House Bill 1136 would place a temporary moratorium on new or increased surface water transfers from the upper Cape Fear River Basin, specifically upstream of Cape Fear Lock and Dam #2 in Bladen County. During the moratorium period, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) could not issue new certificates or approve increases for transfers from that area, with exceptions for existing lawful transfers and emergency transfers authorized by the Secretary of Environmental Quality. The moratorium would expire June 1, 2030.
The bill also directs the North Carolina Collaboratory at UNC-Chapel Hill to conduct a comprehensive study of the Cape Fear River Basin. That study would inventory existing water uses, assess the basin’s reliable water yield, evaluate environmental review requirements for interbasin transfers, examine economic equity impacts on affected communities, and analyze water quality and ecological effects. The Collaboratory would consult with state, federal, and local water-related entities and report findings and any proposed legislation to the General Assembly by July 1, 2029. The bill appropriates $1.5 million in nonrecurring General Fund money for the study.
In addition, HB1136 revises the EMC’s authority over interbasin transfers statewide. It would expressly allow the Commission to require reductions in existing surface water transfers when necessary to address generalized water depletion or pollution, and it would add a new requirement that transfer certificates include a provision allowing the Commission to reduce the maximum transfer amount if needed to avoid detrimental effects on the source basin. Current certificate holders would have to request modification of their certificates to incorporate that new reduction authority.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant for water allocation and interbasin transfer regulation. It would temporarily freeze new Cape Fear transfers, create a state-funded basin study, and strengthen the EMC’s ability to reduce existing transfers based on changing water needs, drought, alternative supplies, and source-basin impacts. It would affect municipalities, utilities, water system operators, and other certificate holders that rely on interbasin transfers, especially in the Cape Fear region and potentially statewide.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is precautionary and protective of the Cape Fear Basin, emphasizing sustainability, water quality, and the need to reassess older transfer laws in light of growth and drought. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available context. The main likely point of contention is the balance between protecting source-basin water resources and limiting the ability of growing communities and utilities to secure additional water supplies through interbasin transfers.
HB1136 would amend North Carolina’s interbasin transfer and water management statutes by adding a Cape Fear-specific moratorium and expanding the EMC’s authority to reduce existing transfers. It would also appropriate $1.5 million to UNC’s Collaboratory for a basin study, creating a new state-funded research mandate tied to future legislative recommendations. The bill would directly affect G.S. 143-215.13 and G.S. 143-215.22L, and would require existing certificate holders to seek certificate modifications to reflect the new reduction authority.
The bill is framed in a protective, cautionary manner, with findings emphasizing rapid growth, drought, natural disasters, and the need to reassess older water-transfer laws. The available record does not include committee testimony or votes, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s own stated policy rationale. Based on the text, the measure appears intended to appeal to water-resource conservation and basin-protection concerns, while likely drawing resistance from entities that depend on future transfer capacity.
The central point of contention is likely whether the state should pause new Cape Fear transfers and give the EMC broader power to reduce existing transfers. Supporters would likely emphasize protecting source-basin flows, water quality, and long-term sustainability, while opponents may argue the bill could constrain municipal growth, regional water planning, and economic development in receiving basins. Another likely issue is the requirement that existing certificate holders seek modification to add reduction language, which could be viewed as imposing new regulatory burdens on already-approved water users.