending package.

The legislature’s Fiscal Research Division’s end-of-tax-year analysis this summer estimated that the state would collect $6.5 billion more than originally estimated.

But the rosy revenue scenario hasn’t made drafting a budget an easier task.  

This year, disagreements early on between the House and Senate, including on a target spending level, slowed the budget rollout.

The Senate passed its plan on June 28 with a 32-17 vote. The House put its plan to a vote on Aug. 12 and passed it 72-41. While both margins are enough to override a governor’s veto, in practice, Democrats have closed ranks in the past to back Cooper.

Rep. Pat McElraft, R-Carteret, said Friday she expects the plan to go to the governor this week and expects the process to take roughly two weeks.

“I would guess we should have something to vote on by the middle of October or so,” she said.

Cooper press secretary Jordan Monaghan confirmed that top level talks have started.

“The Governor and legislative leaders and staff are beginning budget negotiations and that will continue into next week,” Monaghan said Friday in an email response to Coastal Review.

Consensus on coastal concerns

Much of this year’s budget discussions have taken place behind the scenes, in particular the latest round of talks in the House and Senate conference committee that crafted the final legislative product.

Because of that, what’s been worked out in areas where the two chambers diverged won’t be known until the final product is unveiled, but what’s been in agreement all along, especially things also in Cooper’s plan, are likely to be in the end product.

Although details vary between the proposals, the list includes numerous coastal and environmental policy and funding provisions.

Topping the priorities are flood mitigation and resiliency projects, personnel for emerging contaminant research and tracking at the Department of Environmental Quality, and the large increases in conservation, water quality and parks funding.

The House is proposing $80 million in the current fiscal year for the Land and Water Fund and $70 million for the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, or PARTF. The Senate budget puts $73 million toward the Land and Water Fund and $53 million into PARTF.

Support for both conservation funds bottomed out in 2013 and have been on a slow, steady climb since. The proposed funding levels would restore both to levels prior to the Great Recession that began in December 2007. 

The House, Senate and governor’s plans all include additional funds for shellfish programs including leasing, additional personnel for the Division of Marine Fisheries, and the long-sought replacement of the aging West Bay, the vessel the division uses for cultch planting.

Special provisions in both House and Senate budgets include continued studies on per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, by the North Carolina Policy Collaboratory at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, along with a new, mandatory statewide online registry of all firefighting foam containing PFAS and related substances.

Both chambers’ budgets also include provisions setting up a voluntary commercial fishing license buyback program to reduce underutilized licenses and both include a continued shellfish leasing moratorium in sections of New Hanover and Carteret counties. The Senate’s version extends the moratorium indefinitely. The House would end it in 2026.

If even half of the funding and policy changes in the pursuit of resiliency, flood mitigation and land conservation make it through the budget process, it would be far and away the biggest effort in the state’s history to meet the challenge of a changing climate.

This year, there is broad consensus across party lines and between the legislature and the executive branch to make bold moves in these areas, spending as much as $1 billion in state money and putting plans in place to draw billions more in federal support.

But the consensus on flooding and resiliency could prove to be more exception than rule as lawmakers grapple with other strategies and policies that in one way or another address the impacts and causes of climate change.

Although with each year and with each new set of disasters, the risk of doing nothing becomes clearer, the job of putting together policies in an atmosphere in which even the phrase “climate change” is still viewed by many with suspicion remains one of the heavier lifts on Jones Street.

Mark Fleming, president and CEO of the Conservatives for Clean Energy, said polling indicates that while attitudes are shifting about clean energy, “climate change” is still a loaded term for some.

“I would say we are getting there as a state, we really are,” he said. “The problem is if you try to inject the phrase ‘climate change,’ everyone goes to their corners because of the politics of that phrase. It’s not even the policy as much as the phrase. But if you’re talking about sustainability, if you’re talking about lowering emissions, conservatives are there on that.”

There’s no doubt attitudes are changing in the legislature as well, Fleming said. “Ten years ago, this was all viewed as a partisan issue. Today it’s really not.”

