PA-440/9-75-001
REPORT ON STATE
SEDIMENT  CONTROL
INSTITUTES PROGRAM
              APRIL 1975
   U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     Office of Water Planning and Standards
          Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
EPA-440/9-75-OO1
REPORT ON STATE
SEDIMENT CONTROL
INSTITUTES PROGRAM
• U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
Office of Water Planning
Washington, D.C.
PROTECTION AGENCY
and Standards
20460

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by the National Association of Conservation Districts,
Washington, D. C. Principal contributors were David G. Unger, Robert Baum,
Marvin H. Cronberg, Malcolm P. Crooks, David L. Firor, and William j.
Horvath. The Project Officer for EPA was Robert E. Thronson.
EPA appreciates the very substantial ass [ stance provided by the State’s Soil
and Water Conservation Agencies and Associations of Conservation Districts.
Contributions provided by Norman Berg and Minot SLiliman, Soil Conservation
Service; Mary M. Garner, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Agriculture; Eugene Jensen, Nicholas Golubin, Alan LessLn, and Jane Mapes,
EPA; Dale Cochran, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Iowa State
Legislature; and Mason Carbaugh, Virginia State Soil and Water Conservation
Commission are also deeply appreciated.
IL

-------
SUMMARY
A series of 40 State sediment control conferences was held to Increase aware-
ness of the problem of controlling erosion and sediment runoff, report on
mandatory programs in this field that are in operation or under consideration,
explain the provisions of a Model Act for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control,
and encourage needed legLslative and administrative action to deal with the
problem.
The conferences succeeded in achieving enhanced recognition of the problem of
sediment--the nation’s most prevalent pollutant In terms of volume--and wider
acceptance of the need for accelerated and extended action by officials of Conser-
vation Districts and a wide variety of local, State, and Federal agencies and
private organizations. The institutes were Influential in the enactment of
several new State laws establishing regulatory programs, in the drafting of
15 new laws for Introduction In State legislatures, and the modification of several
other pending drafts of proposed State legislation.
Lii

-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
Acknowledgments ii
Summary [ ii
I Conclusions 1
II RecommendatIons 3
I II Introductton 5
IV Discuss Eon 7
V Summary Reports of the Institutes 13
VI References 25
V I I Appendices 27
A. Model State Act for Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control
B. Selected Bibliography on Sediment Control
-Iv-

-------
TAELES
Table 1 State Sediment Control lnstttute Dates and
Status of State Legislation Page 10
V

-------
SECTION 1
C ONC LUST ONS
1. The Institutes focused the attention of a wide variety of concerned Individuals
and groups; representatives of local, State, and Federal governments; and offi-
cials of Soil and Water Conservation Districts on the problem of erosion and
sediment. The preparation, presentation, and discussion of material--especially
that dealing with the specific problems of the state in question--was extremely
useful in creating an awareness of the scope and magnitude of the problem.
2. The conferences aided in creating a dialogue between many different agencies
and individuals, thus bringing about a better appreciation of past accomplishments,
present problems, and attitudes and methods involved in their solution. Closer
and better working relationships were established in many instances among
Conservation Districts, State Water Pollution Control and Soil and Water Con-
servation agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, aixi other agencies
and organizations.
3. Comprehensive information on a wide range of programs and legislation that
has been developed to deal with erosion and sediment control at all levels of
government was presented to the leaders of agencE and organizations most
directly concerned.
4. The Institutes created a new environmental information resource for later
educational use in the States In the form of papers, audio visual presentations,
and proceedings of the conferences.
5. Greater understanding and acceptance of the potential need for regulatory
and mandatory action In the field of erosion and sediment control were achieved
through discussions of the Model Act for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
and other programs. There was general acceptance of the principles upon
which the Model Act is founded, I.e., a preventive approach dealing with all land-
disturbing activities utilizing the development and Implementation of conservation
plans approved by Conservation Districts.
6. The conferences helped to achlevea cooperative commitment from part [ cL-
pants toward accelerated and extended action En the field of erosion and sediment
control. In almost every case, the Institutes concluded with a call for action
by a task force to study the problem and explore further steps deemed necessary.
7. The Institutes resulted in the drafting, re-drafting, Introduction, and--tn
several cases-—passage of legislation establishing regulatory programs In this
field. When the Institutes began, five States had acted. At their conclusion,
—l —

