N&O Index Card

Subject/Name: Watersheds

Article(s) Referenced In:

1. Triangle governments disagree on strictness of watershed rules - Ja 4 88 1
2. Watershed protection rules near drinking water lakes (Chart) - Ja 4 88 4A
3. Editorial: Rules face a watershed - Ja 5 88 8A
4. Raleigh backs rules to protect Falls Lake - Ja 6 88 1C
5. Watershed landowners fear nest eggs on line - Ja 11 88 1C
6. (Falls Lake) Watershed use debate looms at counties' meeting (Durham; Person; Orange) - Ja 12 88 1C
7. Counties urged to share water-protection costs - Ja 13 88 2C
8. Swift creek watershed rezoning opposed - Ja 13 88 1C
9. Planning commission backs stricter rules for 2 watersheds (Falls Lake & Swift Creek) - Ja 14 88 3C
10. Strict state classification sought for Wake, Franklin watersheds - Ja 17 88 29A
11. Wake developers closing in on Swift Creek watershed - Ja 18 88 1
12. Editorial: High stakes for clean water - Ja 19 88 8A
13. Planning panel urges delay in regulation of watershed runoff - Fe 11 88 1C
14. Public spaces urged for mall office building (and watershed restriction) - Fe 23 88 1C
15. Swift Creek landowners get backing of planners - Fe 25 88 1WA
16. Falls Lake watershed rules criticized - Mr 2 88 1C
17. Falls Lake restrictions questioned - Mr 7 88 1C
18. Guilford voters approve watershed protection plan - Mr 10 88 4C
19. Wake candidates divided over WATERSHED control - Mr 31 88 4C
20. WATERSHED protection expensive, panel told - Ap 1 88 2C
21. Watershed consultants offer alternative to smaller houses - Ap 21 88 7T
22. Cost-sharing urged to protect Durham watersheds - Ma 25 88 10B
23. Editorial: Clean water at stake - Ma 30 88 16A
24. Wake hopefuls focus campaigns on water-supply issues - Jn 3 88 1C
25. Industrial uses for watershed by mall backed - Jy 7 88 1C
26. Editorial: Early bird gets watershed worm - Jy 8 88 12A
27. Garner asked to annex land in watershed - Jy 20 88 1
28. Durham school board hopes to skirt water standards - Jy 22 88 1
29. Development spurs watershed fears; Some fear cities' growth will damage water supply - Jy 25 88 1
30. Editorial: Dirty water, drop by drop - Jy 25 88 6A
31. Developers promise to protect Swift Creek; Garner board studies subdivision, golf course - Jy 27 88 1
32. Editorial: Durham County plugs the dike - Jy 27 88 10A
33. Joint effort backed on watershed regulations - Au 9 88 18C
34. Conferees propose plan for Swift Creek growth - Se 7 88 1
35. Swift Creek proposal viewed as test of watershed rankings - Se 8 88 16C
36. Swift Creek Navy may boost Cary's image on pollution - Se 15 88 25A
37. Tar Heel editors speak: Durham council decides to stand by commitment (watershed vote) - Se 18 88 7D
38. Cary board backs zoning in Swift Creek watershed - Se 20 88 3C
39. Board lobbied on Outer Loop, Little River - Se 21 88 4C
40. Conferees urge state to step up efforts to protect water supplies - Se 25 88 33A
41. Market pushes watershed growth - Oc 10 88 1C
42. Developer (BENSON) suing Raleigh on Falls Lake watershed rules - Oc 15 88 1C
43. Editorial: The minefield at swift Creek - Oc 17 88 8A
44. Proof of value called key to watershed rules - Oc 27 88 16C
45. Wake Forest revisions 'add flexibility' in watershed - Oc 27 88 4T
46. Pendleton changes views on watershed protection - Oc 29 88 2C
47. Durham watershed study urges cooperation (Map) - No 3 88 2C

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