Veto overrides loosen environmental protections, limit racial topics in NC workplace

A new state law could lift environmental protections from more than half of the state’s wetlands, according to state officials.

The Farm Act of 2023 became law as the N.C. General Assembly overrode Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto. That vote was one of five the state House of Representatives took Tuesday to complete overrides of the Democratic governor’s vetoes. Among the new laws is a ban on asking applicants for state jobs about political beliefs.

The House also voted to override another Cooper veto in order to ban the use of environmental, social and governance factors to shape the state’s investment strategy, an override the Senate would agree to later in the afternoon. Republicans hold veto-proof majorities in both the House and the Senate.

Here’s a look at some of the bills that are now law in North Carolina, spanning a wide gamut from personal finances, to loosening environmental protections, to limiting state agencies’ ability to require job applicants to describe their politics or views on social matters.

Farm Act of 2023

The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality has warned that a provision in the Farm Act limiting wetlands protections to solely those the federal government considers “Waters of the United States” could leave more than 2.5 million acres of wetlands vulnerable across the state unprotected.

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA decision, the federal government is in the process of rewriting which wetlands it deems protected by law. The Sackett decision ruled that wetlands are only protected if they are virtually indistinguishable from a larger body of water.

That leaves North Carolina wetlands like pocosins — or “a swamp on a hill” — particularly vulnerable.

Cooper’s veto message on Senate Bill 582 argued that lifting wetlands protections would result in diminished flood protection for vulnerable areas and diminished water quality.

Republicans who support the Farm Act have argued aligning North Carolina’s wetland protections with federal law will result in regulatory certainty and that the state’s environmental protections cannot be more stringent than those set by the federal government.

Ultimately, North Carolina’s standards for protected wetlands will be the same as the federal government’s. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency haven’t yet released guidance for how they will incorporate the Sackett ruling into their own rules.

Rep. Pricey Harrison, a Guilford County Democrat, told the House that in the wake of the Sackett decision, both South Carolina and Tennessee started to look at their own wetlands provisions to make sure they are providing protections once given by the federal government.

Harrison also noted that agricultural activity isn’t subject to wetlands rules, arguing the wetlands provision is entirely about being able to fill in vulnerable areas and open them up to development.

“This is probably the most destructive environmental bill this chamber has voted on since I was elected in 2004,” Harrison said.

Tuesday’s House vote was 78 to 40, with a handful of Democrats aligning with Republicans. That followed a Monday vote in the Senate of 29-17, split along party lines of those present.

‘Compelled speech’ bill

Senate Bill 364, called the “Nondiscrimination and Dignity in State Work” Act, prohibits “compelled speech” in state government offices and the community college system. It would prevent state agencies from asking prospective employees about their “beliefs, affiliations, ideals, or principles regarding matters of contemporary political debate or social action as a condition of employment.”

The law also prevents the state from promoting 13 concepts, including the ideas that “One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; an individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive or “bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;” or that people “should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress.”

Democrats and some free speech advocates say the law — one of several pieces of legislation that could limit the way people are permitted to talk about race and gender — infringes on individual rights. Republican sponsors say it does the opposite.

“(T)his bill is about encouraging, ensuring diversity of thought in the state of employment,” Sen. Warren Daniel, a Burke County Republican, said last week when the Senate voted to override Cooper’s veto. The Senate override vote passed 30-18 along party lines.

In the House, Rep. Robert Reives, a Chatham County Democrat who serves as the minority leader, said it is important that schools be able to ask applicants how they feel about certain groups of people. He gave the example of the state’s historically Black colleges and universities being left unable to ask how applicants feel about Black people, or about N.C. State University being left unable to ask how applicants feel they can work with engineers or veterinarians.

“Universities have an atmosphere. You’re not stopping somebody from working by asking questions about how they fit into a particular atmosphere,” Reives said. “I don’t see how we’ve gotten to a point where we’re scared to ask each other questions.”

Republican Rep. Destin Hall, who chairs the powerful Rules committee, said lawmakers were prompted to write the bill after N.C. State included a question on its undergraduate application about diversity and inclusion. The News & Observer previously reported that the question read:

“NC State University is committed to building a just and inclusive community, one that does not tolerate unjust or inhumane treatment, and that denounces it, clearly and loudly. Please describe what those words mean to you and how you will contribute to a more diverse and inclusive NC State environment.”

“Of course, at first glance, that may seem OK,” Hall said. “But the problem is what is unjust is in the eye of the beholder. And so we know, because we’ve heard from students applying, we’ve heard from other folks applying for jobs, a certain feeling that they had to answer this in a certain way depending on who was going to be reading their applications. We shouldn’t have that in state government.”

The question on N.C. State’s application, which was introduced during the 2021 admissions cycle, came under fire in February. Soon after, the UNC Board of Governors voted unanimously to prevent its schools from asking applicants about personal political beliefs.

The House voted Tuesday to override Cooper’s veto of SB 364 with a 72-47 vote.

Environmental and social investments

Over the past year, Republican-controlled legislatures across the country have targeted investment practices that account for companies’ environmental, social and governance policies, commonly called ESG. More than a dozen states have passed laws prohibiting their employee pension plans from accounting for ESG factors.

House Bill 750, “Address Environmental, Social, and Governance Factors,” institutes a similar ban in North Carolina.

State Treasurer Dale Folwell, who manages the North Carolina Retirement Systems and is running for governor, is one of the state’s most outspoken ESG critics. In December, he called for the CEO of BlackRock — the world’s largest investment manager — to resign or be removed because of the firm’s ESG initiatives.

This story was produced with financial support from 1Earth Fund, in partnership with Journalism Funding Partners, as part of an independent journalism fellowship program. The N&O maintains full editorial control of the work.