N&O Index Card

Subject/Name: Watersheds

Article(s) Referenced In:

1. Cary plan proposed to protect watershed - Ja 4 86 1C
2. Editorial: Cary tries watershed catch-up - Ja 8 86 12A
3. State urged to protect critical watersheds - Ja 15 86 4C
4. Proposed law acceptable for watershed, official says - Ja 28 86 3C
5. Cary urged to limit development in Swift Creek watershed area - Ja 29 86 3C
6. Official concerned about Cary's ability to control erosion, protect watersheds - Ja 31 86 3D
7. Rhodes details proposed standards to restrict watershed development - Fe 13 86 5C
8. Cary council urged to strengthen watershed limits - Fe 15 86 2C
9. Editorial: Water quality needs clout - Fe 15 86 16A
10. Panel to review watershed proposal - Mr 28 86 1D
11. Watershed policy may be too weak, Walters says - Ap 11 86 4D
12. Planning board backs watershed rezoning - Au 15 86 9B
13. Concerns rise over watershed in Orange - Se 24 86 9A
14. Watershed restrictions are backed - Oc 15 86 1C
15. Carrboro mayor seeks closed meeting on water - Oc 21 86 2C
16. Editorial: secrecy threatens in Orange - Oc 22 86 18A
17. Orange watershed meeting opened - Oc 30 86 1C
18. Board backs church, school in Falls Lake watershed - No 11 86 2C
19. Durham county rejects watershed guidelines - No 11 86 18C
20. Officials defend action on University Lake watershed - No 14 86 2D
21. Editorial: Watershed precedent at stake - No 17 86 16A
22. Orange officials seek outlets to ease watershed pressure - No 18 86 2C
23. Panel to study plans for church, school in watershed - No 19 86 2C
24. Upchurch says uniform rules needed for development in watershed areas - No 26 86 1C
25. Editorial: Watersheds need regional rules - No 30 86 6D
26. Watersheds develop into battlefields - De 14 86 1
27. Uniform rules sought for watersheds - De 18 86 31A
28. Tax breaks touted for land protected within watersheds - De 27 86 1C

See a typo in our data? Let us know and we'll fix it.