Looking for variety and excitement? Cash Avalanche Casino Slot offers dynamic spins, smooth animations, dazzling effects, and rewarding features to keep every session thrilling. Join limited time events, collect sweepstakes coins, and explore new themes added regularly. There's always something new to discover. Download Cash Avalanche Casino Slot on the App Store and claim your bonus.
It's 505 and welcome in to a Thursday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour on Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 FM, WBT. I'm Nick Craig. Good morning to you. We start off with a couple of pieces of legislation that are now making their way through the North Carolina General Assembly. As we continue our coverage, our extensive coverage of the short session in Raleigh, we'll start off with groceries.
State House members have introduced a proposal to eliminate local sales taxes on groceries in North Carolina, as those leaders frame the measure as part of a broader effort to seek to ease financial pressure on families across the Tarheel State. The legislation, House Bill 1032, sponsored by Republican State Representatives Mike Scheffer. Sheetzel, Alan Chesser, Aaron Perre, and Timothy Reeder would repeal the roughly 2% local sales tax that many counties still apply to food purchases across the state. While the state as a whole has already eliminated its portion of the grocery tax, local governments retain the authority to levy their own sales tax on food, something that this legislation would look to end pretty quickly, starting on October 1st, 2026. Schietzel said that the change would provide direct relief to households grappling with rising costs, saying in part, This bill is part of a broader discussion surrounding affordability, which remains a sticky problem.
Groceries are a necessity, and while the 2% tax on groceries may seem small, the costs add up for working families. As a father of four growing children, we feel it every week. Representative Schietzel added that repealing the tax is part of a broader effort by the North Carolina General Assembly to lower everyday costs for families, continuing by saying, if we're serious about lowering costs, government has to look at the burden that it's placing on everyday necessities and be willing to reduce it. Repealing the grocery tax is a straightforward way to provide some of this relief. You'll see more proposals along these lines as we continue working to make North Carolina more affordable for families.
I guess highlighting some additional work that we could potentially see out of the North Carolina General Assembly in coming months. The proposal is part of a continued push amongst Republicans. Republican lawmakers to reduce taxes and target everyday expenses, particularly those that disproportionately affect lower and middle-income households. Because groceries are a basic necessity, economists often view sales tax on food as what they call regressive, as they take a larger share of income from families that have the least amount of money available. If enacted, however, this bill would also remove a source of revenue for local governments, setting up a potential clash between tax relief efforts and county funding needs, especially in the busy budget season that we're in right now.
Some policy analysts caution that eliminating the tax could create pressures on other revenue sources. Brian Balfour, who is the senior vice president of research at the John Locke Foundation, said in part, exempting groceries from the state sales tax is estimated to reduce tax collections by roughly $1.46 billion. Eliminating the 2% local sales tax on groceries would narrow the tax base for local revenues and put upward pressure on other taxes to make up the difference. This is rather than a targeted narrowing of the tax base. We'd rather see across the board tax reductions, which property tax limits help achieve, which we'll talk about coming up a little bit later on in the program this morning.
Counties currently receive millions of dollars a year annually from local sales tax on groceries, with the revenue typically folded into what are called general funds that support services such as public safety, education, and infrastructure. Eliminating the tax could force local officials to consider budget adjustments, spending cuts, or alternative revenue sources. House Bill 1032 was filed last week and referred to the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. If it is approved out of the committee, it would then move to the Finance Committee. For further consideration before making its way to the full House floor for a vote.
Then, of course, we'd see a similar action over in the North Carolina Senate. If it is to move on there, then, of course, you know, the process over to Governor Josh Stein's desk for either a signature or veto. We've got more on this story this morning over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. We'll also keep an eye on its progress right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. In some other legislation out of Raleigh, a North Carolina bill imposing new restrictions on the use of social media by minors has cleared a key Senate hurdle this week.
The move reverses, revises rather, a measure that passed the House 106 to 6 in the month of May. With only six Democrats voting against it, the bill stalled out in the Senate before the General Assembly's long session ended back in 2025. The Senate Education slash Higher Education Committee. Voted to give a favorable report to House Bill 301 with the title Social Media Protections for Minors Under 16. The next step, sending it to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill would ban anyone under the age of 14 years old from holding a social media account in North Carolina and requiring parental consent for 14 and 15 year olds if they do in fact want to jump on a variety of different social media platforms.