-------
12 States had taken one or another type of legislative or executive action. New
legislation had been prepared in 15 other States. Efforts to enact previously-
drafted bills In several States were accelerated.
-2—

-------
SECTION I I
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Continue to place emphasis on the preventive approach in dealing with
sediment and related non-point source po1lutant .
2. Continue to utilize the Model State Act for Erosion and Sediment Control
of the Council of State Governments as an educational tool in the discussion of
the principles of regulatory programs for sediment control.
3. Cooperate with concerned organizations In the preparation, evaluation, and
dissemination to the States of additional legislative and program Implementation
materials deemed adequate to meet the objectives of P. L. 92-500 that are
directly related to sediment control.
4. Exert every effort to encourage close cooperation between State Water Pollu-
tLon Control officials, State Soil and Water Conservation agency leaders,
Conservation District officials, and the heads of other concerned State agenc Lea
in the development of non-point source control programs in connection with
sections 305(b), 208, 304, and other provisions of P. L. 92—500.
5. Cooperate with concerned organizations in the preparation and utilization
of effective training materials and programs to aid in the development and
implinentation of State and local erosion and sediment control programs.
6. Cooperate in research, education, and demonstration programs related
to erosion and sediment control and related non-point source pollution abatement.
—3-

-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Excess sediment has been described as the greatest single contaminant, by
volume, of lakes, streams, and rivers. It clogs stream channels, thus con-
tributing to increased flooding, and poses hazards to navigation. Removal of
sediment from the nation’s potable water supplies is costly. Sediment can
create a biochemical oxygen demand in natural waters; damage the habitat of
fish and wildlife populations; and reduce capacities of water supply, flood
control, and recreational reservoirs. Furthermore, eroded soil particles
often carry pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and other chemicals from
areas of application to water bodies.
It Is estimated that In the UnLted States alone, four billion tons of soil materials
are eroded from the land each year and transported into downstream areas.
The storage capacity of man-made reservoirs La being reduced at a rate of
about one million acre-feet each year (1).
Efforts to deal seriously with this problem began In the 1930’s with the passage
of PublLc Law 46 by the 74th Congress. This established the Soil Conservation
Service En the 13.5. Department of Agriculture and declared It to be national
policy “to provide permanently for the control and prevention of soil erosion
and thereby to preserve natural resonrces, control floods, prevent Impairment
of reservoirs, and maintain the navigability of rivers and harbors (and)
protect public health.. . .“
In carrying out erosion control programs, It became evident that Informed and
effective Involvement of landowners was essential. This led to the enactment
of enabling legLelatton by each State legislature, which, in turn, resulted in
the creation of 3,000 local Soil and Water Conservation Districts covering most
of the land of the nation. These Districts, which are legal subdtv lstons of
State government, have assisted 2.2 mIllion rural landowners in planning and
carrying out voluntary programs for the control of erosion and resultant sedi-
ment runoff. With assistance from cooperating agencies such as the U. S. Soil
Conservation Service, they have also developed similar programs in urban and
urbanizing areas In cooperation with Municipal, County, State, and Federal
land-administering agencies, and with industrial landowners.
In the 1960’s, sole reliance on voluntary programs came under question by
County, State, and District officials. One reason was the growing reco iLtLon
that housing, industrial, highway, and other construction projects were
IncreasIngly responsible for a large share of erosion and consequent sediment
—5—

