Related Sources http://forums.arcgis.com/threads/80770-Environment-Crown-capital-earth-management-fraud-warriors-take-a-stand http://jdave2274.blogspot.com/

1. http://www.smithenvironment.com/a-rush-of-
environmental-legislation/

2. May 12, 2013: The bill “cross-over” deadline arrives this
week. By May 16, most bills must pass either the House
or the Senate and “cross over” to the other chamber to
avoid sudden death. (There are exceptions for finance
bills, budget bills and constitutional amendments.)
Because of the deadline, bills have been flying out of
committees and to the House and Senate floor — leading
to a flurry of posts. Two more bills that came out of
committee last week (and are scheduled for votes this
evening on the Senate or House floor):

3. Senate Bill 638 (N.C. Farm Act of 2013)
makes a significant change to state water quality law by
excluding any wetland that is not considered “waters of
the United States” from protection under the state’s water
quality permitting requirements. The bill takes a term
(“waters of the United
States”) that describes federal Clean Water
Act jurisdiction and uses it to remove state protection
for wetlands that fall outside federal jurisdiction. For
reasons that mostly have to do with limits on federal
authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, not all state waters or wetlands are
considered “waters of the United States”.

4. The limit on federal jurisdiction has nothing to do with
the importance of the wetland — it has to do with how the
Constitution divides responsibility between
the federal government and the states. The change in
definition would mean that someone could fill or
discharge pollutants to wetlands that fall outside federal
jurisdiction without any water quality permit from the
state. In committee, the change was described as one
intended to help farmers, but developers are likely to
benefit more.

5. House Bill 677 (Local Government Regulatory
Reform) came out of the House Regulatory Reform
Committee. Language in the bill could interfere with
efforts to keep the state’s urban areas in compliance with
the federal air pollution standard for ozone. Meeting the
ozone standard will be an increasing challenge
as population grows and the ozone standard becomes
tighter. An area that fails to meet the ozone standard risks
losing federal highway funding and new industrial
development projects. House Bill 677 prohibits cities and
counties from adopting an ordinance that “[r]equires an
employer to assume financial, legal, or other responsibility
for an employee’s carbon footprint, which may result in the
employer being subject to a fine. fee, or other monetary,
legal, or negative consequences”.

6. Although the intent of House Bill 677 isn’t completely clear
(and there was little committee discussion),
the bill could affect local programs to reduce motor
vehicle emissions that account for as much as 70% of the
ozone pollution in urban areas. For example, a
Durham ordinance requires large employers to do certain
things to reduce commuter miles traveled by
employees in an effort to reduce motor vehicle
emissions. The question is whether House Bill 677 will
take away some tools that fast-growing urban areas like
Durham can now use to stay in compliance with the
ozone standard.
Sources : http://www.smithenvironment.com/a-rush-of-
environmental-legislation/
Related Sources : http://jdave2274.blogspot.com/