Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag Archives: Environmental Law

Legislator moves ahead of curve on ‘fracking’ in NC (access required)

State Rep. Mitch Gillespie described his bill to raise bonding permit fees on companies that want to drill for oil in North Carolina as "a one-issue place-holder bill." While that bill, H. 242, is in the House's Standing Committee on the Environment, the Burke County Republican said he will publish a proposed committee substitute addressing the broader issues posed by the process of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking."

Read More »

‘Fracking’ poses risks, opportunities for industry, public, lawyers (access required)

The 21st century is going to be defined by water, says Yadkin Riverkeeper Dean Naujoks. That is why he is against hydraulic fracturing in North Carolina. Right now the law is on Naujoks' side. But perhaps not for long. Winston-Salem attorney Nathan Atkinson, who represents energy companies throughout the Appalachian region, told Lawyers Weekly that "All the major players are looking at North Carolina for natural gas exploration, given estimates on deposits from some geologists in the area."

Read More »

Mecklenburg stays on top for NC brownfield redevelopments (access required)

When it comes to air quality, Charlotte is the worst in the state. But the area is environmentally friendly in other ways, particularly when it comes to redeveloping and cleaning brownfields - sites, such as former gasoline stations, that tend to repel developers because of concerns about contamination. Indeed, Charlotte continues to lead North Carolina in brownfield development since being the first city in the state to receive a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency brownfields assessment demonstration grant in 1996.

Read More »

Environmental – Administrative – Real Property – Variance – Land-Disturbing Activity – Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (access required)

Hensley v. North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources. Both the respondent-developer's proposal and the respondent-agency's variance conditions ensured that erosion and sedimentation were minimal during the period of golf course construction along Banks Creek. Our Court of Appeals held that the project was not "temporary" because of the developer's presumed need to conduct periodic maintenance activity in the creek's buffer zone; however, this reading contradicts the stated purpose of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act: to encourage continued development.

Read More »