House Bill 738, titled "Restore Wetlands Protections," would revise North Carolina law governing wetlands and waters of the state. The bill repeals two prior session-law provisions and amends the definition section in G.S. 143-212 to restore a broader category of protected "isolated wetlands." Under the bill, isolated wetlands would include wetlands previously confirmed as isolated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before June 22, 2020, as well as certain basin wetlands and bogs identified in the state wetland assessment manual. The bill also clarifies that isolated man-made ditches or ponds built for stormwater management, and other man-made isolated ponds, are not included in the definition.
The measure further revises the statutory definitions of "waters" and "wetland" for the purposes of the relevant environmental articles in Chapter 143. It states that wetlands classified as waters of the state are limited to waters of the United States under federal regulations and isolated wetlands. The bill would take effect upon becoming law, and its practical effect would be to restore state-level wetland protections that had been narrowed by earlier legislation, potentially expanding the scope of wetlands subject to regulation, permitting, and environmental review.
HB738 would change North Carolina environmental law by restoring and broadening the statutory definition of protected isolated wetlands in G.S. 143-212 and by repealing prior session-law provisions that had limited those protections. This would affect state permitting and regulatory decisions involving wetlands, land development, drainage, stormwater infrastructure, and other activities that may impact wetlands or waters of the state. The bill would primarily affect landowners, developers, local governments, environmental regulators, and projects requiring wetland-related approvals.
Based on the bill title and text, the measure appears to be framed as a restoration of environmental safeguards rather than a new regulatory expansion. However, there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. The available record therefore suggests a policy-oriented environmental bill with no documented legislative sentiment beyond its introduction and referral to committee.
The likely point of contention is the scope of wetland regulation. Supporters would likely favor restoring protections for isolated wetlands and basin wetlands/bogs to preserve water quality, habitat, and flood resilience. Opponents would likely argue that the bill could increase regulatory burdens on property owners, developers, agricultural interests, and local infrastructure projects by expanding the number of wetlands subject to state oversight. The exclusion of man-made stormwater ponds and ditches suggests an attempt to limit the bill’s reach, but the broader definition of protected wetlands remains the central issue.