If enacted, North Carolina would join a growing list of states, including Florida, Utah, Texas, and Arkansas, that have in recent years moved to restrict minors' access to social media platforms. Several of those laws, however, I'll note, are currently tied up in court, and the legal landscape is relatively dynamic at this point in time. Representative Jeff Zanger, the Republican from Forsyth County, told the Senate committee, social media and our kids, it is the number one tool for predators to go after children. If you look at any of these studies that are happening from the psychiatric industry, there's nobody that says that kids being on social media all the time is a good idea. The bill would authorize the North Carolina Department of Justice to bring enforcement actions against violators with civil penalties that could reach upwards of $50,000 per violation and damages of up to $10,000 available to affected minor account holders.
So some very hefty fines here for these social media outlets. Committee members also adopted an amendment from state senator Dana Jones, the Republican from Forsyth, that expanded the scope of the bill to address artificial intelligence in the K through 12 school system. The amendment requires age-appropriate AI literacy in state computer science standards and mandates AI training for teachers. and administrators that would be developed by NC State's university by 2028. It also directs the Department of Public Instruction, that's DPI, to build a statewide framework for evaluating AI tools and their use in the classroom.
Back to Representative Jones. He says this amendment equips our, back to Representative Dana Jones, excuse me. This amendment equips our schools with guardrails, training, and accountability needed to embrace AI and its innovation while protecting students and maintaining trust. Whitney Christensen, an attorney representing Facebook and Instagram's parent company, Meta, spoke at the committee meeting in Raleigh this week and told the committee she was very proud to support the bill. She signaled that the company is working with the sponsors on the Judiciary Committee amendment to shift age verification onto app stores like Apple and Google rather than placing it solely on the individual platforms like Meta, which of course is Facebook and Instagram.
The attorney for the social media giant told the General Assembly, the app store really is the best place to do this. It is also more difficult to lie about your age in the app store than it would be. To be in a single app. The App Store approach also shifts the regulatory burden and any legal exposure away from Meta onto what would be Apple and Google, neither of which testified at the Senate committee hearing this week. Back to Representative Zanger.
He said that Meta approached him after the bill cleared the House last year and provided molop policy language from similar laws that Meta helped shape in both Utah and Texas. State Senator Jay Shotery, the Democrat from Wake County, asked sponsors about the First Amendment challenges to comparable laws in other states. Legislative staff attorney Brian Gwynn told the committee that at least eight of the nine different states have had similar laws challenged in court, and seven of those laws, at least in early states of litigation, have been potentially found to have First Amendment violations.
So that could be a problem here for state lawmakers, with Gwynn noting much of the language of House Bill 303. 301 tracks with Florida's statute, which remains pending before currently the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Another state senator from Mecklenburg County urged colleagues to push the bill across the finish line.
So there's a lot of bipartisan support here, saying, Today, the threats are not predators. It feels like it's the algorithms. We see teachers competing for children's attention with those very same algorithms.
So, a couple movement, some pieces of movement on various pieces of legislation in Raleigh as the legislative short session continues here as we round out the month of April. More coverage on both of these stories, talking about sales tax in grocery stores and a potential ban for younger folks on social media. Both of those details over on our website this morning, CarolinaJournal.com. Your job is changing fast. New tools, new expectations, and real pressure to keep up.
This isn't a someday problem. It's happening right now. That's where Code Academy comes in. Instead of just watching or reading, you learn by doing. From your very first lesson, you're writing real code directly in your browser.
No setup, no guesswork. Whether it's AI tools, prompt engineering, data analysis, or cybersecurity, Code Academy shows you exactly what to learn and gives you a clear, step-by-step path to get there.
So you're not just keeping up with tech, you're actually getting ahead. With structured career paths and real-world projects, you'll build skills you can use immediately on the job. Join millions of people already leveling up with Code Academy. Start your free trial today at Codacademy.com. It's 521.
Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM. WB, I'm Nick Craig. Good morning to you. Well, the 2026 legislative short session is off and running. We've had comprehensive coverage here on the Carolina Journal News Hour and over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com.
There is another discussion that is taking place around property taxes in the North Carolina legislature. It walks through some of those details. This morning, Joe Harris, a fiscal policy analyst over at the John Locke Foundation, joins us this morning on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Joe, you and I chatted back a few weeks ago. We were talking about levy limits.
