It's 5.05 and welcome in to a Wednesday 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 have got a new report this morning out of Dave Bullock in the North Carolina State Auditor's Office dealing with landfills. To walk us through the latest, Teresa Opeka, CarolinaJournal.com, joins us on the news hour. Teresa, as I understand it, prior to the early 1980s, the regulations around landfills were pretty lax.
Obviously, we had to get rid of our trash and garbage prior to the early 1980s.
So a program was set up within the Department of Environmental Quality to manage and maintain. and keep an eye on some of these older landfills. This new eye-popping report from the auditor's office pretty much indicates that wasn't happening at all. What are you following? Sure.
Good morning, Nick. Thanks for having me. Yeah, this is a pretty worrisome report from Auditor, State Auditor Dave Bollock's office. Out of the 688 pre-regulatory inactive landfill sites in North Carolina, about 534 or 78 percent are not being actively monitored through DEQ's Division of Waste Management. That's acronym is GWM, pre-regulatory landfill program.
Um uh so it this audit came out of the Auditors Office earlier this week. And the audit figure, that's as of June 30th of last year, 2025. And as you mentioned, this program that was started in 2007 to keep an eye on different types of waste that didn't have any regulatory oversight prior to January 1st, 1983. Of course, state law requires DEQ to develop a program for doing all of this. And just to give you an idea, the former landfills may contain hazardous medical or asbestos-containing materials, as well as elevated levels of landfill gases like methane.
And also, there may be contamination of groundwater, surface water, soil, and sediment, all of which can pose significant risks to public health and the environment. The one thing that stood out is that. Approximately 84% of sites are located within 1,000 feet of homes, schools, daycares, churches, or portable water wells, creating the ongoing unknown risks to the public. I mean, it's pretty worrisome when you really think about it: what's leaching underground, what's in the water, what's in the air. I know there's been a few cases where they've built playgrounds on top of these sites too in the past.
So it's a very troublesome report. Teresa, I think one of the most damning things in your article, reading directly from it, state law requires the Department of Environmental Quality to develop a program for quote locating, cataloging, and monitoring all inactive hazardous substances or waste disposal sites in North Carolina. This was not a voluntary program that DEQ all of a sudden came up with in 2007. Laws on the books here in North Carolina say these sites are supposed to be managed, and as you just mentioned, 78% of them are not. This would be a huge red flag for anybody.
Oh, absolutely. Like you said, this is not something that, we'll do it when we feel like it. It's a mandatory, it's a state regulation, state law that should have been put in place for every, you know, every former landfill, you know, or any site like this. And it does raise a huge red flag. You know, and we had.
Auditor Bollock giving a comment about that program. It's a complex issue that's creating challenges from regulatory legal funding and administrative standpoint. And he says, but the bottom line, of course, what we're talking about, there's hundreds of potentially hazardous landfill sites across the state. And despite all those tax dollars supporting a program, which we'll get into in a second, meant to investigate the sites, 78% haven't been examined.
So he just wanted to get this out. He says, give the facts to the taxpayers.
So there is a tax that's put on. I believe it's like $2 of the tax. um goes toward you know this program, but that has an obvious solid waste disposal tax is the actual b name. But it you know, in this audit, It says even if the program receives funding from that tax at this point, it only would support about six sites per year. And at that rate, it would take about 99 years to remediate the remaining sites at the rate that they're going at, which is unbelievable.
So, I guess, Teresa, we can kind of maybe go a couple of different paths with this. One argument, and I'm sure this is what a DEQ would argue: that there's not the money in the state of North Carolina to fund this program. That might be the argument made by them. And I'm sure on the other side, from a lawmaker standpoint, you might hear the argument: well, if you are unable to follow the state law, then you need to come to us and ask for some of this additional funding and resources. Seems like this is something that, frankly, just kind of slipped through the cracks prior to this audit coming out earlier this week.
Yeah, it sure seems that way.