-------
damages. Another as that significant changes in farm operating conditions,
Including new demands for expanded agricultural production, were Intensifying
hazards of wind and water eros ton on farm lands.
In cooperation with local Conservation Districts, Town, City, and County
governments began to enact ordinances requiring that certain actions be
taken to prevent eros Ion and control the runoff of sediments from cons true U on
sites within their jurisdictions. State governments were next to act, and
Maryland was the first to enact a regulatory program dealing with sediment
control on construction sites.
Tn 1969, the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD), the National
Association of Counties, and the Soil Conservation Society of America joined in
sponsoring a National Conference on Sediment Control. Assisting were the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The purpose was
to draw attention to the growing magnitude and urgency of the problem and to
seek greater recognition by the Federal government of the need to consider
sediment as a water pollutant.
Other States began to take action. South Carolina, the Virgin Islands, ()iio,
and Iowa enacted laws establishing various kinds of mandatory sediment control
programs--dealing with a r1cultural as well as other sources of sediment in
Ohio and Iowa--and authorizing Conservation Districts to assist In these programs.
The Congress prepared to pass amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act that would call on the States to develop accelerated programs in this field,
Including regulatory programs, as part of a national non-point source pollution
control effort.
It was In this setting that NACD, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and representatives of State government drafted
model state erosion and sediment control legislation that was approved in the
spring of 1972 by the Council of State Governments and subsequently recoin-
mended to the State legislatures of the country (2). Concurrently, the
Environmental Protection Agency awarded a contract to NACD to conduct a
series of approximately 45 State sediment control jnstltutes to develop a greater
public awareness of the need br effective legislative action En this field.
—6—

-------
SECTION IV
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this series of Institutes, which began In August, 1972, was to:
1. Encourage recognition of the nature and magnitude of each State’s current
erosion and sediment problems.
2. Report on the provisions and implications of recently-enacted State sedi-
ment control legislation.
3. Report on the Federal legislation (enacted in October, 1972, as P. L. 92-
500) dealing with sediment and other non—point source pollutants and the
responetbiltiles of the Environmental Protection Agency in this field.
4. Consider the provLs ions of the Model Act for Erosion and Sediment Control
approved by the Council of State Governments.
5. Encourage the States to move forward in this field and to develop programs,
financial resources, staffing, aix] legislation adequate to the nature and scope
of the problem.
The intention was to hold these educational conferences in most of the States
which had not already enacted sediment control legislation and to communicate
with those Individuals and interests most directly concerned, such as farmers,
ranchers, builders, developers, planners, State legislators, foresters, County
and Municipal officials, Soil Conservation District officials, environmentalists,
and representatives of appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies.
NACD planned the Institutes in close cooperation with the Soil and Water Conser-
vation agencies of State government In the individual States and the State Associ-
ations of Conservation Districts. A planning guide was prepared, outlining a
recommended format and Invitation list, and materials were published for the
use of participants. These included background statements; a compilation of
State laws and local ordinances prepared by the Office of the General Counsel,
USDA; excerpts frc*tn P. L. 92-500; the Model Act for Soil Erosion and Sedi-
ment Control (see Appendix 1); guidelines and outlines for sediment control
programs; a bibliography on the subject (see Appendix 2); and other materials.
The Environmental Protection Agency, the Soil Conservation Service, and
participating States provided other materials and publications for distribution
at the Institutes. Copies of materials have been furnished to the Project Officer.
—7—

-------
During the plann big and im plenientat ion of the Institute program, discussions
were held with representathes of the Environmental Protection Agency, Soil
Conservation Service, Council of State Governments, Agricultural Research
Service, Soil Conservation Society of America, Corps of Engineers, Association
of State Soil Conservation Administrative Officers, National Forest Products
Association, American Farm ‘Bureau Federation, Farm and Industrial Equip-
ment Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Crushed Stone
Association, National Association of Counties, Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin, National Association of Home Builders, National Milk
Producers Federation, the Wildlife Management Institute, the American
Landowners Association, and others. The Institute program was discussed
in detail at the regional and national meetings of NACD and at meetings of
State Associations of Conservation Districts.
As shown In Table 1, Institutes were held in 40 states. Plans for one In
New Jersey, which will be held in March, 1975, could not be completed within
the contract period. In order to achieve the best coverage in the Hawaiian
Islands, four Institutes were held there. Because of exceptional local interest,
two conferences each were held In Vermont and Maryland.
NACD provided only consultive assistance in Pennsylvania, where the Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources already had in motion extensive plans for a
series of educational and training meetings through the State; and In Washington,
where a preliminary conference was held by the Washington Association of Con-
servation Districts. The evolution and enactment of legislation En Michigan
and Virginia while our program was under way made Institutes redundant there,
as was the case In Ohio, Iowa, and the Virgin Islands. where no further action
was believed necessary. Because of local circumstances, no Institutes were held
In Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, and Texas.
In 19 States, the Institutes were held as official governors t conferences. In
several additional States, not so designated, the governor or his representative
partioLpated at the Institute. Attendance ranged from 100 to 200 at most con-
ferences, and participants represented a wide range of interests and organtza-
t ions.
In about half of the States, arrangements were made for publication of pro-
ceedings. Copies of all Institute programs and published proceedings have
been furnished to the Project Officer.
In related action that received impetus from the Institute program, NACD filled
requests for additional copies of Institute materials from interested agencies
and individuals; held pr elim (nary discuss Ions with EPA officials regard Lug a
possLble regional Institute In the Colorado River Basin; assisted with a
—8—

