Are landscape architects in North Carolina legally allowed to design street and storm water drainage systems for subdivision developments, or is that work limited to licensed professional engineers?
Plain-English summary
A 20-year turf war between two professional licensing boards came to the AG in 2001 for an advisory opinion. The North Carolina Board of Landscape Architects and the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors ("Engineering Board") had been disagreeing about whether landscape architects could legally design street and storm water drainage systems for subdivisions. Each board took the position that its profession's statutory scope of practice covered this work. The engineering board had even charged a Charlotte landscape architect, Brian C. Sigmon, with practicing engineering without a license after he sealed drawings for a Gastonia subdivision that included storm water and roadway design.
The AG's office was in an awkward position because by statute it represents both boards (N.C.G.S. § 114-4.2G for the Landscape Architects Board, § 89C-23 for the Engineering Board). The 1997 General Assembly had tried to resolve the dispute by amending Chapter 89A (Session Laws 1997-406), but the amendments had not put the issue to rest. The AG ultimately gave its opinion.
The crux of the analysis was the meaning of the word "drainage" in the statutory definition of landscape architecture. N.C.G.S. § 89A-1(3) defines landscape architecture as "the preparation of plans and specifications and supervising the execution of projects involving the arranging of land and the elements used thereon for public and private use and enjoyment, embracing drainage, soil conservation, grading and planting plans and erosion control, in accordance with the accepted professional standards of public health, safety and welfare." Does "embracing drainage" mean only surface drainage features (swales, surface contouring for runoff), or does it extend to subsurface drainage infrastructure (storm sewers, underground pipes, culverts)?
The AG read the statute closely and concluded that the landscape architecture definition refers to surface design, not subsurface infrastructure. The supporting reasoning:
Statutory text emphasis on surface elements. The definition speaks of "arranging of land and the elements used thereon" and lists "drainage, soil conservation, grading and planting plans and erosion control." These are concepts that operate at the land surface: grading shapes the surface, planting puts plants on the surface, erosion control protects the surface, drainage in this context refers to surface drainage patterns. Subsurface piping is not naturally read as part of this list.
Statutory definition of engineering practice. N.C.G.S. § 89C-3(6)(a) defines engineering practice to include the application of "special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences" to the design of "hydraulic systems" and similar infrastructure. Designing a storm sewer system, including hydraulic calculations for pipe sizing, gradient, capacity, and structural load on culverts and inlets, is squarely engineering work. The mathematics and physics of subsurface flow are precisely what engineering education and licensure cover.
The land surveyors carve-out. N.C.G.S. § 89C-3(7)(b) carves out land surveying from engineering practice but specifically does NOT allow land surveyors to "design or preparation of specifications for, among others, streets or storm sewer systems except as incidental to a subdivision." This statutory phrasing implies that street and storm sewer design is normally engineering practice; the explicit carve-out (incidental to a subdivision) for land surveyors is a narrow exception. By the same logic, the General Assembly's failure to carve out street and storm sewer design for landscape architects suggests that activity remains within engineering practice.
The functional distinction. The opinion drew a clean functional line: "There is a difference in our minds between using landscape architect principles to arrange the surface land to best accommodate a road (taking into account such factors as erosion control, storm drainage and sedimentation control) and using the mathematical and engineering science to design how the road is to be constructed." A landscape architect can design the layout of a development's surface drainage features (where surface runoff goes, what swales and contours channel it, how plantings stabilize it). An engineer designs the storm sewer system that captures and conveys the runoff to its destination, the structural calculations for streets, and the hydraulic design of subsurface conveyances.
The legislative authority point. The opinion repeatedly emphasized that the General Assembly defines the scope of each profession. The AG's role is interpretive, not legislative. If the General Assembly wants to expand landscape architecture to include subsurface drainage design, it can amend the statute. The 1997 amendments did not clearly produce that result. Until the legislature speaks more clearly, the AG reads the existing definitions as putting subsurface drainage and street design within engineering practice.
The cooperative-construction canon. The opinion invoked in pari materia construction: when multiple statutes address the same matter, they should be read together to reach a consistent legislative purpose. Hunt v. Reinsurance Facility supports this canon. Reading Chapter 89A and Chapter 89C together, the natural division of labor is that landscape architects handle surface land arrangement (including surface drainage features and erosion control) and engineers handle structural and subsurface infrastructure (including streets, storm sewer pipes, and hydraulic calculations).