Now, there also is another issue that has cropped up, which they said limited progress in monitoring and remediation. It's due also to restricted access to privately owned properties. And they said that's about 78% of the sites and resource constraints is another thing. But yeah, you think that they would have come and said, Hey, we don't have enough money. We need help with this.
It's a state law. It's required of us to do this. Why not do that?
So I'm not sure what happened. They also said program management. That the average cost to maybe get all this done, investigate it, assess it, remediate the site, it's approximately $1.9 million. And that will cost a total of $1 billion if applied to the remaining sites.
So, right now, that program receives about between $12.7 million and they have spent $14.5 million. They have a fund balance, a little over $22 million. But basically, they're blaming restrictions. Just don't have enough funding. But she said, why not come and say something, especially if this is.
Yeah, you don't need a state law. I mean, obviously, it's for the good of the whole the whole state and for people who live and work in the state that this needs to be monitored and cleaned up if there is some problem going on. Yeah, well, and I think in some of the discussion here about this being on privately owned lands and sites that are not easily accessible, Teresa, I guess I would push back on that and say, well, there's where the state law comes into effect. If this is something that the Department of Environmental Quality is required to do under general statute, I think that would bolster any argument from DEQ to get on and get access to many of these sites, the more than 600, as you noted, across the state of North Carolina, and make sure that they are checking out these sites and putting whatever in place so that they can monitor them continually. Yeah, in fact, the auditors have their recommendations.
One of them is strengthening a mechanism to access those sites by working with the General Assembly to see, under some certain circumstances, if the state's law and imminent hazard authority may be invoked to gain access to those privately owned properties. Then they could come up with a better system also to prioritize which sites need investigating. But there definitely was a recommendation from the auditor's office that they need to work with the General Assembly to actually invoke this law. Since it is the law, why not go ahead and say, hey, you know, we got to gain access to this land. It's necessary.
It's just the right thing to do. And it is the law here, just following it. There does seem to be some level of maybe a government bureaucracy here, as you noted. This goes back to 2007 when this was first enacted here in North Carolina. That puts us at almost 20 years, Teresa.
And the audit reports to this point that only 97 sites out of the more than 600 have been investigated. 20 years is a relatively long timeframe to really tackle this issue. The fact that they haven't hit 100 sites, I think, is probably worrisome to some individuals. Correct, correct. And those ninety seven sites, out of that, DEQ also secured about three hundred seventy acres of waste, sampled a little over one thousand six hundred water supply wells and provided alternate water supplies to thirty homes.
Pardon the expression, that's a drop in the bucket when we're looking at all the rest of those that have not been assessed and monitored, and remediation issues or efforts have not been applied to that.
So it is worrisome for people who live nearby. Maybe there's children who go to schools in these areas, or as I said, there's been some playgrounds that have actually been built on top of these.
So, yeah, it's a very, very troubling report. We've got an image over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com, for those that want to read the article and check out this image, the headline there: audit 78% of North Carolina inactive landfills not monitored. Teresa, you've got a link in there from the auditor's office. There is not a corner of the state of North Carolina that does not have either a purple or pink box on it indicating where some of these sites exist. It is literally the mountains all the way to the East Coast.
Yeah, that's correct. You'll see that it looks like just a bazillion dots all over the map. And it's I mean, it looks like measles or something, right? As activity pending and investigation, that's the majority of these sites. And the ones that have no further action, remediation that's already taken place, are in the bottom.
it should be the other way around.
So yeah, if you could take a look at the in the article on Carolinajournal.com, you will see a picture of that where all these sites are and get more information. You can also go to the auditor's office and actually get more information there as well. Yep, we've got a full copy of that report. We do know that lawmakers are expected back in Raleigh in the next couple of weeks. Not clear immediately whether there will be any discussion on this.
I suspect, however, in the years to come, due to this new report, we'll probably hear something from state lawmakers. We appreciate the update. This morning, Teresa Opeka joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe.