We'll kind of recap that towards the end of our interview here this morning. You're keeping an eye on some brand new legislation out of the North Carolina Senate and immediately dealing with property taxes. What are you tracking out of Raleigh?
So, the Senate actually put forth today Senate Bill 889 or 899, which is going to place or would place a temporary moratorium. on reevaluations of property values in the state. What it would do in effect, though, is essentially we have 12 counties that were up for reevaluation as of 2026. And what it's going to do is, it's going to pause that reevaluation. And instead of them being allowed to use those reappraised values for the homes and their localities for this upcoming fiscal year, they're going to have to use the previous value, whether it was calculated four, six, or eight years ago.
But it's just going to be a temporary pause. And then the idea would be next fiscal year, the following fiscal year, these 2026 values would take effect.
So it's just a temporary pause that's going to prevent local governments from implementing those higher values in this fiscal year. But an important point is there were only 12 counties out of the 100 counties that were actually up for reevaluation.
So 88 counties are absolutely not affected at all by this policy.
So let's dive into some of the details here. As I understand it, these municipalities and counties are required to do a reevaluation period. It's at a set period of time. I believe that is eight years, correct? Yes, that is the absolute maximum.
Some do it more frequently than that, four or six years. And there's technically a state law that can trigger one sooner. But in general, it's pretty standard an eight year reevaluation period. And, Joe, while in the grand scheme of somebody's life, maybe eight years is not the biggest deal in the world with the population growth and the absolute boom that North Carolina has seen over the last 10 to 12 to 15 years. If you're looking at reevaluations here in North Carolina that took place in the late 2010s compared to what's going on now, you are literally talking about some people's properties 10, maybe even 20 Xing in that period of time, depending on where they live across the state.
This would be a major issue for home and property owners in at least these 12 counties that we're talking about. Yes, that's absolutely a great point, Nick. It's the vast, drastic increase in the property values we've seen over the past decade, which has actually driven up our property tax bills. The reality of it is that most local governments have actually kept rates relatively constant or decreased those rates. They just have not decreased the rates enough to offset the rapid increase.
In home values, which has ultimately really affected the disposable income of North Carolinians. And while this House, excuse me, Senate Bill 889 would not necessarily decrease anyone's tax bill, it is a way that the General Assembly can step in as quick as possible and try to provide some sort of relief to the people living in the localities that are up for reevaluation right now. And kind of going through some of the details in this, Joe, I mean, you look at some of these more what previously or even currently are described as more rural counties in North Carolina. Property values historically low, of course, it's in a rural area, but many of these places, one in particular, Pender County, has seen a lot of growth. Of course, being on the east coast of North Carolina, all the popular beach towns, that is where some of this explosive growth has become a real problem, not only for governments to deal with, but also some of these property owners, many of which have lived there for literally generations.
That's an excellent point, Nick. When you mentioned Pender, what also comes to mind is Brunswick County. They've experienced something very similar, just rapid growth where people have seen their home values double, triple, or even more very, very quickly. And they've seen the population really expand. And I would like to come back to a point that you made earlier about the eight-year period for revaluations.
That doesn't do anybody any good. whether you're a homeowner or you're the local government. Having to wait that eight-year period to then reassess what something's valued, that creates so much uncertainty over the long term, and it makes the jumps much more unpredictable and much larger versus a small, steady increase each year would be better for homeowners and for local governments. Yes, and some more of our larger counties in North Carolina, either on a two or some of them even four-year schedules. But a great point that you're making there, Joe, this eight-year lag time is insane.
Plus, you also deal with the situation where you have a county that might have hundreds of millions of more dollars coming in out of nowhere during a reevaluation period that can create some very interesting challenges and problems for them.
So, this is, as you're mentioning, short-term, this Senate bill, these 12 counties that are, I guess, at their eight-year limit, or there's other reasons as to why they have to do their revals for this upcoming year. But longer term, let's go back to this discussion over a levy limit and the broader concern across all 100 North Carolina counties that property rate values continue trickling up. The tax rate, as you know, may decrease, which looks good in a newspaper headline or looks good on social media. But some of these counties, Joe, are pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars when these revals are going through. Exactly.