The provisos. The AG framed the conclusion as a "with the stated provisos" opinion to acknowledge two limits. First, the legislature has the final word; the AG's interpretation could be reversed by legislative action. Second, the two professional boards themselves are the appropriate entities to work out residual ambiguities. The AG's opinion does not preclude future case-by-case judgments about whether a particular subdivision plan element is more naturally landscape architecture or engineering. It establishes a default presumption that detailed subsurface drainage design is engineering work.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2001. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. The professional practice definitions in Chapters 89A and 89C of the North Carolina General Statutes have been amended periodically since 2001. National model practice acts for landscape architecture and engineering have also evolved, and various state courts have weighed in on similar professional-scope questions in their own jurisdictions. Anyone working with a current professional-practice-boundary question should consult current statutes, current Board rules (the Landscape Architects Board rules in 21 NCAC Chapter 26 and the Engineering Board rules in 21 NCAC Chapter 56), and any current case law addressing the boundary between these professions.
Background and statutory framework
Why the boundary matters. Engineering services are typically more expensive than landscape architecture services because engineering education and licensure are longer and harder. Subdivision developers prefer landscape architects to engineers for cost reasons, when both can do the work. Engineers prefer to keep more work within their licensed scope, both for revenue and for public safety reasons (engineers consider that some work, like subsurface hydraulic design, simply requires engineering training to do safely). The boundary dispute has direct economic consequences and direct public safety consequences. Subdivisions with improperly designed storm sewer systems can flood downstream properties, fail under heavy rainfall, or contribute to surface water pollution.
The history of the dispute. The 2001 opinion notes that the disagreement had been ongoing for more than 20 years. Various intermediate efforts to resolve it had not produced final clarity. A 1997 letter from then-Chief Deputy Attorney General Andrew A. Vanore, Jr. had said the question was for the legislature. The General Assembly responded with 1997 amendments (Session Laws 1997-406), but the amendments did not clearly draw the line. The 2001 AG opinion does what neither the boards' negotiations nor the legislative amendments had managed: it draws a workable interpretive line.
The Sigmon case as factual catalyst. Brian C. Sigmon, a registered landscape architect in Charlotte, sealed subdivision plans for a Gastonia developer. The plans included storm water and roadway design (in addition to the water and sewer plans, which were sealed by a professional engineer). The City of Gastonia's engineer questioned whether Sigmon could seal those drawings under a city ordinance requiring engineer seals on subdivision plans. Eventually the engineer sealed all the plans (presumably the professional engineer added his seal next to Sigmon's). The Engineering Board investigated Sigmon and recommended a cease-and-desist letter. The AG's office declined to send the letter because it represents both boards. The 2001 opinion is partly the AG's response to having both boards represented and needing to take a position.
The 1997 amendments and their incomplete effect. Session Laws 1997-406 amended the landscape architecture statutes. The 2001 opinion does not detail what the amendments changed, but it notes that they "did not put the issue to rest." Likely the amendments expanded landscape architects' authority in some respects but did not specifically resolve whether subsurface drainage design fell within "embracing drainage." Legislative compromises often leave the residual disputes for agencies and courts to work out.
The expressio unius corollary in the land-surveying carve-out. The opinion's use of the land-surveying carve-out as interpretive evidence is subtle but powerful. Section 89C-3(7)(b) says that land surveying does not include "design or preparation of specifications for, among others, streets or storm sewer systems except as incidental to a subdivision." The General Assembly took the trouble to write that explicit exclusion for land surveying. The exclusion implies that street and storm sewer design is normally engineering practice (otherwise why exclude it from land surveying?). The General Assembly's failure to write a similar exclusion for landscape architecture is, by the same logic, telling: street and storm sewer design is not landscape architecture either. The General Assembly has been explicit when it wanted to include or exclude this work, and it has not included it in landscape architecture's domain.
The conflict-of-interest dimension for the AG. The AG's representation of both boards created a structural conflict. Each board would have wanted the AG to interpret the statutes in its favor. The 2001 opinion resolves the conflict by analyzing the statutory text neutrally and reaching a conclusion supported by canons of construction. The opinion's careful framing ("with the stated provisos") acknowledges that this is a contested area and that the two boards have their own institutional perspectives.
The forward path. The opinion's closing note that the two boards remain the appropriate entities to settle conflicts arising from existing statutory definitions points to a sensible cooperative path. The boards can develop joint rules or guidance that addresses borderline cases (interior parking lot drainage, residential lot drainage that includes some piping, etc.). They can also pursue further legislative clarification if the existing statutory framework leaves too many disputes unresolved. The AG's opinion is not the final word; it is a useful interpretive baseline for the boards' continuing work.
Common questions
Q: Can a landscape architect in North Carolina design the storm drainage for a subdivision I'm developing?