If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed for your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 30% with promo code news at lifelock.com.
Terms apply. It's 521. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 FM. WBT lawmakers are expected to be back in Raleigh in a couple of weeks. Not immediately clear exactly what sort of legislation they are going to take up.
One thing, however, has had some pretty significant movement over the last couple of weeks. This is as the North Carolina House has advanced legislation that would create a uniform process for municipalities and property owners to seek de-annexation. Shifting many boundary disputes away from the North Carolina General Assembly while preserving lawmakers' constitutional authority over municipal boundaries. The legislation, known as House Bill 199, called Authorized Municipal De-annexation, passed its second reading in the North Carolina General Assembly on July the 2nd in a 95 to 9 vote. Very strong bipartisan support there.
The proposal would establish procedures allowing municipalities or qualifying property owners to initiate de-annexation requests instead of requiring the legislature to approve individual local bills in many cases. Supporters described the measure as a government reform that creates a predictable statewide process, while opponents said that the legislation falls short because it establishes procedures without guaranteeing relief for property owners seeking to leave municipal boundaries. Representative Paul Scott, the Republican from Rutherford County, the bill's primary sponsor, said that the legislation grew out of repeated requests. He told his fellow House members, this bill comes out of experiences of the House Finance Committee where we received a de-annexation bill after de-annexation bill. Scott said that lawmakers formed a working group to develop a more consistent approach to handling those requests.
He continued by saying, I would remind all of us that Section 1, Article 7 of the North Carolina Constitution, the General Assembly alone is empowered to provide for the organization and government, as well as fixing the boundaries of cities, counties, and towns. there's nothing in this bill that changes that constitutional duty. North Carolina is known as a Dillon Rule state. Under this framework, a legal principles state said that local governments only have powers explicitly granted to them by the state legislature or those strictly implied to carry out those express duties. All government flows down from the state.
Representative Scott said that the legislation establishes procedures that allow disputes to be addressed locally before reaching the legislature. Representative Scott went on to say, what this does is set up a process where we do not have to be involved in every single local issue. There is a process for municipalities to initiate de-annexation. There's a process for citizens to initiate de-annexation. There are safeguards to make sure everybody understands what is involved.
The proposal requires notice to affected parties, public hearings, coordinations with counties, and review of municipal services that would be affected. If properties leave a town or city, the bill also establishes an appeal process for the losing side in one of these arguments. The debate centered largely on whether creating a formal process is enough to protect property owners. Representative Mark Pless, the Republican from Haywood County, said he has supported de-annexation requests brought by his constituents, particularly those that were involuntarily annexed before North Carolina changed its annexation laws more than a decade ago. Representative Pless said, I've always been willing to listen to any constituent that comes to me and said, hey, I would love to be de-annexed.
He argued that the legislation does not create objective standards requiring municipalities to approve qualifying requests. Representative Pless said, the bill gives no guarantees. This does not set a precedent. This does not say we aren't going to grant this if you meet X, Y, or Z. This just says, hey, there's a process that you can now go through.
It still boils down to the exact same thing. You ask and we can say no. Plus cited constituents who he said were involuntarily annexed years ago and unsuccessfully challenged those annexations in court because state law provided no clear bias for deannexation. One of his chief concerns involved provisions allowing municipalities to recover certain infrastructure costs when property is removed from municipal limits. Representative Pless said, if you choose to be de-annexed, then you can go and depreciate the cost of that for 10 years, and now you are charged to be removed from the city.
You didn't be asked to put into the city. They took you. Pless also questioned whether the legislation adequately protects property owners who are not registered voters due to felony convictions or short-term rental homeowners under portions of the bill. Petitions and referendums may depend on registered voters rather than all property owners. Representative Frank Eiler, the Republican from Brunswick County, raised similar concerns, noting that many coastal communities have large numbers of non-resident property owners, with Representative Eiler arguing, in their town, a registered voter and a property owner may not be the same thing.