And before we get to the levy limit, I would like to make one more point about Senate Bill 889, the moratorium on property tax revaluations. It's really important to note that it's only pausing the revaluations. We have to remember that your property tax bill is an equation that takes into account the value of your property and the tax rate. This bill would do absolutely nothing to pause changes to the tax rate.
So, hypothetically, even in these 12 counties where they cannot increase the valuation this upcoming fiscal year, they could decide to increase the tax rate, and you would still end up with a larger tax bill. That said, it's a little bit more transparent of a tax increase when they're increasing the rate. Because once again, what we saw here in North Carolina is that we saw our bills go way up.
Meanwhile, our counties were able to tell us that they weren't increasing taxes because they were actually lowering rates. In this situation, it's gonna be very clear that they are generating an actual tax increase. But yeah, to the levy limit, this is going to be more of a long-term structural change to how our property tax system actually works. And right now, it's a constitutional amendment that has been put forth by the House. We still have to see what's going to happen in this short session and see if they can get supermajorities in the House and the Senate to put this forward.
And we would ultimately vote on this at the ballot in November.
However, you know, that's quite a bit out. And an important thing to note about the levy limit.
So, what it does is it places an annual, it places a cap on the annual growth rate of total property tax collections within a jurisdiction.
So, it's essentially a promise to everyone in that community that your property tax bill as a group. will only go up by set amount.
Well, the reality of it is that the constitutional amendment doesn't even define what that formula is going to be.
So, once the amendments pass, we would still have to have accompanying legislation. To define this levy limit. The ultimate point being is that we might not have a clear look of what the levy limit's going to be for potentially up to a year.
So, this Senate Bill 889 is an opportunity for policymakers to step in immediately and kind of say, hey, We know we're going to be making some big changes going forward. Let's pause everything else until we figure out what that's going to be. Yeah, and obviously you're talking about a couple of different moving pieces there. Voters, of course, as it relates to this levy limit being a constitutional amendment. It would be the people that would decide whether or not to move forward with it.
And then on the backside of that, it would be lawmakers actually taking that constitutional amendment and implementing it into state law. We know that this is a major kitchen table topic for a lot of families across the state of North Carolina as they get these reval notices or their tax bill from their county or city and their eyes practically pop out of their head. We appreciate the analysis and information this morning. Joe Harris with the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. It's 5.37.
Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT, I'm Nick Craig. A good Thursday morning to you. A major decision from the United States Supreme Court as it relates to redistricting out of the state of Louisiana came out yesterday. It could likely have some impacts on the state of North Carolina and many other states as we continue through what are always very interesting redistricting battles in a variety of state legislators. To walk us through some of the details this morning, Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
Mitch, I'm sure there's a little bit of a sigh of relief from voters here across the state of North Carolina that we're not talking about a North Carolina redistricting lawsuit.
However, this decision out of Louisiana will have major impacts on any state that has to deal with this leading up to the 2030 census here in a couple of years. That's right, Nick. This certainly is going to be a significant ruling for every state that has to redraw election districts, and especially those states that have had to deal with the issue of the Voting Rights Act and its impact on their districts. And that definitely includes North Carolina, including a case that right now is at the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging a couple of state Senate districts in the northeastern part of the state.
What this case out of Louisiana really dealt with was the role of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its Section 2, and what Section 2 says about election districts and how minority voters need to be treated. Louisiana was in sort of a catch-22 because initially legislators had drawn a new election map that created one majority-minority district. They faced a lawsuit that said, no, you should have drawn two. They drew another map that had two majority-minority districts and got sued again. This time it was non-minority voters saying that they impermissibly use race.
And so the case makes its way to the Supreme Court and in a majority opinion, 6-3 vote, with Justice Samuel Alito writing the majority opinion. The court clarified the role of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and what it says about what is guaranteed to minority voters and how that impacts the drawing of districts. The upshot of it is that minority voters should get the same access and same opportunity as every other voter. And that doesn't mean that they get more. Or that they get less, they get the same opportunity.
And so, in only very limited circumstances, could you use? Section two of the Voting Rights Act to justify using race to draw an election district. Dissenters in this, led by Elena Kagan, who's the one who wrote the dissent, basically are saying this is gutting the Voting Rights Act and putting a final nail in its coffin. But basically, the majority is saying no, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act still has an important role to play, but. We're clarifying what it means and the uses that you could put to it.