-------
TrL-State Eros Lon and SedimentatLon Conference held In Moscow, Idaho, on
May 6, 1974; and provided assistance to several local Conservation DistrIcts
who sponsored Couiity sediment control Institutes.
—9—

-------
TABLE 1
State Sediment Control Institute Dates and Status of State Legislation
State Institute Date Proceedings Law Drafted Introduced Enacted
Alabama 12/9/74
Alaska 4/11/74
Ar Lzona
Arkansas x
CaUfornta 5/8-9/74 x
Colorado* 9/13-14-73 x
Connecttcut* 5/31/73 x x
Delaware x x
Florida
Georgia* 7/22-24/73
Hawai [ (1) 5/14-18/73 x
Idaho* 1/22-23/73 x x x
tllLnoLs 7/28-30/74 x x
tndtana* 12/2-4/73
Iowa - - x x x
Kansas* 8/28-29/72 x x
Kentucky 1/25-26A73
Louisiana 12/15-16/72 x x X (5)
Maine* 7/16/74
Maryland(2) 10/17/73; 10/3/74 x x x x
Massachusetts * 10/9/74
Michigan x x x
MLnne & * 11/30-12/1/72 x x x
Misstss [ ppt* 9/18/73 x x
MIssouri 12/13-14/73 x
Montana 12/15/72 x x x
Nebraska 12/12-13/73 x x
Nevada 11/29/73 x
New Hampshlre* 10/10/74
New Jersey March, 1975 x x
New Mex lco* 3/22/74
New York 12/10/74 x x x
North Caroltna* 4/24/74 x x x x
North Dakota 1/1 7-18/73 x x x
Ohio x x x
Cklahoma* 9/12/72
Oregon 12/11-12/72 x x x
-10-

-------
State Institute Date Proceedings Law Drafted Introduced Enacted
Pennsylvania (3) x x x
Rhode Island 10/30/74
South Carolina 9/18/74 x x x
South Dakota* 3/26-27/73
Tennessee 7/24—25/74
Texas
Utah* 3/28—29/74
Vermont*(2) 2/28/74; 7/18/74 x
Virginia x x x
Washington (4) 11/27/73 X
West Virginia 12/12-13/72 x x x
WisconsLn* 4/26-27/73 X X
Wyomtng* 5/29-30/73
Puerto Rico 7/26/74
Virgin Islands x x x
*Governor? s conference
(1) Four institutes held
(2) Two institutes held
(3) Held by Pa. Department of Environmental Resources
(4) PrelIminary conference
(5) Governor’s Executive Order assigns sediment control responsibility
to Conservation Districts
—11—