A: Under the 2001 AG opinion, surface drainage design (swales, contouring, surface runoff management, erosion control planting) is within landscape architecture. Subsurface storm sewer design (pipes, culverts, inlet structures, hydraulic calculations) is engineering practice. Subdivision plans that include both will typically need both a landscape architect and a professional engineer.
Q: My city ordinance requires an engineer's seal on all subdivision plans. Does this opinion change that?
A: No. Local ordinances can require engineer seals beyond what state law requires. The AG opinion is about state professional licensing law, not local permit ordinances. A city can lawfully require engineer seals on all subdivision plans even where landscape architects could otherwise seal portions of the plans under state law.
Q: What about street design, separate from drainage?
A: The 2001 opinion concludes that detailed street design, including subsurface structures, is also within engineering practice rather than landscape architecture. The structural calculations for road construction (subbase, pavement section, drainage swales adjacent to the road) are engineering work. A landscape architect can lay out where roads go on the surface and how planting and surface treatments adjoin them; an engineer designs how the road is actually built.
Q: Are there parts of a subdivision plan that only a landscape architect can do?
A: Yes. Many surface elements of site design (planting plans, hardscape layout, recreation area design, erosion control planning, surface drainage features, soil conservation arrangements) are within landscape architecture. The Engineering Board's authority is not exclusive over all aspects of land development; the General Assembly intentionally created a landscape architecture profession with its own scope.
Q: What happens if a landscape architect seals plans that include subsurface drainage design?
A: It potentially is unauthorized practice of engineering, which is a violation of N.C.G.S. § 89C-23 and may subject the landscape architect to disciplinary action by the Engineering Board, civil penalties, or in serious cases criminal prosecution. The Sigmon case in the 2001 opinion's background reflects how these disputes can escalate. Landscape architects who are unsure about a particular project should consult their Board, the Engineering Board, or counsel before sealing drawings that include subsurface elements.
Q: Can a landscape architect and an engineer collaborate on a single subdivision?
A: Yes, and that is the typical practice. The landscape architect handles surface design, planting, layout, and surface drainage; the engineer handles streets, storm sewers, structural elements, and hydraulic calculations. Each professional seals the portions of the plans within their respective scope. This is the cooperative pattern that the 2001 AG opinion's interpretation supports.
Q: How does this compare to other states' rules on the same boundary?
A: Many states have similar professional-scope tensions. National model practice acts for both professions exist but vary in adoption. Some states have clearer statutory boundaries; some, like North Carolina, have residual ambiguities that get worked out through opinions and case law. The functional approach the 2001 NC AG opinion takes (surface = landscape architecture, subsurface = engineering) is consistent with how many state engineering boards have drawn the line.
Citations
Statutes
- N.C.G.S. § 89A-1 — definitions in the landscape architecture chapter.
- N.C.G.S. § 89A-1(2) — Board grants certificates on basis of demonstrated knowledge acquired by professional education and/or practical experience.
- N.C.G.S. § 89A-1(3) — definition of landscape architecture; "arranging of land and the elements used thereon for public and private use and enjoyment, embracing drainage, soil conservation, grading and planting plans and erosion control."
- N.C.G.S. § 89A-2(b)(i) — Chapter 89A not to be construed to authorize a landscape architect to practice architecture, engineering, or land surveying.
- N.C.G.S. § 89A-2(c) — landscape architect seal not to be used as a substitute for architect, engineer, or land surveyor seal.
- N.C.G.S. § 89A-4(a) — registration and licensure required for landscape architecture practice and title use.
- N.C.G.S. § 89A-8(a) — misdemeanor to hold out as landscape architect without registration.
- N.C.G.S. § 89C-2 — purpose of Engineering Act is to safeguard life, health, and property and to promote public welfare.
- N.C.G.S. § 89C-3(2) — definition of engineer.
- N.C.G.S. § 89C-3(6)(a) — definition of practice of engineering; application of mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences.
- N.C.G.S. § 89C-3(7)(b) — land surveying does not include designing streets or storm sewer systems except as incidental to a subdivision.
- N.C.G.S. § 89C-3(8) — definition of professional engineer.
- N.C.G.S. § 89C-23 — unlicensed practice of engineering prohibited; AG is legal advisor to Engineering Board.
- N.C.G.S. § 89C-25(1) — Engineering Act not to affect practice of landscape architecture.
- N.C.G.S. § 114-4.2G — AG is legal advisor to Board of Landscape Architects.
- Session Laws 1997-406 — 1997 amendments to landscape architecture statutes.