I'm not against the idea, but this bill still needs a lot of work. House members also questioned whether developers could use the proposed de-annexation process. Representative Zach Hawkins, the Democrat from Durham County, asked whether the legislature would create a lane for developers seeking to remove property from municipal boundaries. Representative Scott, the primary sponsor of the bill, responded that developers would have access to the same petition process available to other property owners, provided they meet all of the statutory requirements. Supporters acknowledged that the bill may require additional revisions before coming law.
Representative Harry Warren from Rowan County, the Republican there, asked Scott whether concerns raised during debate could be addressed as the legislation moved through the General Assembly. Warren, who said that he has watched numerous deannexation bills move through the House Finance Committee over years, said that establishing a standardized process could reduce the need for repeated legislative intervention. Warren said, I commend Representative Howard for putting together a small committee to come up with a due process for it. I think it's a good bill. I think any issue with it can be addressed as it moves forward.
Because the House approved the measure only on a second reading, lawmakers will have another opportunity to amend the legislation before it would make its way any further for a final passage. If approved by the House, the bill would move to the Senate for further consideration where additional revisions remain possible. The debate reflects broader questions about balancing private property rights with municipal authorities. While supporters argue the bill modernizes an outdated legislative process, opponents contend that the proposal should provide clearer standards. Guaranteeing de-annexation when property owners meet specific criteria.
For now, lawmakers on both sides agree on one point. The current system, which frequently requires the General Assembly to consider individual de-annexation bills, is due for a large-scale review. This is very likely something that we'll see lawmakers take up when they gavel back in for the legislative short session here towards the end of July. You can read more on this process and the proposed House Bill 199 over on our website this morning, CarolinaJournal.com. Look for the headline: House Advances Municipal De-annexation Overhaul.
Lots of places can expose you to identity theft. Oh, no. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity, which is way more than anyone can do on their own. If we find anything suspicious, like new loans or changes to your financial accounts, we alert you right away, all through text, phone, email, or the LifeLock app. Get the alerts that could make all the difference.
Save up to 30% with promo code news at LifeLock. Lifelock.com, terms apply. 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. Good Wednesday morning to you.
We've been talking a lot about the North Carolina state budget, which was signed by the governor and approved by the legislature recently here in North Carolina. One of the very interesting things that we've seen over the last 10 years or so is a continued rollback, but not a full repeal, of the state's certificate of need laws. There's been a lot of legal challenges as it relates to certificate of need over the last couple of years. One that we've been keeping a very close eye on deals with an eye surgeon in Eastern North Carolina, up in the New Bern area, who walks through the latest this morning. Mitch Cokei from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
Mitch, we talked about this case a little more than a month ago as there was a request for this to essentially leap over the Court of Appeals and go directly to the state Supreme Court. The state's highest court said no, continue to follow through the normal legal challenges. Looks like there's a response from the eye surgeon and his legal team. What's the latest that you're following there?
Well, you recapped it excellently there, Nick, because the state Supreme Court could have taken this case from Dr. Jay Singleton, who's a New Bern eye surgeon, but decided not to. Remember, in late 2024, the Supreme Court basically overturned what lower courts had said and said that Dr. Singleton could move forward with his case because lower courts had thrown the case out, said there's no viable challenge here. And the state Supreme Court said, wait a minute, there's a potential challenge here.
They wrote a very short decision, sent the case back to a trial court, and said, look at what we've said in other cases dealing with fruits of their labor claims, which are basically economic rights claims under the state constitution. And they said that. Take another look at Singleton's case that way.
Well, a trial court panel looked at the case, said, No, we're not going to rule in Singleton's favor, ruled against him. And so, Dr. Singleton wanted to take the case straight back to the Supreme Court and say, Look, you know, you gave them another chance. They got it wrong again. You should rule in my favor.
The Supreme Court said, No, we're going to let it go through the Court of Appeals.