-------
SECTION V
SUMMARY REPORTS OF THE INSTITUTES
Alabama . This meeting was held In cozmection with the 32nd Annual Meet ing of
the Alabama Association of Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisors.
Speakers Included representatives of the Agricultural Research Service and Soil
Conservation Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, the Alabama Water
Improvement Commiss Eon, the Association of District Supervisors, and the State
Association of County Commissioners.
Alaska . This was a small Institute, attended by some 60 persons. Speakers and
panelists Included Federal, State, and local representatives; public land agency
administrators; builders and contractors; realtors; miners; and others. It was
agreed that action by Soil Conservation Subdistricts is needed to deal more
vigorously with sediment control, and plans are to hold sessions between District
leaders and builders and contractors to work out solutions to erosion and sedi-
ment problems.
District officials are reluctant to take on any additional legislative action until
they revise the Er baa Ic soil cons erva tL on act. Districts and the State Association
have participated in several meetings discussing plant materials for soil erosion
control and stabilization In disturbed areas such as road cuts and fills.
California . Although attendance was only about 80, representatIon from most
affected interests was good. The need for educational work, whether or not new
legislation Is developed, was stressed by a number of the speakers. A report on
California’s efforts to develop land use legislation was included.
No State legislation has yet been proposed. The lack of a State Soil and Water
Commission and Executive Department support for a Commission and Districts
has delayed progress in this area. This topic will be pursued with the new
governor in 1975.
Colorado . This was a Governor’s Conference, and Governor John Vanderhoof de-
livered the keynote address challenging those In attendance to determine the
extent of the erosion and sed Intent problem In the State and develop recommenda-
tLons for Its correction. There was good attendance and broad representation
from the fields of soLl and water conservation, County and State government,
planning, concerned Federal agencies, and private organizations, including
environmental groups. The consensus of the conference was that Eta findings
should be reported to Governor Vanderhoof and that he be encouraged to appoint
a task force to prepare legislative recommendations.
—13-

-------
The State Soil Conservation Board has met with the Governor to recommend a
task force, but Lt has not yet been appointed.
Connecticut . This Governorvs Conference was attended by a very diversified
audience of 225 persons. Participating with the State Association of Conserva-
tion Districts in planning the meeting were the State Department of Environmental
Protection, the Office of State Planning, and the Extension Service. Federal,
State, Town, and District officials and representatives of engineering, environ-
mental, forestry, development, realty organizations, and local planning boards
participated.
Governor Mesktil’s and Environmental Commissioner Lufkin’s remarks were
outstanding. A presentation by SCS State Conservationists HUliard on the erosion
and sediment problem in the state was exceptionally good. Discussions at after-
noon workshops on agriculture, transportation and utilities, mineral resources,
and land development were well organized and lively. Harold Harlow, Chairman
of the House Env ronmental Committee, encouraged the group to Include funding
and staffing needs along with any suggested State legislation to his committee.
John Breakell, President of the Connecticut Association of Conservation Districts,
set a meeting of a task force to consider legislation the week following the Institute.
The task force has prepared draft legislation based on the Model Act.
Georgia . This was another outstanding Institute. Governor Carter keynoted the
conference and said that his administration was prepared to support sediment
control legislation in the 1974 legislature. Director Tanner of the Department of
Natural Resources gave a firm commitment of support and expressed satisfaction
with the approach being taken because It would enable the Department and the State
SoU and Water Conservation Committee and local Districts to work very closely
together. The delegation from the State legislature, led by Chairman Dorminy
of the House Natural Resources Committee, said that they were relying on Con-
servation Districts to perfect a draft sediment bill now under consideration by
the time the next legislature meets. Regional meetings of District officials
are now under way to discuss the proposed legislation.
The bill was Introduced in the 1974 session of the Georgia General Assembly.
It passed the House but opposition from builders and developers kept It from
action In the Senate. In the 1975 session, the bill passed.
Hawaii . Four Institutes were held, one on each of the main islands, with good
attendance and participation. Emphasis was on the question of active Conser-
vation District partictpatlon In a regulatory program. The consensus was that
District officials wish to take on additional responsibilities but leave enforce-
ment to the County governments which already administer grading ordinances.
—14-

