​The North Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled that a notice of non-compliance with sedimentation and erosion control regulations does not trigger an injured neighbor’s right to sue for damages caused by a “violation." The court’s reasoning is a bit nebulous,  but the decision clearly means that a person clearing land can be in non-compliance with sedimentation and erosion control requirements without violating them. This is a bit perplexing since there is little doubt literally that to be in non-compliance with a rule or law is to violate it. Perhaps the best explanation is the recognition that total compliance with all requirements is nearly impossible, so notices of compliance are meant to give a developer a warning and a specified time to correct the “non-compliance." Perhaps the court was just being merciful, if not semantically logical. Regardless of reasoning, there are several clear messages. Those in the land clearing business will have a lot less to fear from private lawsuits claiming damages from violations, and those who may be affected by sediment or runoff will have a  much more restricted cause of action to redress any damage. And as a logical extension, DENR and local governments may not be able to assess penalties based on notices of non-compliance but rather will have to issue a notice of violation before issuing a penalty. This could lead regulators to being less liberal in giving notices of non-compliance. This should not be a green light for land developers to use poor sedimentation and erosion control measures since DENR or a local government can choose at any time to issue a notice of violation accompanied by a penalty if corrections required by a notice of non-compliance are not made within the specified time – the penalties are notoriously high.