N&O Index Card Listings
Displaying 1-10 of 24 results.
Watersheds
- The nine-dam Bear Creek watershed virtually assured. N&O, Mr-7-1958, 7:1
- Sen. Kerr Scott asked Congress to step-up the nation's small watershed program. Mr-29-1958 8:5
- Watershed Droject approved by Hodges. Ap-16-1958, 5:1
- Bear Creek watershed plan. Ap-20-1953, I 13:2
Watersheds
- Watershed project set for Pamlico Community. N&O, Jl-5-1959, II 8:2
- Burnt Mill Watershed plans accepted by the local land owners and approved by the Soil Conservation Service. Jl-6-1959 17:1
- Organization of watershed project on Crabtree Creek discussed. Oct-14-1959, 7:5
- Flood prevention program for Wake is launched. Oct-15-1959, 32:1
Watersheds
- Meeting announced of those interested in the Little River Watershed project. N&O, Nov-9-59, 15:7
- Board of Water Resources serves as reviewing agency for watershed work plans. Nov-15-59, I 9:1
Watersheds
- Crabtree Creek section voted for watershed improvement. N&O, Oct-9-60, I 20:1
- Bear Creek Watershed project board urged. Dec-23-60, 3:2
Watersheds
- Burnt Mill Creek Watershed dedication and Pollack Swamp Watershed ground breaking Thursday, Nov. 16. N&O, Nov-12-61, I 13:1
Watersheds
- Block seeks temporary ban on watershed development - Ja 6 84 1
- Editorial: Gasoline, water don't mix - Ja 9 84 4A
- Hunt to seek watershed budget OK - Ja 10 84 4C
- Ex-board member to seek watershed zoning changes - Fe 14 84 3C
- Planners favor extending Falls limits - Fe 16 84 1C
- Wake denies petition to increase Swift Creek density - Fe 21 84 12C
- Watershed development rules approved in Wake - Mr 6 84 1
- Heater offers changes to plan for watersheds - Mr 19 84 1C
- Planning board OKs year's ninth project in Falls watershed - Ap 20 84 4D
- Watershed responses due, 3 areas (Alamance, Person Cos.; Pittsboro)
- are told - My 5 84 1C
- Planners protect watershed, reservoir - My 17 84 2C
- Falls watershed zone could prevent smooth sailing for Durham proposal - My 24 84 4C
- Editorial: Trouble up the Neuse - My 26 84 4A
- Zoning rules OK'd to help (Swift Creek) watershed - Jy 3 84 1C
- Local officials avoid water plan target dates; progress praised - Jy 26 84 17A
- Planning committee urges strict control of Swift Creek watershed
- development - Au 31 84 18D
- Panel debates Falls Lake area development restrictions - Se 14 84 2D
- Wake Planning Board OKs buffer for Swift Creek area - Oc 4 84 22A
- Water quality improvement ureged - Oc 9 84 1C
- Panel informally shifts border for development in Falls basin - Oc 12 84 1D
- Program to reduce runoff in watersheds - Oc 24 84 4C
- Commission to get report next week on local efforts in Falls, Jordan
- basins - No 1 84 1C
- Panel accepts Falls-Jordan report without comment - No 9 84 20A
- Panel to pursue efforts against pollution at lakes - No 11 84 29A
- Editorial: Watersheds need action - No 13 84 4A
- Sewage plant in Falls watershed denied; developers plan appeal - No 13 84 1
- Editorial: Water-pollution danger - No 20 84 4A
- Falls Lake policy plaguing council - No 26 84 1
- Plans for sewage treatment plant modified (Falls Lake watershed) - De 3 84 4C
- Panel expected to urge approval of private sewage treatment plan
- (Falls Lake watershed) - De 5 84 5C
- Board proposes tight standards in Jordan basin - De 6 84 29A
- Rules to improve lakes' quality stir zoning fights in watersheds - De 10 84 1
- Question posed on two projects near Falls Lake - De 14 84 5B
- Wake commissioners approve buffer for Swift Creek, lakes - De 18 84 1C
Watersheds
- Cary plan proposed to protect watershed - Ja 4 86 1C
- Editorial: Cary tries watershed catch-up - Ja 8 86 12A
- State urged to protect critical watersheds - Ja 15 86 4C
- Proposed law acceptable for watershed, official says - Ja 28 86 3C
- Cary urged to limit development in Swift Creek watershed area - Ja 29 86 3C
- Official concerned about Cary's ability to control erosion, protect watersheds - Ja 31 86 3D
- Rhodes details proposed standards to restrict watershed development - Fe 13 86 5C
- Cary council urged to strengthen watershed limits - Fe 15 86 2C
- Editorial: Water quality needs clout - Fe 15 86 16A
- Panel to review watershed proposal - Mr 28 86 1D
- Watershed policy may be too weak, Walters says - Ap 11 86 4D
- Planning board backs watershed rezoning - Au 15 86 9B
- Concerns rise over watershed in Orange - Se 24 86 9A
- Watershed restrictions are backed - Oc 15 86 1C
- Carrboro mayor seeks closed meeting on water - Oc 21 86 2C
- Editorial: secrecy threatens in Orange - Oc 22 86 18A
- Orange watershed meeting opened - Oc 30 86 1C
- Board backs church, school in Falls Lake watershed - No 11 86 2C
- Durham county rejects watershed guidelines - No 11 86 18C
- Officials defend action on University Lake watershed - No 14 86 2D
- Editorial: Watershed precedent at stake - No 17 86 16A
- Orange officials seek outlets to ease watershed pressure - No 18 86 2C
- Panel to study plans for church, school in watershed - No 19 86 2C
- Upchurch says uniform rules needed for development in watershed areas - No 26 86 1C
- Editorial: Watersheds need regional rules - No 30 86 6D
- Watersheds develop into battlefields - De 14 86 1
- Uniform rules sought for watersheds - De 18 86 31A
- Tax breaks touted for land protected within watersheds - De 27 86 1C
