N&O Index Card Listings

Displaying 11-20 of 24 results.
Watersheds
  • Church, foes debate project in watershed - Ja 23 87 1D
  • Watershed zoning hearing sought - Ja 23 87 3D
  • City codes at issue in debate on church - Ja 24 87 1C
  • Conservation board member backs Crabtree watershed dam - Mr 4 87 5C
  • Watershed protection ordered; Phosphorus discharge into (Falls and Jordan) lakes limited - Mr 13 87 1
  • Watershed-development rules backed (by Raleigh Planning Commission) - Mr 26 87 1C
  • Triangle J studying plan to protect Falls watershed - Ap 16 87 1C
  • Water, sewer line moratorium near University Lake expected - Ap 23 87 2C
  • Watershed plan faces revision - Ap 23 87 11B
  • University Lake watershed building ban set - Ap 24 87 2D
  • Protection for Falls Lake watershed not likely - Ap 28 87 1C
  • Editorial: Water policy needed now - Ap 29 87 12A
  • Measure would require governments to enforce watershed pollution limits - Ap 30 87 21A
  • Neuse controls urged; Designation sought as nutrient-sensitive basin - My 1 87 1D
  • Watershed bill stirs troubled waters; Bill from Wake sends ripple through Durham - My 5 87 1
  • Wake wants watershed bill sent to study panel - My 12 87 18C
  • Panel will study anti-pollution bill - My 14 87 21A
  • Water experts, planners to study watersheds - My 14 87 24C
  • Panel urges study on protecting watersheds - My 21 87 30A
  • Pollution safeguards proposed for Neuse - My 30 87 1
  • Swift Creek development limited - Jy 17 87 1
  • Board advises study before Amberly ruling - Jy 22 87 2C
  • More study requested on Falls watershed - Jy 29 87 2C
  • Under the Dome: Watershed laws may be studied - Au 19 87 1
  • Rule change urged for watersheds (Wake Co.) - Se 3 87 1C
  • Editorial: Best watershed plan: Keep out - Se 9 87 12A
  • Watershed site rules stiffened (by Wake commissioners) - Se 22 87 1C
  • Wake mayors endorse bill for Falls Lake study - Se 23 87 2C
  • Watershed relaxation proposed - Oc 29 87 1
  • Watershed proposal attacked - Oc 30 87 1C
  • Group wants more houses in watershed; Outer Loop land offered for OK on 67 more units - No 11 87 1
  • Marina expansion might avoid county rules - No 11 87 2C
  • Editorial: Lake's rough sailing ... includes Loop loophole - No 13 87 24A
  • One of two subdivisions in watershed backed - No 13 87 2C
  • Cary's bid for watershed land control backed - No 19 87 1C
  • Carrboro developer begins drive for new subdivision in watershed - No 28 87 2C
  • Watershed proposal assailed; Critics say plan would create more government - De 4 87 1
  • Editorial: Referee needed for Falls - De 7 87 10A
  • Watershed plans rile some counties - De 13 87 1
  • Editorial: Falls Lake distractions - De 17 87 26A
  • Suit filed by Carrboro development foes dismissed - De 17 87 4C
  • Raleigh panel backs tough watershed rules - De 30 87 1C
Watersheds
  • Formulation urged of lake growth plan - My 20 83 3D
  • Senator urges study of Neuse development - My 20 83 18D
  • Developers, officials rap area planning - Au 21 83 25A
Watersheds
  • Proposal would weaken rules for water supplies - Ja 23 92 1
  • Proposed changes in the state's watershed protection rules - Ja 23 92 13A
  • Legislators challenge watershed plan - Ja 24 92 1B
  • Editorial: Watershed giveaway - Ja 26 92 6J
  • Watershed shield faces well-heeled challenge - Ja 26 92 1
  • Building rules loosened for part of (Swift Creek) watershed - Ja 29 92 2B
  • Chapel Hill seeks stronger watershed rules - Ja 29 92 2B
  • Tar Heel editors speak: Looking for balance - Fe 2 92 7J
  • Groups assail Martin role; Governor blamed for watershed fight - Fe 7 92 1B
  • Editorial: Your water at stake - Fe 9 92 6G