A decade ago, clean energy was only backed by a couple of Republican members, Fleming said, compared to 10 to 15 members today, a number that’s likely to grow with each new class of legislators.

“We’ve come a long way,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there isn’t work to be done on these issues, but we see a growing number of conservatives that are championing these issues. I think you’ll continue to see that and a lot of it is generational.”

Fleming said this year’s resilience and flooding legislation is a good sign that bipartisan consensus is possible. He still expects to see policy battles on how to approach solutions going forward, but the legislature appears more and more willing to take action.

“The need to do something is the driving thing,” he said. “I think we’ll see more and more consensus on that, bipartisan consensus.”

Rep. John Ager, D-Buncombe, said that consensus can’t happen soon enough. Ager, a farmer and small farm proponent, has been trying to pass a bill that would encourage no-till techniques, better use of cover crops and other practices that improve carbon sequestration in soils. It’s the kind of bill that’s passed in other states but he can’t get traction among his GOP colleagues in Raleigh.

“It’s been frustrating,” he said. “We had to be careful to use the right words because it felt like if they heard the wrong words they’d just turn their minds off and I don’t know what the right words are to turn them back on.”

Sen. Natalie Murdock, D-Durham, said she has reason hope that the legislature is moving in the right direction despite language barriers.

“I think a lot of people don’t want to call it climate change, they don’t want to talk about global warming, but they may focus more on ‘we need more renewables’ or ‘we need more diversity in our energy portfolio.’ They may call it something different, but I definitely think that we can achieve that goal even if they don’t have my belief that climate change is real,” she said. “I focus on what we agree on and kind of work from there.”

Murdock said ultimately the legislature’s hand will be forced by circumstances. The recent report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and natural disasters have made it clear that the state has to get serious about taking action.

“I think we’ll be forced to,” Murdock said. “I don’t think you can deny the science.”

Heated hearings

Although legislative leaders and Gov. Roy Cooper have found common ground on flooding and resilience, sharp differences remain around greenhouse gas reductions.

Cooper’s call early in his first term for the state to set carbon-reduction targets and to sign on to the Paris Agreement received a cool reception in the North Carolina General Assembly.

This session, opposition to the governor’s carbon-reduction goals heated up during confirmation hearings in the Senate Agriculture, Energy and Environment Committee for Cooper’s two choices to lead the Department of Environmental Quality, former secretary Dionne Delli-Gatti, who the Senate rejected, and DEQ Secretary Elizabeth Biser, who was confirmed last month.

At both sets of hearings, Sen. Paul Newton, R-Cabbarus, and former president of Duke Energy North Carolina, took aim at Cooper’s carbon reduction strategy, making the case that reductions by North Carolina would be costly and ultimately futile given increases in emission in places like China and India.

“Would you agree with me that if North Carolina is the only one that reduces carbon, and everybody else around the world is increasing carbon, North Carolina’s contribution to improving the climate is actually zero?” Newton asked Biser Aug. 17 during her confirmation hearing.

Biser, a former legislative liaison, agreed, but said the state won’t be going it alone. 

“If we were the only ones doing it, I think we would get lost in that bucket,” she replied. “Fortunately, we’re joined by a lot of other folks. It’s not everyone, as you point out, but I think this is top of mind for a lot of leaders worldwide.”

Legislators have also recently criticized a move by the Environmental Management Commission in July to accept a petition calling for the commission to begin a process for drafting carbon-reduction rules.

Last week, the House added an amendment to a comprehensive energy reform bill that would prevent the administration from joining a regional greenhouse gas compact without explicit legislative approval.

In a response to Coastal Review on Monday, Cooper spokesperson Jordan Monaghan said the governor would continue to push for emission reductions and that the state would reap the benefits of a clean-energy strategy.

“Climate change poses an existential threat and we must do our part to reduce carbon emissions, but just as important is the economic boost and high paying jobs that North Carolina gets if we lead the way on the inevitable move to renewable energy,” Monaghan said.