So, now, where the case is, is in the briefing for the Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals will hear this case and render its decision. And basically, The latest court filing from Dr. Singleton offered three main reasons why the Court of Appeals should overrule the trial court and rule in his favor. First, it says that the trial court said that Dr.
Singleton had failed to show that he had any kind of viable claim against the state in challenging the Khan law. And basically, Singleton's brief says, wait a minute, that flies directly in the face of what the state Supreme Court said in this case.
So that's wrong, and you should overturn it for that reason. A second reason for a reversal, according to Dr. Singleton, is that he stated viable fruits of your labor and law of the land claims.
So there's the second one. And then the third reason is that the Khan law is not reasonably necessary to protect public health. Basically, what the Supreme Court said was, okay, we're not going to decide this case, but if the Khan law is... Going to stand. It has to be reasonably necessary to meet the stated goal of protecting public health.
And the argument from Singleton and his lawyers is it's not reasonably necessary. They say that it's going to help, but it doesn't make anyone any safer, doesn't make health care less expensive, and it serves only to help the incumbents who are already in the healthcare industry shield them from any competition.
So there's no real reason for it to stand. That's the argument that Dr. Singleton is going to make. The state will make its own arguments about why the con law should stand, and then the Court of Appeals will presumably hold oral arguments, although they might not. They might decide it just based on the written record.
And then we'll get a decision. And almost certainly, once the Court of Appeals makes its decision, there will be another appeal to the Supreme Court. And so the Supreme Court might end up taking it for a second time. But it'll be much delayed from when the Supreme Court. could have taken it.
Mitch, unlike many of the legal challenges we talk about, there's actually a pretty simple solution to resolving this case. We could have seen it over the last couple of weeks as negotiations were ongoing with the state budget ahead of its final approval. We've seen the Republican-led legislature over the last 10 years or so slowly begin the process of peeling back the layers of this onion, every seemingly every budget that's passed. There's a couple of new certificate of need regulations that are taken away and stripped off, but they've stopped short of full repeal. This is something that was discussed in pretty great detail during this legislative long and short session.
What's the holdup with state lawmakers in Raleigh?
Well, the holdup is that the House is not interested in a full repeal of certificate of need. The state Senate has shown an interest in that. The state Senate's budget plan that came out a while ago, this is not the plan that we're talking about this year, but the state senate's plan as budget negotiations were going on last year would have gotten rid of certificate of need entirely. And if that had happened, then basically all of these certificate of need cases, including Dr. Singleton's, would have become moot because he wouldn't need his certificate anymore.
He wouldn't have had any legal challenge. I'm sure his lawyers would have loved to have the courts declare that the law that was in place was unconstitutional in case anyone ever thought about bringing it back again. But they probably would have thrown the case out as moot because the law would be gone and there would be no reason for the courts to step in. But as you mentioned, there was at least some action on certificate of need this time around. The House and the Senate agreed to get rid of the certificate of need.
Requirement for inpatient rehabilitation facilities.
So, North Carolina still has a number of practices and facilities and machinery that are subject to certificate of need more than most other states that still have certificate of need. And remember that we're looking at a dozen or more, maybe even as many as 15 states now that don't have a con law at all. But those that do tend to have fewer of the facilities and equipment and services that are subject to certificate of need, fewer than North Carolina does.
So, my guess is that the folks who would like to get rid of certificate of need will still try the piecemeal effort as long as the House is not willing to go along with full repeal. But you're right, that this whole legal issue could be resolved if the General Assembly ends up deciding at some point. This doesn't make sense. Let's just get rid of it. Mitch, there's been a lot of discussion about this.
The state health plan has had a variety of different meetings over the last year and a half. They are trying to manage their costs for the more than 750,000 members that are either current or former state employees here in North Carolina. For those that do not work for government, many are offered health insurance through their employer. There's been a multitude of studies that have shown consistently that North Carolina has got some of the highest health care costs anywhere in the United States. I'd be hard pressed to come to the conclusion, Mitch, that the very overburdensome certificate of need regulations that we have in our state doesn't at least in part contribute to some of those high costs that are affecting literally everybody across North Carolina.