Another sideline that's interesting from the North Carolina perspective is that one of the major pieces of redistricting legislation for the past 40 years. Has been this case out of North Carolina called Thornburg v. Jingles. And you talk about jingles and the jingles preconditions. It's something that always comes up in redistricting.
It has had an impact for four decades, but now with this new ruling, Just as Samuel Alito is saying, we really need to change the way those jingles factors are looked at because of some major changes. The South has changed. It's no longer a one-party state. It's a two-party state. You've seen different changes culturally throughout the country.
You've seen robust two-party systems throughout the country. You've seen computers be used to draw these maps more.
So it's easier to come up with alternative maps and easier for plaintiffs to either find a good map that works or not be able to. And so all of those changes, he said, should affect the way the jingles factors are used in future cases, which will definitely affect North Carolina because every redistricting case in North Carolina always includes some sort of reference to jingles. I think one of the biggest things that comes out of this for North Carolina. Is that legislators have to look at this ruling and say, oh, good, it fits in with exactly what we've said and what we've been arguing. We have not used race because we don't think that we are permitted to use race.
We have talked about redistricting with a partisan angle that we're trying to elect Republicans, and the courts have permitted that. And this latest case out of the Supreme Court also says that redistricting to partisan advantage is constitutional.
So I think North Carolina's legislative leaders will look at this ruling and say, we're on track. We can keep doing what we've been doing. Yeah, Mitch, you highlight and bring up a couple of really great points there as you're talking about how the state of North Carolina goes forward with this. There are still a couple of pending lawsuits as it relates to redistricting, but not much further down the road, we'll get new census data here in 2030 as our state constitution and laws are written. That will implore the North Carolina General Assembly to redraw based on that new population breakdown and some of that new census data.
But you highlighted something really important there and something that lawmakers have continued to reference is that they are, in fact, drawing maps for partisan reasons, saying, hey, we are drawing these maps. We want to make sure that we, as the Republicans drawing these maps, give ourselves as much of an advantage as possible. And we are not using racial data to do so, even with those claims and even with live streams that have run 24-7 showing lawmakers actually going through the process of drawing those maps. Mitch, the argument still from many of those challenging these maps is that you're doing it in a way that you're doing. way that is racially discriminatory.
Yeah, and one of the reasons for that, Nick, is that the Democrats have going in their advantage on this, the fact that there is a vast majority of black voters who vote Democratic. And so if you are writing an election district, drawing an election district to advantage Republicans, there is a chance that in disadvantaging Democrats, you will also disadvantage black voters. But that's not the intent. And basically, if you are a black voter in a majority Democratic district, you're going to get the advantage of being able to vote for someone who's probably going to win. If you are a black voter in a majority Republican district, your candidate's probably going to lose.
But that's because the districts are being drawn to advantage Republicans, not Drawn to disadvantage blacks. And so that was one of the things that Justice Samuel Alito also mentioned is that this is a very different situation to what we had when these types of cases first came about in the 60s. And you were looking at a state like North Carolina that had almost all Democrats in charge of everything. And the idea was not trying to disadvantage Republicans as much as trying to make sure that white Democrats continued to win. And so that was one of the reasons why some of these cases filed by African Americans were successful, because the white Democrats who were in charge of the General Assembly, knowing that Democrats were going to be in charge regardless, wanted to make sure that it was white Democrats who were in charge.
But now when it's a two-party system and you have Republicans competing against Democrats, the real issue is trying to draw districts to favor the party in charge and not to draw districts in such a way that A way that it disadvantages a particular race. And one of the things that Samuel Alito was very clear about was saying. That you're not supposed to use race under our constitutional system unless you absolutely have to. And there's no reason to try to use this excuse of racial gerrymandering to end up getting some sort of partisan advantage. That's not the point of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
It does have some. A reason to be used in these cases, but not as a way to try to help Democrats get some sort of partisan edge they wouldn't get otherwise. Mitch, one final question for you on this, and again, the practical implications of this. We're kind of still waiting to see as this decision is brand new from the United States Supreme Court. Obviously, we talk about and we're very familiar with the situation here in North Carolina, but can you envision a circumstance where in other states, predominantly those that have a Democrat legislature where they have drawn a lot of these majority-minority districts to favor Democrats in the state, that there would be additional lawsuits on those legislatures now citing this brand new decision from the United States Supreme Court?