  • Proposed changes in the state's watershed-protection rules - Fe 12 92 2B
  • Water quality rules at fork; State panel set for critical vote - Fe 12 92 1B
  • Editorial: Fateful day for drinking water - Fe 13 92 12A
  • Watershed rules diluted; Developers get nod from EMC - Fe 14 92 1
  • Editorial: A sieve for water - Fe 16 92 6G
  • Under the Dome: Blood is thicker in watershed debate - Fe 16 92 1C
  • Debate on water to continue; Battle on watersheds moving to local level - Fe 22 92 1B
  • 'Minimum standards'? Hardly - Fe 23 92 7C
  • Tar Heel editors speak: Watershed rules not 'diluted' - Fe 23 92 7C
  • Developers, environmentalists monitor property-rights case - Mr 3 92 1D
  • Exploring options to ensure water quality - Mr 9 92 9A
  • Three groups to fight new watershed rules; Environmentalists 'are not going to quit' - Ap 14 92 5B
  • Editorial: Clean-water comeback - Ap 21 92 8A
  • State agrees Falls Lake study is flawed - Ap 29 92 3B
  • Proposed watershed rules stir little talk; But group will fight weaker restrictions - My 9 92 5B
  • 468
Watersheds
  • United planning effort sought for watershed of Falls Lake - My 19 83 4C
  • Formulation urged of lake growth plan - My 20 83 3D
  • Board approves measure for Wake to monitor Falls, Jordan watersheds - My 21 83 1C
  • Wake planners broaden study of (Falls Lake) watershed - My 25 83 1C
  • Required buffers studied in Falls watershed - Jn 8 83 1C
  • Editorial: Good watershed news - Jn 10 83 4A
Watersheds
  • Watershed controls may hike bills - Jn 10 83 1D
  • Major owners of property in watershed - Jy 24 83 22A
  • Hearing set for tonight on watershed proposals (Falls and Jordan lakes) - Au 9 83 3C
  • Counties agree state must lead in Falls controls - Au 31 83 1
  • Editorial: Larger lake role for state - Se 2 83 4A
  • Upchurch urges state to set up Falls board - Se 13 83 4C
  • Wake health board toughens rules on sewage treatment in watersheds - Se 13 83 1
  • Board OKs ninth subdivision in Falls watershed - Se 22 83 1
  • Panel urges strictest limits in critical watershed areas - Se 23 83 1D
  • Runoff fuels problems in watersheds - Se 26 83 1C
  • Grimsley suggests watershed controls - Oc 8 83 1
  • Erosion of soil may kill farms, analysis shows (Upper Neuse River basin) - No 28 83 1C
  • Standards proposed for lake areas - No 29 83 1
  • Level of watershed growth controls debated - De 1 83 1C
  • Editorial: Water still needs saving - My 14 92 14A
  • EMC set to assign watershed categories - My 14 92 1
  • Watershed classifications (Chart) - My 14 92 12A
  • State adopts restrictions on watersheds - My 15 92 1B
  • Water plan puts panel on the spot; Some question cost of saving mussels - Jn 22 92 1B
  • Public hearings requested on watershed rules - Se 24 92 6B
  • Environmental groups seek more hearings (on watershed protections) - Oc 10 92 5B
  • Golf course (in Falls Lake watershed) plan slowed; Homeowners voice opposition - Oc 14 92 1B
  • Debate over runoff mires plans for links in Falls watershed - No 11 92 2B
Watersheds
  • Treyburn developers battle watershed rule - My 2 91 1B
  • Survey finds errors in Falls Lake maps - My 4 91 2B
  • EMC denies Treyburn petition - My 10 91 2B
  • Durham Board OKs review of lake survey - My 14 91 5B
  • Editorial: Watershed rules have reason - My 23 91 20A
  • Lake stance shifts; Planners oppose tougher rules - Au 8 91 1B
  • Editorial: Golden rule for water - Au 12 91 8A
  • Proposed watershed protection areas (Map) - Au 12 91 8A
  • Environmentalists fear watershed rules imperiled - Au 13 91 1
  • Falls Lake watershed limit sought; Durham planners want state to exempt northern part of reservoir - Au 13 91 6B
  • Waterhed rules often pit neighbor against neighbor - Au 13 91 1
