Craig v. County of Chatham
565 S.E.2d 172, 356 N.C. 40, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20823 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A county ordinance or local board of health rule is preempted by state law if the state has established a "complete and integrated regulatory scheme" in that field, or if a local health rule, though more stringent, is not specifically shown to be "required to protect the public health." Furthermore, a zoning ordinance is invalid if it incorporates an invalid, preempted local ordinance.
Facts:
- On April 6, 1998, the Chatham County Board of Commissioners enacted the “Chatham County Ordinance Regulating Swine Farms” (Swine Ordinance) and “An Ordinance to Amend the Chatham County Zoning Ordinance to Provide for Regulation of Swine Farms” (Zoning Ordinance).
- The Swine Ordinance regulated swine farms raising 250 or more animals through a permitting system, assigned financial responsibility for future contaminations, and established setback distances, buffer zones, and semiannual well-testing requirements.
- The Zoning Ordinance required swine farms with animal waste management systems of 600,000 pounds steady state live weight (SSLW) or greater to be located exclusively in “Light Industrial” or “Heavy Industrial” districts and required a conditional use permit contingent upon compliance with the Swine Ordinance.
- On April 28, 1998, the Chatham County Board of Health enacted the “Chatham County Board of Health Swine Farm Operation Rules” (Health Board Rules), which were virtually identical to the Swine Ordinance and applied to all swine farms raising 250 or more animals.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 2, 1998, Timothy H. Craig and the Chatham County Agribusiness Council (CCAC) filed a complaint against Chatham County in superior court (trial court/court of first instance) seeking a declaration that the Swine Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, and Health Board Rules were not legally valid.
- CCAC filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and Chatham County filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The superior court granted Chatham County's motion for summary judgment and denied CCAC’s motion for partial summary judgment.
- Plaintiffs (Timothy H. Craig and CCAC) appealed to the Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals, with Chatham County as appellee and Timothy H. Craig and CCAC as appellants, affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the Health Board Rules and the Swine Ordinance were preempted by state law but upholding the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Chatham County regarding the Zoning Ordinance.
- This Court (Supreme Court of North Carolina) allowed defendants' (Chatham County's) petition for discretionary review and plaintiffs' (Timothy H. Craig and CCAC's) conditional petition for discretionary review as to an additional issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a state law preempt county ordinances and local health board rules regulating swine farms when the state has enacted a comprehensive regulatory scheme for the field? 2. Is a county's zoning ordinance valid if it requires compliance with another county ordinance that has been preempted by state law? 3. Can a local board of health adopt rules more stringent than state law without providing a specific rationale that such rules are required to protect the public health?
Opinions:
Majority - Lake, Chief Justice
Yes, the Chatham County Swine Ordinance and Health Board Rules are preempted by state law because the General Assembly has provided a complete and integrated regulatory scheme for swine farms. The court reviewed the "Swine Farm Siting Act" (N.C.G.S. §§ 106-800 to -805) and the "Animal Waste Management Systems" (N.C.G.S. §§ 143-215.10A to -215.10M), noting their expressed "purpose" and "intent" to establish a uniform, statewide system that balances economic development with environmental protection and minimizes regulatory burden. The extensive scope of state regulations, including detailed siting requirements, permitting programs, and enforcement mechanisms, clearly indicates legislative intent to cover the entire field. Allowing varied local regulations would disrupt the statewide balance and impose excessive burdens on swine farmers. No, Chatham County's Zoning Ordinance does not remain valid because it explicitly requires compliance with the preempted Swine Ordinance. While counties have statutory authority to enact zoning regulations for large swine farms that do not entirely exclude them from the jurisdiction, the Zoning Ordinance's specific requirement for a "Construction/Expansion permit" obtained through compliance with the invalidated Swine Ordinance renders it invalid. The Zoning Ordinance's attempt to incorporate the Swine Ordinance is its fatal flaw. No, a local Board of Health may not regulate swine farms under N.C.G.S. § 130A-39 upon considerations other than public health, and it must provide a specific rationale for more stringent rules. While N.C.G.S. § 130A-39(b) allows local health boards to adopt more stringent rules when "required to protect the public health," the Chatham County Board of Health failed to provide any specific rationale or basis for why its rules were necessary to protect public health beyond the existing comprehensive state regulations. Therefore, its more stringent rules are impermissible.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the doctrine of state preemption in North Carolina, particularly regarding local government authority to regulate areas already addressed by comprehensive state statutes. It establishes that legislative intent to preempt does not require an express statement but can be inferred from the breadth, scope, and stated purpose of a state regulatory scheme. The ruling limits local governments' ability to add more stringent regulations without a clear, evidence-backed justification, especially for health boards, thereby promoting regulatory uniformity and reducing burdens on industries vital to the state's economy. Future cases will likely cite this decision when evaluating whether local ordinances conflict with or are preempted by state laws, particularly in environmental, agricultural, and other highly regulated sectors.