Yeah, certificate plays a role. I don't think it's necessarily clear how large that role is. But basically what you're saying is with state government that to operate a new facility, to add hospital beds, to buy major pieces of equipment, you have to get permission from the state. And if you don't have permission from the state, you can't do that. And so all of the benefits that you would see of competition with all of these major healthcare players deciding that, hey, there's a need here for a new service or a new facility.
They can't just go ahead and meet that need because they have to go through the state government first. That has to play a role in why North Carolina's healthcare costs are higher. And it's one of the things that has been justifying this lawsuit: look, when certificate of need was initially put in place, And for a while, states had to have it because the federal government said that you had to have a certificate of need law to qualify for some types of federal benefits as states. And the idea behind it was these healthcare providers are investing willy-nilly in these new facilities and new equipment. They're going to overspend.
And because they overspend, they're going to end up having to close. And so that will lead to less availability of services. But that argument has not proven to be true. And in fact, not too long after the federal government first called for certificate of need, the federal government realized, no, it doesn't make sense and got rid of it. And that was in the 80s.
And nearly 40 years later, we're still dealing with these issues because North Carolina continues to have this certificate of need process in place, despite the fact that the state Supreme Court back in the 70s, before certificate of need was required on the federal level, already had a court ruling throwing out an earlier certificate of need law. And one of the arguments that Dr. Singleton's lawyers have been making is the certificate of need regime that we have now. Is not substantively different than the one the Supreme Court struck down in the 70s. And there's no reason why this current one shouldn't be struck down again.
But it's something that could be done at a legislative level. And if not, Then we will probably see this case go through the court system, through the Court of Appeals for some number of months. Whoever loses there will go, will ask for the state Supreme Court to take the case. And so it could be. Months and months, or maybe even a couple more years, before we see some sort of final resolution of Dr.
Singleton's claims. Yeah, great point there, Mitch. A couple of different avenues, the legislative and the legal side, something that I think a lot of folks would argue would make a substantial change here in North Carolina with full repeal of certificate of need. We've got some continuing coverage of this legal challenge over on our website this morning, CarolinaJournal.com. We appreciate the update.
Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Ah Good morning again. It's 5.55. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 FM, WBT. As we round out the program on this Wednesday evening, we look at the United States Capitol, where the U.S.
House just yesterday passed a bill that would make daylight savings time permanent across the vast majority of the country. The legislation known as the Sunshine Protection Act passed the U.S. House in a vote of 308 to 117 yesterday afternoon. It now heads to the United States Senate where its future remains uncertain. The bill repeals a section of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to end the yearly fallback and spring forward time changes.
The newest version of the bill would allow states to opt out and stick with standard time. A previous version of this bill, or a similar version I should say, ran in 2022. It passed the United States Senate, but ended up stalling in the U.S. House. The bill has very strong bipartisan support, including support from President Donald Trump, who has urged Congress several times in his second term to end the time change.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee also backed the Sunshine Protection Act in the month of May. They voted there 48 to 1 for the legislation to move forward.
So far, 19 states have passed laws supporting year-round daylight savings time. At least a dozen other states, including North Carolina, have considered or proposed some level of legislation.
However, in order for those state laws to take effect, the federal Uniform Time Act would need to be amended to allow it. And that is, it appears. Exactly, what is happening in Washington, D.C. We will wait to see what the United States Senate does as it relates to the fall back and spring forward, the changing of the clocks twice a year. We'll be keeping an eye on this as North Carolina's General Assembly would have to move forward with some legislation for that to eventually become the case if it moves through the federal government.
We'll keep you up to date with those details right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. That's going to do it for a Wednesday 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 FM, WBT.
