#### MURPHY FAMILY FARMS and MURPHY FARMS, INC. d/b/a MURPHY FAMILY FARMS, Petitioners v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Respondent

No. 558A03

(Filed 17 December 2004)

Environmental Law— hog waste — one violation of water quality standards

The decision of the Court of Appeals that eight civil penalties could be imposed on petitioner for violations of the dissolved oxygen water quality standards by discharging hog waste into the waters of this State is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion that only one violation occurred when all of the waste from a lagoon was discharged in one day from a lagoon breach, and it was inappropriate to impose civil penalties based on the number of days DENR chose to test the waters.

Appeal by petitioners pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 160 N.C. App. 338, 585 S.E.2d 446 (2003), affirming in part and reversing in part a judgment entered on 15 May 2002 by Judge Benjamin G. Alford in Superior Court, Duplin County. On 5 February 2004, the Supreme Court granted petitioners’ and respondent’s petitions for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court in the 1767 Chowan County Courthouse 8 October 2004.

Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton, PLLC, by Henry W. Jones, Jr. and Brian S. Edlin, for petitioners-appellants/appellees.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Jill B. Hickey and Francis W. Crawley, Special Deputy Attorneys General, for respondentappellee/appellant.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals as to the issue in petitioners’ appeal relating to whether the breach and discharge constituted one separate violation, eight separate violations, or one eight-day continuous violation. Further, we hold respondent’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently allowed. This case is remanded to the *181Court of Appeals for further remand to Superior Court, Duplin County for reinstatement of the trial court’s judgment.

REVERSED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.

Justice NEWBY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.