Cases
- Hunt v. Reinsurance Facility, 302 N.C. 274, 275 S.E.2d 399 (1981) — when multiple statutes address a single matter or issue, they must be construed together (in pari materia) and conflicting interpretations should be avoided.
Source
- Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/legal-qualifications-of-landscape-architects-to-design-street-and-storm-water-drainage-systems/
Original opinion text
Re: Advisory Opinion - Legal qualifications of landscape architects to design street and storm water drainage systems
Dear Mr. Carter:
We are responding to your letter dated December 11, 2000, requesting an opinion whether landscape architects are legally qualified to design street and storm water drainage systems, specifically including the subsurface systems and the structural design components of each.
BACKGROUND
Based on the information and documents you and David Tuttle have provided, it appears that this question has been a major point of disagreement between the Board of Landscape Architects and the Engineering Board for over 20 years. The Engineering Board contends that providing street and storm water system design is clearly within the statutory definition of the practice of engineering. It does not recognize an overlap with the practice of landscape architecture in this regards. The Board of Landscape Architects disagrees with this position. In May 1997, then Chief Deputy Attorney General Andrew A. Vanore, Jr. stated in a letter to your outside legal counsel that the extent to which the design of such systems should be restricted to professional engineers was a matter of legislative determination. In August 1997, the General Assembly amended the statutes related to landscape architecture (Session Laws 1997-406). Unfortunately, the changes did not put the issue to rest. You have advised that the Engineering Board and the Board of Landscape Architects have been unsuccessful in their attempts to resolve their differences. By statute, the Attorney General's Office serves as the legal advisor to both boards. N.C.G.S. § 114-4.2G and N.C.G.S. § 89C-23.
FACTS
Most recently, this issue has arisen in the case of Brian C. Sigmon, a registered Landscape Architect in Charlotte. The pertinent facts as we understand them are as follows: A developer submitted a set of subdivision plans to the City of Gastonia. The plans contained storm water drainage and roadway design information sealed by Mr. Sigmon. The water and sewer plans were sealed by a professional engineer. The City Engineer questioned whether Mr. Sigmon could seal the plans because there is an ordinance requiring the seal of a professional engineer on all subdivision plans. Ultimately, the engineer sealed all the subdivision plans. A charge was subsequently filed with the Engineering Board.
The Engineering Board conducted an investigation. The Engineering Board, upon the recommendation of its Review Committee, recommended that Mr. Sigmon be advised to cease and desist from the practice of engineering without a license. The Attorney General's Office declined to send a "cease and desist" letter to Mr. Sigmon because it represents both boards.
The Board of Landscape Architects reviewed the subdivision plans submitted by Mr. Sigmon and concluded that the work was that which can be conducted by a registered landscape architect. Further, in its view, it is inappropriate for the Engineering Board to investigate such matters and determine whether or not a registered landscape architect can perform various design services.
STATUTES
Landscape Architecture
The profession of landscape architecture has been recognized in North Carolina since 1964. It is governed by Chapter 89A of the North Carolina General Statutes. Prior to 1997, it was a "title act." In other words, only those persons registered with the Board of Landscape Architects could use the title "Landscape Architect." Now a person may not engage in the practice of landscape architecture or use the title unless duly registered and licensed. N.C.G.S. § 89A-4(a). "Landscape architecture" is defined by statute as:
The preparation of plans and specifications and supervising the execution of projects involving the arranging of land and the elements used thereon for public and private use and enjoyment, embracing drainage, soil conservation, grading and planting plans and erosion control, in accordance with the accepted professional standards of public health, safety and welfare.
N.C.G.S. § 89A-1(3). The Board of Landscape Architects grants certificates on the basis of demonstrated knowledge acquired by professional education and/or practical experience. N.C.G.S. § 89A-1(2). It is a misdemeanor to hold oneself out as a registered landscape architect without being duly registered. N.C.G.S. § 89A-8(a). The profession is not without limitation. Nothing in Chapter 89A is to be construed to authorize a landscape architect to practice architecture, engineering, or land surveying. N.C.G.S. § 89A-2(b)(i). In addition, nothing in the chapter is to be construed as authorizing the use or acceptance of the seal of a landscape architect instead of, or as a substitute for, the seal of an architect, engineer, or land surveyor. N.C.G.S. § 89A-2(c).
The American Society of Landscape Architects ("ASLA") describes the profession as:
. . . the art and science of analysis, planning, design, management, preservation and rehabilitation of the land. The scope of the profession includes site planning, garden design, environmental restoration, town or urban planning, park and recreation planning, regional planning, and historic preservation. Practitioners share a commitment of achieving a balance between preservation, use and management of the country's resources.