Although it’s not spelled out entirely, a major reduction in the state’s overall carbon output is built into major energy legislation now in the hands of the Senate.

The legislation, House Bill 951, Modernize Energy Generation, would accelerate the decommissioning of Duke Energy’s fleet of coal-fired units, streamline solar rules and revamp the state’s energy infrastructure. Hammered out in closed-door negotiations earlier this session, the 47-page bill passed the House 57-49 in mid-July but only after sponsors acknowledged its imperfections and assured their colleagues it would likely undergo substantial changes during the back and forth between the two chambers.

Rep. John Szoka, a Cumberland County Republican and one of the bill’s three main sponsors, said it’s unclear what direction the legislation will take.

He said Senate leaders and the governor have an interest in moving the bill forward. “I don’t know what they’re going to do, they could throw the whole thing away and start from scratch, they could take pieces of it,” he said. The most beneficial thing about House Bill 951 wasn’t the end product. It was the discussions that were raised.”

He said policymakers are trying to strike a balance between increasing renewable energy production, achieving carbon reductions and keeping costs down. 

“It’s one of those things where everyone has to give up something,” he said.

Monaghan said Cooper wants to see ideas on renewable energy, ratepayer protection and clean-energy jobs from Executive Order 80, the governor’s 2018 clean energy initiative, incorporated into the bill.

Szoka said that while he’s not sure where the Senate is going on the legislation, he expects that it will likely include fewer mandates and rely more heavily on the state Utilities Commission than the House version.

“I think there’s a path ahead,” he said, “but it’s a process and energy issues are incredibly complex.”

Murdock, who serves on the Senate’s Agriculture Energy and Environment Committee, said she doesn’t support the House version of the energy bill and expects the Senate to make considerable changes, like putting the Utilities Commission back in the driver’s seat on some of the decisions.

The result for the legislation may not be exactly the kind of sweeping change initially promised, she said, but there’s a real chance at progress.

“I know that it still has a long way to go,” she said. “But I think that we’re moving in the right direction. I couldn’t support the initial version of it, but the fact that we’re having serious talks about more coal plant retirements is definitely a step in the right direction.”

Like Fleming, Szoka, who has been in the legislature since 2012, says despite the disagreements over details, attitudes are changing in both chambers and policy is likely to follow.

He said it’s true that the legislature has been generally slower to accept carbon reduction than Congress and other states, but he recalled a similar skepticism about renewable energy.

“When I first got here the view was that it wouldn’t exist without tax credits. Now, it’s a generally more acceptable form of energy by people in both parties,” he said. “Sometimes ideas evolve over time and it takes a period of time to get to where an idea really gets some legs under it.”

This story has been updated.

House and Senate negotiators are working on a budget deal after the House approved its version 72-41 following 10 hours of floor debate last week. The House plan would spend $25.7 billion this year and $26.7 billion next year.

Although the amount on the bottom line remains the same for both chambers, a House and Senate conference committee will start working through differences large and small between the chambers.

Like the Senate, the House plan includes significant appropriations and policy provisions for flooding mitigation and resilience programs, part of a major new surge in state initiatives in natural resources, parks and conservation. That includes a major boost for the state’s Land and Water Fund and the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund and a substantial flow of funds into new, flood-prevention strategies.

Rep. Pat McElraft, R-Carteret, said the budget was the best for the environment that she’s seen in her 15 years in the legislature. She said the commitment to the Land and Water Fund and the parks trust fund would make a real difference.

“During the pandemic we all know where people wanted to be, and it was in their parks, it was outside,” she said. “This is money for our folks, this is money for our constituents, to make sure that those parks and those grants to our local governments are there for them.”

House Majority Leader John Bell, R-Wayne, said the House plan’s roughly $1 billion aimed at flood mitigation and disaster recovery represents an important shift toward more pre-disaster strategies.

