Posted on February 18, 2025
NORTH CAROLINA — A superior court judge ruled the Coastal Resources Commission acted within its authority by implementing rules to safeguard the state’s coastal habitats. The agency’s power was challenged by a general assembly-appointed body that lawmakers recently sent an additional $250,000 in taxpayer funds to finance outside legal counsel.
Wake County Superior Court judge William Pittman issued a Wednesday order in favor of the Coastal Resources Commission and Division of Coastal Management in a lawsuit disputing the agencies’ power to establish coastal protection rules.
The Rules Review Commission is a general assembly-appointed body charged with reviewing rules enacted by state agencies to ensure compliance with the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act. The RRC rejected 30 of the Coastal Resource Commission’s longstanding coastal protection rules in 2023. Ashley Berger Snyder — the Codifier of Rules and senate president’s daughter — then stripped the 30 rules from the state’s administrative code.
The Coastal Resources Commission sued the Rules Review Commission to reinstate the rules. They include a broad range of guidelines including enforcement of CAMA development permits, variance requests, and designation of certain regions — including Permuda Island off North Topsail — as areas of environmental concern.
After reviewing arguments from both parties, Pittman ordered the Rules Review Commission to approve the 30 rules and return them to the state’s administrative code:
“The court further concludes that plaintiffs have statutory authority to establish enforceable standards, guidelines and policies through rulemaking, have statutory authority to adopt rules that provide brief statements of law to give context to or aid in understanding of that rule or other rules, and the term ‘adverse environmental impact’ is not ambiguous as used in this rulemaking context.”
The Coastal Resources Commission is a 13-member body that establishes state coastal protection policies, including the Coastal Area Management Act and the Dredge and Fill Act. It is appointed by the governor, general assembly, and insurance commissioner.
North Topsail Beach Inlet and Sound Advisory Committee chair Larry Strother forwarded a February report to aldermen warning removing the rules would threaten federal beach renourishment funding, harm local governments’ ability to collect permit fees, negatively impact the use of dredge materials, and diminish protection of Permuda Island and other valuable state resources.
“In short the entire CAMA permitting and implementation system may fail,” he wrote.
Alternatively, the 10-member Rules Review Commission is appointed entirely by Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore. The Rules Review Commission has at least four in-house attorneys but was allocated $250,000 to fund private legal counsel as a provision within SB 382, a controversial omnibus bill enacted in December after the General Assembly overturned Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto.
The Rules Review Commission has faced lawsuits from multiple state agencies for acting outside of its statutory authority in recent years, including with the Coastal Resources Commission, Environmental Management Commission, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services and Commission for Public Health.
The North Carolina Coastal Federation submitted an amicus brief noting Rules Review Commissioners originally rejected staff counsel’s recommendation to object to the Coastal Resources Commission’s rules. RRC counsel argued terms such as “adverse environmental impact” guiding the rules were too vague and contended that Coastal Area Management Act rules should not be enforced as state policies.
Commissioners expressed concerns about the recommendation and asked counsel to revise it. They noted the general assembly authorized the Coastal Resources Commission to adopt enforceable CAMA rules and the term “significant adverse impact” has historically been used in the same context without RRC objection. Despite their earlier concerns, RRC commissioners voted to block the rules months later.
“The entire tenor of the RRC’s discussion of the CAMA rules during its December 2022 meeting foreshadowed that its ultimate decision to later block the rules would be arbitrary and capricious,” attorney Julie Youngman wrote.