Landscape architecture is further described by the ASLA as "a diverse profession, a broad, interdisciplinary field with links to many other professions." Landscape architects work with other professionals, such as architects and civil engineers, on the design of all types of outdoor space. However, ASLA states that clear differences exist between landscape architects and the other design professionals. Depending on the size of a project, landscape architects may plan the entire arrangement of a site, including location of buildings, grading, storm water management, construction, and planting. They may also coordinate teams of design, construction and contracting professionals.
Engineering
Engineering is governed by Chapter 89C. This is a "practice act." Only persons duly licensed by the Engineering Board are authorized to practice engineering or offer to practice engineering as defined in the statute or to hold themselves out as an engineer. N.C.G.S. § 89C-23. The purpose of the Act is to safeguard life, health, and property, and to promote the public welfare. N.C.G.S. § 89C-2. The practice of engineering is defined as:
Any service or creative work, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training, and experience, in the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to such services or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design of engineering works and systems, planning the use of land and water, engineering surveys, and the observation of construction for the purposes of assuring compliance with drawings and specifications, including the consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design for either private or public use, in connection with any utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, work systems, projects, and industrial or consumer products or equipment of a mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic or thermal nature, insofar as they involve safeguarding life, health or property, and including such other professional services as may be necessary to the planning, progress and completion of any engineering services.
N.C.G.S. § 89C-3(6)a. An engineer is defined as a person who, by reason of special knowledge and use of mathematical, physical and engineering sciences and the principles and methods of engineering analysis and design, acquired by engineering education and experience, is qualified to practice engineering. N.C.G.S. § 89C-3(2). A professional engineer is a person who has been duly licensed by the Engineering Board. N.C.G.S. § 89C-3(8). It is unlawful to practice or offer to practice engineering without being licensed. N.C.G.S. § 89C-23. Chapter 89C is not to be construed to prevent or affect the practice of, among others, landscape architecture. N.C.G.S. § 89C-25(1). Chapter 89C also governs land surveying. The statute also states that the practice of land surveying shall not be construed to permit the design or preparation of specifications for, among others, streets or storm sewer systems except as incidental to a subdivision. N.C.G.S. § 89C-3(7)(b).
ANALYSIS
The crux of the issue is whether the phrase "embracing drainage" in the definition of landscape architecture includes the design of street and storm water drainage systems, specifically including the subsurface systems and the structural design components of each. The enabling legislation for both engineers and landscape architects state that the Acts are not to be construed to authorize a person licensed by one board to practice the other discipline. Likewise, it is a general principle of statutory construction that when multiple statutes address a single matter or issue, they must be construed together ("in pari materia") to determine the legislature's intent. Conflicting interpretations are to be avoided and the statutes reconciled with each other whenever possible. Hunt v. Reinsurance Facility, 302 N.C. 274, 288, 275 S.E.2d 399, 405 (1981).
First and foremost, it must be emphasized that it is up to the legislature to define the practice of landscape architecture and the practice of engineering. Furthermore, these governing bodies for these two professions are the most appropriate entities to settle any conflicts arising from the existing statutory definitions of their professions.
With those provisos in mind, it is our opinion that detailed design plans and accompanying calculations for street design and storm drainage systems, including subsurface structures, appear to require engineering knowledge and to extend beyond the statutory definition of landscape architecture. The practice of landscape architecture includes the "arranging of land and the elements used thereon for public and private use and enjoyment, embracing drainage, soil conservation, grading and planting plans and erosion control. . . ." The definition references surface design. It does not refer to subsurface drainage, or drainage structures such as piping. In comparison, the definition of engineering refers to the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, or engineering sciences to the design of, among others, hydraulic systems. There is a difference in our minds between using landscape architect principles to arrange the surface land to best accommodate a road (taking into account such factors as erosion control, storm drainage and sedimentation control) and using the mathematical and engineering science to design how the road is to be constructed. Further, it would appear that the design of storm drainage systems, including subsurface structures, constitutes more than arranging elements on the land. The fact that the engineering statute specifically omits the design or preparation of specifications for streets or storm sewer systems (except as incidental to a subdivision), from the definition of land surveying, also suggests that this activity is the practice of engineering.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and with the stated provisos, it is our opinion that the detailed drawings and accompanying calculations of street design and storm drainage systems, including subsurface systems and component structures, is within the definition of the practice of engineering and not within the definition of landscape architecture.
We trust that this advisory opinion will be helpful. Please call Robert Crawford if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Reginald L. Watkins
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Civil Division
Robert O. Crawford, III
Special Deputy Attorney General
Transportation Section
cc: David S. Tuttle, Board Counsel