“This bipartisan plan provides historic and unprecedented investment in tools to help the local communities recover from previous damage and prepare for future disasters,” Bell said during a budget announcement last week. “For every dollar spent on predisaster mitigation today, taxpayers save four to seven in disaster recovery funding on the back end.”

Bell said the plan would spend more than $465 million on planning and statewide and local mitigation projects as well as set aside another $330 million for future projects.

Most of the flood-mitigation and resilience provisions in the budget stem from House Bill 500, which was introduced in June.

While several sections of the legislation correspond to priorities outlined by the Senate in its budget, there’s still an array of differences between the two chambers, mainly in how the flood programs will ultimately be administered.

Those differences, including the role of the North Carolina Office of Recovery and Resiliency, or NCORR, could be settled through the budget or standalone legislation.

That includes NCORR itself, which was set up under the Department of Public Safety in the wake of Hurricane Florence to manage federal aid and develop resiliency programs. It was originally authorized for three years. Language in both budgets would establish it as a permanent agency.

Although the final package is still a work in progress, the flood and resiliency projects that made the list in both chambers’ budgets are likely to make it into the conference committee report.

They include $10 million for local and regional resiliency planning assistance, $20 million for a statewide flood resiliency blueprint, $40 million for Coastal Storm Damage Mitigation Fund and dozens of local projects.

Coastal area projects on the list include $2 million to the North Carolina Coastal Federation for living shorelines, oyster reef and marsh restoration; $1 million to Hyde County for Lake Mattamuskeet Restoration Drainage project; $2 million to Carolina Beach to complete the dredging of Lake Park; $20 million to Oak Island for beach nourishment; $5 million to Southport for waterfront stabilization; and $250,000 to Carteret County for Marshallberg flood mitigation, ditch restoration and harbor discharge project.

Wetlands provision out

Although most of the House plan remained intact through last week’s debates, one proposed change in wetland protections was removed from the final bill.

The provision would have removed state protections for isolated wetlands. New federal Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rules dropped protections for isolated wetlands in 2020.

Environmental advocates said the provision could have left more than 1 million acres statewide without any protections, with the bulk of the wetlands concentrated in eastern North Carolina.  

Other controversial environmental provisions remain in the bill. One would prevent local governments from adopting tree ordinances and tree protections on their own, requiring them to be only adopted through an act of the legislature.

Another provision would prohibit local stormwater and riparian buffer rules that are more stringent than state or federal requirements.

A third provision would eliminate all local regulation of billboards. 

Scott Mooneyham, communications director for the North Carolina League of Municipalities, said the large number of provisions has left the budget “top heavy” with non-budget items. He said provisions such as the tree ordinance haven’t been reviewed by committees and need a full hearing.

“These ideas, which will affect a lot of people’s lives, ought to rise and fall of their own accord, rather than being put into a 670-page budget document,” Mooneyham said Monday in an email response to Coastal Review. “The nature of state budget negotiations is that public input from this point forward will be limited, and a final agreement will be subject to an up or down vote without the ability to make changes.”

Deal or no deal

Both chambers are far behind schedule on the budget, but could wrap up work in the next two weeks on the final legislative package.

After that, the outlook is far from certain. House Democrats last week pointed out that although they had scant participation in drafting the budget, they expected to have a seat at the table during final negotiations between the governor and the legislature.

Legislative leaders and Gov. Roy Cooper, who have been effectively engaged in a budget standoff since 2019, have expressed hope that a final deal can be reached in this year’s negotiation.

During a press conference Wednesday, House Minority Leader Robert Reives, D-Chatham, said this year appears to be different and an agreement is much more possible.

“We have differences of opinion, obviously, about policy and about how best to send us home,” he said. “But I do believe that everybody involved in this process understands the word compromise and is fine with the word compromise, and we are all ready to see what we can do to come to some type of compromise, to figure out to make sure that we’ve got the budget.”

North Carolina’s new fiscal year started on July 1 and state agencies have been operating under an automatic budget law that funds operations under the prior budget’s levels.