That's entirely possible. My guess is the impact of this decision would be more likely to be felt in places where Republicans are the ones drawing the maps, because the Democrats will draw the maps to maximize Democratic advantage. If they need to draw a district that's majority, minority, they'll do it, but they're going to be drawing in a way so that Democrats win as much as possible. Republicans, on the other hand, are going to be drawing in a way that advantages Republicans. And the types of lawsuits, like the one that sparked this debate in Louisiana, are over this notion that, oh no, as you're drawing for Republicans, you still have to draw a district.
Because of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, that advantages minority voters. And so that is an obstacle to the goal of drawing as many Republican districts as possible. And so I think this is much more likely to have an impact on states that are led by Republicans and allowing them a little bit more freedom in how they will draw their districts. It is a major decision. Again, still waiting to see some of the impacts there.
We know Mitch will be keeping a close eye on those details. We've got continued coverage of this story this morning over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. Mitch Kokei from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Good morning again. It's 5:52.
Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT. We are tracking an interesting study out of DEQ this morning. On April the 29th, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, that's DEQ, presented the findings of its 2023 study, which examined PFAS levels in wastewater and wastewater treatment to inform future minimization and regulatory decision-making out of the North Carolina General Assembly and, of course, the DEQ itself. And unfortunately, the headline, not a good one, PFAS contamination was found widely across the samples that were examined. According to the deputy director of DEQ, he told the legislative committee, there are no regulations for PFAS in biosolids, state or federal, and there are no surface water quality standards.
For PFAS, either. There is very limited standards out there. Maximum contamination levels, also known as MCLs for drinking water, are projected to be implemented in 2029.
So, here in the next couple of years, according to the Department of Environmental Quality.
So, the study itself reported on PFAS substances that were found in influent biosolids and soil samples, with PFAS entering biosolids via industrial or residential users and treatment plants that are 100% domestic had, on average, low-influence treatment plants. According to the details of the PFAS levels, they did in fact have PFAS levels, lower levels than municipal and industrial treatment plants, according to the study. With that, PFAS mass exiting wastewater treatment plants were discharged to surface waters and remain 2 to 13 percent in biosolid form. Biosolid refers to sewer. Sludge that has been treated to meet Environmental Protection Agency, that's the federal EPA requirements in its standards for the use of disposable sewage sludge.
Land applications in primary use of biosolids in North Carolina, according to the Department of Environmental Quality. According to the study, PFOSs, a similar form of these environmental toxins, a legacy PFOS compound, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, in drinking water standards, is detected in 85% of biosolid samples and in finished compost samples. Out of the 26 facilities in which the DEQ conducted surveys, PFOSs had been detected at at least 24 of them, the overwhelming majority. The concentration of the biosolids is comparable to, unfortunately, what is the case in many other states. PFOSs have been detected in soil samples collected from land-applied fields according to the study, and the levels in those fields received in municipal biosolids are comparable to those receiving biosolids from industrial or mixed sources.
The study found one exception, however, high PFOS levels in a field that received municipal biosolids. DEQ has proposed monitoring and minimizing rules for PFA, PFAS, PFOSs, and Gen X to reduce the PFAS contamination in wastewater from direct and indirect discharges, with public hearings having been held and the DEQ currently accepting a public comment as this has been a major discussion now for quite some time. Committee Chair Representative Jimmy Dixon, the Republican from Duplin County, stated that during his 16-year tenure, he has not seen this level of understanding and analysis on this particular issue, telling his fellow communities. Committee members, we are consumers and we are more affluent as we go and more things that we consume. The more things we consume, the more waste we produce.
The purpose of these dialogues is to determine the scope of regulatory and enforcement actions that the Department of Environmental Quality may take regarding the discharge of these chemicals, according to Representative Dixon. This has been a major topic of discussion, PFOS, PFOSs, and Gen X across the state of North Carolina for well more than a decade now, with the major topic being contamination in drinking water systems across portions of southeastern North Carolina. You can read more on this committee hearing, more on this DEQ study. We've got it linked up all over on our website this morning, CarolinaJournal.com. That's going to do it for a Thursday edition.
WBT News is next, followed by Good Morning BT. We're back with you tomorrow morning, 5 to 6, right here on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 WBT. What's the Yeah, yeah.