  • Watershed solution still over horizon - Au 15 91 6B
  • Durham told to be courteous over watershed - Au 20 91 6B
  • Watershed rules criticized and supported - Au 21 91 6B
  • Builders group assails watershed restrictions - Au 22 91 5B
  • Wake board to reconsider watershed rules - Au 22 91 3B
  • Overflow at hearings on water force state to hold another round - Au 23 91 4B
  • Editorial: Battle of the watersheds - Au 24 91 12A
  • Early birds crowd public from podium; Environmentalists say builders stack hearings on water - Au 25 91 1C
  • Wake seeking stiffer rules for Falls watershed - Se 5 91 1B
  • Tar Heel editors speak: Watershed protection in big trouble - Se 22 91 7J
  • Water rules plan attacked; State proposal would hurt Garner, panel told - Oc 1 91 1B
  • More lenient rules urged for watershed - Oc 17 91 1B
  • Editorial: Into the breach for water - Oc 21 91 8A
  • Durham seeks flexibility in enforcing watershed rules - Oc 22 91 3B
  • Wake backs tougher watershed standards - Oc 22 91 1
  • (Wake) County wants 2 types of watershed protection - Oc 23 91 2B
  • 572
Watersheds
  • Triangle governments disagree on strictness of watershed rules - Ja 4 88 1
  • Watershed protection rules near drinking water lakes (Chart) - Ja 4 88 4A
  • Editorial: Rules face a watershed - Ja 5 88 8A
  • Raleigh backs rules to protect Falls Lake - Ja 6 88 1C
  • Watershed landowners fear nest eggs on line - Ja 11 88 1C
  • (Falls Lake) Watershed use debate looms at counties' meeting (Durham; Person; Orange) - Ja 12 88 1C
  • Counties urged to share water-protection costs - Ja 13 88 2C
  • Swift creek watershed rezoning opposed - Ja 13 88 1C
  • Planning commission backs stricter rules for 2 watersheds (Falls Lake & Swift Creek) - Ja 14 88 3C
  • Strict state classification sought for Wake, Franklin watersheds - Ja 17 88 29A
  • Wake developers closing in on Swift Creek watershed - Ja 18 88 1
  • Editorial: High stakes for clean water - Ja 19 88 8A
  • Planning panel urges delay in regulation of watershed runoff - Fe 11 88 1C
  • Public spaces urged for mall office building (and watershed restriction) - Fe 23 88 1C
  • Swift Creek landowners get backing of planners - Fe 25 88 1WA
  • Falls Lake watershed rules criticized - Mr 2 88 1C
  • Falls Lake restrictions questioned - Mr 7 88 1C
  • Guilford voters approve watershed protection plan - Mr 10 88 4C
  • Wake candidates divided over WATERSHED control - Mr 31 88 4C
  • WATERSHED protection expensive, panel told - Ap 1 88 2C
  • Watershed consultants offer alternative to smaller houses - Ap 21 88 7T
  • Cost-sharing urged to protect Durham watersheds - Ma 25 88 10B
  • Editorial: Clean water at stake - Ma 30 88 16A
  • Wake hopefuls focus campaigns on water-supply issues - Jn 3 88 1C
  • Industrial uses for watershed by mall backed - Jy 7 88 1C
  • Editorial: Early bird gets watershed worm - Jy 8 88 12A
  • Garner asked to annex land in watershed - Jy 20 88 1
  • Durham school board hopes to skirt water standards - Jy 22 88 1
  • Development spurs watershed fears; Some fear cities' growth will damage water supply - Jy 25 88 1
  • Editorial: Dirty water, drop by drop - Jy 25 88 6A
  • Developers promise to protect Swift Creek; Garner board studies subdivision, golf course - Jy 27 88 1
  • Editorial: Durham County plugs the dike - Jy 27 88 10A
  • Joint effort backed on watershed regulations - Au 9 88 18C
  • Conferees propose plan for Swift Creek growth - Se 7 88 1
  • Swift Creek proposal viewed as test of watershed rankings - Se 8 88 16C
  • Swift Creek Navy may boost Cary's image on pollution - Se 15 88 25A
  • Tar Heel editors speak: Durham council decides to stand by commitment (watershed vote) - Se 18 88 7D