-------
As a result of the Institutes, both the House and Senate passed resolutions
calling on Conservation Districts and County governments to work together En
determining the need for a State law regulating sediment.
Two bills were sulinitted to the Hawaii Legislature En 1974. One was patterned
after the Model Act, and was not accepted. The second act, which had
the support of the Hawaii Association of Conservation Districts, was passed and
signed by the Governor. This act provided that County government, in cooperation
with Conservation Districts, shall prepare ordinances for control of soil erosion
and sediment runoff. It includes a provision whereby standards shall be deemed
met if it can be shown that the land is being managed in accordance with soil
conservation practices acceptable to the applicable Soil and Water Conservation
District DLrectors, and that a comprehensive conservation program is being
pursued. A landowner or operator would not have to apply to the County for a
permit if following the above procedure. The law further specified that the
Department of Health would take action if the Counties had not Implemented an
erosion and sediment control ordinance within one year of the passage of the act.
Idaho . This was a good session with excellent presentations. Evening discussion
groups were scheduled to consider various aspects of the sediment problem.
Speakers represented key areas of concern. Following the Institute, a committee
was designated to review tbe,Model Act, make appropriate revisions, and seek
introduction in the legislature during Lie next biennial session (1975)
The legislation was introduced but did not pass. The Legislature was also con-
siderLng a State land use bill, which picked up strong opposition at the end of
the sessLon, and both bills went down together. The Idaho Association and
Commission are now asking the Governor to Issue an executive order giving
erosion and sediment control responsibility to the Commission and Soil Conser-
vation Districts.
flhtnois . To secure widespread attendance, this session was held in conjunction
with the annual meeting of the Association of mtnois Soil and Water Conservation
Districts. Approximately 450 persons attended. The Association has prepared
a draft of sediment control legislation and has held regional meetings throughout
th State to discuss It.
The sediment control bill would amend the Soil and Water Conservation District
Act to provide for State standards set by the Division of Soil and Water Con-
servation and for County standards, The bill has been Introduced twice.
Urban areas are reluctant to go along with it for a number of reasons: (1) They
think it is a zoning bEll, (2) Districts don’t Include urban land, (3) a special task
force has been created by the Governor to study and make recommendations
for non-point pollution control.
—15—

-------
Districts by law are already involved In subdivision review for erosion and
sediment control.
Indiana . This was a conference sanctioned by Governor Bowen and held in
conjunction with the annual meeting of Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
Approximately 600 were in attendance representing Districts, Federal and
State agencies, County government, zoning, sanitary agencies, and others.
Reaction in the general sessions and in group discussions was positive.
Resolutions relating to the sediment control problem were approved by the
group, and plans were made for a special task force to consider future action.
Indiana is holding a series of supervisors’ workshops where they are exploring
alternate roles of a District official In erosion and sediment control. When these
are completed, they will probably use an Inter-agency committee approach to
develop legislation. They are also discussing new District election processes.
Kansas . Attendance was broadly representative of all interests concerned, and
presentations and discussion were lively. Governor Docking addressed the group
and Indicated his support for a State sediment control program. A task force to
prepare legislation was appointed by the State Conservation Commission with the
cooperation of the Kansas Association of Soil Conservation Districts.
Legislation was drafted and subai [ tted to an interim legtslatLve committee.
Training sessions in cooperation with the Extension Service are under way. The
legislation will be Introduced In the 1975 legislative session.
Kentucky . The attendance of 165 was somewhat larger than expected. Reserva-
tions were expressed by sothe participants about the mandatory aspect of erosion
and sediment control proposals, but the general attitude was favorable. Presenta-
tions were good, and the participation of members of the State attorney general’s
office In discussion groups was especially useful.
No legislation has been drafted, but the State Soil and Water Conservation Com-
mittee requested and received accelerated funding for sediment control which Es
currently being used to speed up soil surveys.
Louisiana . Although 800 persons were sent invitations, attendance was only 84.
However, Governor Edwards pledged his administration’s backing for a State
eros ton and sediment control act Ln the 1974 legislative session. The discussion
and presentations were positive throughout the Institute.
As a result of the Institute, and erosion and sediment control law was drafted
and Introduced in the 1974 legIslature. It was favorably reported by the House
Agriculture Committee, but was defeated in the House. In October, Governor
—16—

-------
Edwards assigned Conservation Districts the primary responsibility for sedi-
ment control work In connection with P. L. 92-500 through Executive Order
No. 75.
Maine . This session, held as a Governor’s Confermce, was attended by approx-
imately 125 persons representing a broad cross section of private and govern-
mental Interests. Workshops were held on the sediment problem as it affects
agriculture; urban development and construction sites; coastal, lake shore, and
stream bank erosion; and woodlands. The group concluded that educational
programs are not sufficient to solve Maine’s erosion and sediment problems,
and that more legislation to regulate earth-disturbing activities is needed,.
Follow-up on the Institute Is planned.
Maryland . Because Maryland was the first State to enact sediment control
legislation, this conference was of particular Interest. The program concentra-
ted on “where we go from here” in terms of sediment from farm and forest
lands, Incorporation of storm water management In sediment control programs,
urban developments, surface mined lands, utilities, awl highways. The Mont-
gomery County Soil Conservation District held its annual urban conservation
tour following the Institute and built Its program around storm water manage-
ment considerations Ln sediment control work.
Massachusetts . Approximately 150 attended this Institute, and a wide variety
of groups and agencies--and especially town conservation ccRTlmissLonS—-Were
well represented. This was a governor’s conference, and the LLeutenant Governor
presented the charge to the meeting. The Extension Service aided materially in
this session. At the conclusion of the conference, Dr. Charles H.W. Foster,
Secretary, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, charged the president of
the State Association of Conservation Districts and other organizers of the Insti-
tute to ‘ meet within 30 days” to begin identification of steps which need to be
taken in relatLon to control of erosion and sediment runoff En urban developments.
Fo er also called upon his own Department to form another group to cons Lder next
steps which should be taken In dealing with sediment and erosion control In the
area of coastal resources. He suggested an array of organizations and agencies
which should be invited to one or the other of these two planning sessions, and
indicated his desire to see a workshop held on each of these topics En the coming
months.
Minnesota . This was held as a Governor’s Conference, and there was broad
representation, including State legislators, among the 80 persons present.
The legislature had previously ordered the State Soil and Water Conservation
Commission to prepare a proposal for mandatory control of sediment; this
Institute provided exactly the vehicle needed to move forward with this project.
—17—

-------
Following the Institute, the Comm Ession, the State Association of Soil and Water
Conservatiot Districts, and the Association representing Minnesota Counties
and Municip ilties met and drafted legislation to be introduced in the current
session of the State legislature.
The bill was introduced but not passed. Drainage regulation by the Department
of Natural Resources (to which the Commission Is attached) has created a fear
of State regulatory functions.
Miss Lsstpp This was also a Governor’s Conference and was keynoted by Gover-
nor William L. Wallè*. The program was exceflent and attendance large. B. G.
Perry, President Pro Tem of the State Senate, led a panel discussion of the effect
of the model legislation if it were enacted. The participants recommended that
the conference chairman appoint a committee to revise and adapt the Model Act
to Mississippi conditions, present the amended act to the State legislative drafting
service for further refinement, and work with members of the legislature to
encourage enactment.
The law was drafted and introduced in the 1974 legLslature and was held over.
It has now been “pre—fUed” for action by the 1975 session. Best forecasts
are thatttwili pass this year.
Missouri . This conference was significant because of the slow progress of
Conservation District organization in this state. The program was well—
organized and presentations and discussions were excellent. The reactions of
participants were positive, and the conference provided a good foundation for
future action. Two fine presentations were made by Jerome Svore of EPA
and Dale Cochran of the Iowa legislature.
Montana . Governor-Elect Tom Judge gave the keynote speech at this excellent
one-day Institute attended by 117. Sponsors were pleased that 36 out of 46
local, State, and Federal organizations that were Invited attended. The attitude
of speakers and participants was positive, and a study committee was appointed
to begin work Immediately to adapt the Model Act to Montana needs. This
committee has met and has prepared legislation for introduction in the current
session of the State legislature.
Held over from 1973 to the 1974, the bill died in committee. A grant proposal
to EPA to gather additional information for subsequent legislation is pending.
Nebraska . This was a well-organized conference with 100-125 In attendance.
There was excellent representation from a variety of interests. Presentations
were generally good. One highlight was a description of the operation of
Iowa’s mandatory erosion control law.
-18—