  • Cary board backs zoning in Swift Creek watershed - Se 20 88 3C
  • Board lobbied on Outer Loop, Little River - Se 21 88 4C
  • Conferees urge state to step up efforts to protect water supplies - Se 25 88 33A
  • Market pushes watershed growth - Oc 10 88 1C
  • Developer (BENSON) suing Raleigh on Falls Lake watershed rules - Oc 15 88 1C
  • Editorial: The minefield at swift Creek - Oc 17 88 8A
  • Proof of value called key to watershed rules - Oc 27 88 16C
  • Wake Forest revisions 'add flexibility' in watershed - Oc 27 88 4T
  • Pendleton changes views on watershed protection - Oc 29 88 2C
  • Durham watershed study urges cooperation (Map) - No 3 88 2C
Watersheds
  • Editorial: - Nature writes water rules - Oc 27 91 6J
  • Durham commissioners OK Falls Lake plan - Oc 29 91 6B
  • Water rules won't hurt development, group says; Developers, towns dispute conclusions - No 27 91 1
  • Editorial: - Developer dog won't hurt - No 29 91 16A
  • Wake asserts control over watershed land; County to determine future of 2,000 acres - De 3 91 1B
  • Editorial: - Paving the way to pollution - De 5 91 20A
  • North Carolina's watershed decision; A stop-growth plan in disguise; Only developers' profits will
  • suffer - De 22 91 7J
Watersheds
  • Falls Lake panel finishes plan to curb residential, commercial development - Ja 3 85 1C
  • Landowners await development plan for Falls Lake basin - Ja 7 85 1C
  • Planning panel backs Durant Road as Falls Lake development boundary - Ja 8 85 1C
  • Editorial: - Lake proposal too risky - Ja 9 85 4A
  • Commission wants review of progress by Chatham in developing Jordan plan - Ja 11 85 8B
  • Wake official to ask commissioners to scrap law on stormwater runoff - Ja 18 85 1D
  • Some commissioners want to scrap ordinance on development runoff - Ja 19 85 1C
  • Editorial: - Burden rests on Heater - Ja 26 85 4A
  • Falls basin rules, subdivision OK'd - Mr 6 85 1C
  • Board delays action on request for stricter Swift Creek zoning - Mr 7 85 21A
  • Board OKs Jordan Lake restrictions - Mr 19 85 5C
  • Watershed zoning request denied (Falls Lake Watershed) - Mr 19 85 1
  • Council urged to expand jurisdiction to protect Swift Creek - Ap 3 85 4C
  • Raleigh asked to consider Wake's Swift Creek plan - Ap 14 85 39A
  • Board to restrict growth in Swift Creek basin area - Ap 16 85 12A
  • Watershed group (Falls and Jordan Lakes), Rhodes meet - My 2 85 17A
  • 500 acres in Swift Creek watershed given environmental safeguards - My 21 85 1C
  • Outer Loop could force trade-off in watershed rules - Se 9 85 1
  • Higher density plan offered for (Falls Lake) watershed - Oc 16 85 4C
  • Planning board votes against proposal to allow higher density in watershed - Oc 17 85 4C
  • Regional standards urged for Falls Lake protection - No 7 85 3C
  • Rezoning near watershed opposed - No 7 85 1C
  • Commissioners vote against rezoning for offices near Falls Lake watershed - No 19 85 1
  • Editorial: - Watershed fate on line - No 21 85 16A
  • City Council OKs density trade-off, excludes parts of Falls Lake watershed - No 22 85 1
  • Regulation of development uneven in Falls Lake basin - No 24 85 29A
  • Editorial: - Right way on watershed - No 25 85 12A
  • Plan would allow state to protect watersheds - No 27 85 1C
  • Board votes to deny watershed rezoning - De 5 85 2C
  • Part of site for mall drains into watershed - De 14 85 1C
  • Commissioner says Cary should adopt watershed rules - De 17 85 2C
  • Plan to protect watersheds endorsed by commissioners - De 17 85 1C
  • Panel endorses plan to protect watersheds - De 19 85 30A
Watersheds
  • Judge rules Raleigh lake (White Oak) to remain recreational - Mr 2 91 2B