-------
A task force has proposed amendments to the district enabling act which are
being studied by the Natural Resources Commission.
Nevada . The Nevada Erosion-Sedimentation Conference was held in conjunction
with the annual meettng of the State Association of Conservation Districts. A
representative of the Governor addressed the delegates along with key Federal
and State agency representatLv and others. There was substantial unanimity
of opinion regarding the nature of the problem and the need for future action.
Further educational work with DLstr [ ci officials Is planned.
New Hampshire . This Governor’s Conference Included discussion groups as
well as formal presentations. Mrs. Meidrim Thomas, Jr., wife. of the
Governor, opened the conference. Recommendations growing out of the group
discussions were presented on the subjects of highway and utility construction,
commercial and residential development, forestry and mining, and agriculture.
New Mexico . ThLs was a Governor s Conference and Governor Bruce King de-
livered the keynote address. About 120 attended with good representation from
local and Stale agencies and a variety of interests including agriculture, ranching,
land development, and environmental organizations. No conclusive action was
taken at the conference.
New York . This Institute, although not officially a Governor’s Conference,
was supported by Governor Malcolm Wilson. There were over 200 regIstered
Including representatives of more than 30 agencies and organizations. An
especially valuable part of the program was a presentation of Information
from the State’s just-completed erosion and sediment Inventory. The main
concern expressed was that emphasis remain on voluntary programs to the
extent that they are effective, that a great deal of education be used, and that
mandatory controls be used as sparingly as possible, keeping In mind the costs
of applying preventive measures. Arrangements have been made for a series
of eight regional conferences throughout the State as follow-up to the Institute.
North Carolina . This Governor’s Conference, called to Initiate Implementation
of the Stale’s new sediment control law, was outstanding and extremely success-
ful. About 300 attended. A wide diversity of groups was represented, Including
home builders, land developers, the State department of transportation, Con-
servation DLstrtcts, the Soil Conservation Service, and City and County
governments. Governor Hoishouser emphasized the need to move ahead sensibly
and to work toward preventing erosion and controlling sediment runoff rather
than punishing those who cause It. The new law includes provisions for storm
water management.
—19—

-------
North Dakota . This well-organized Institute was attended by 125 persons repre-
senting an especially wide range of interests and agencies. Presentations were
good, and discussion was directed at how o rather than whether to proceed.
There was a serious, positive approach In the discussion groups which con-
sidered sections of the Model Act. Governor Arthur A. Link presented the
keynote address. A follow-up committee was appointed and met with the
Governor.
Legislation has been drafted for introduction In the 1975 legIslature.
Oklahoma . Preliminary organization by the sponsors for this Institute was
excellent. Governor Hall stated that he felt It would be necessary to enact
legislation to control erosion and agreed to name a committee of 25 persons
to follow through.
Oregon . Because of a snowstorm and record low temperature for western
Oregon, attendance at this excellent program was only 70 However, the
presentations were first-rate and there was a good cross-section of interests
represented on the program and among participants. Following the Institute,
the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission and State Association of
Conservation Districts prepared an amended version of the Model Act for
introduction In the 1973 session of the State legislature.
This bill was not reported out of committee. The Oregon Association and State
Commission have prepared a new proposal which would amend the present land
use section of the Oregon SWCD law to give Districts authority to set erosion and
sediment control standards In portions of the Conservation Districts. This ap-
proach has been cleared with the State Water Pollution Authority and has also
been presented and favorably received b ’ the appropriate Oregon legislative
interim committee. The amendments to the Oregon act have been introduced
in the 1975 session.
Rhode Island . There were 160 at this Institute, an excellent attendance consider-
ing the size of the State. A total of 48 different agencies and organizations were
represented. Discussion groups dealt with agriculture and forestry, land
develo inent, transportation and utilities, and coastal and streambank erosion.
The Model Act and the State’s Wetlands Act will be examined as possible legisla-
tive vehicles for an erosion and sediment control program. in the State.
South Carolina . Because South Carolina has a law enabling the enactment of
County sediment control ordinances, the emphasis En this conference was on
education and extension of the approach taken In several Districts to other
Counties In the State. After a discussion of the national picture and the local
program adopted In Lexington County, the participants toured construction
-20-

-------
sites where the eros ion and sediment; program La being implemented. Only
three Counties have enacted ordinances under the State law.
South Dakota . This was a Governor s Conference, well organized, and with
broad representation. Among approximately 125 Lii attendance were representa-
tives of key State and Federal agencies and other tndividuals Including Conservation
District and Conservancy Subdistrict officials, State legislators, County commts-
a Loners, municipal officials, farmers and ranchers, and representatives of farm
organizations, Keep South Dakota Green, and the media. At the end of the con-
ference, representatives of the South Dakota Conservation Comm isa ion announced
that they Intend to appoint; a task force to draft; suitable legislation. The sediment
problem was well identified at the hnstLtute, the Districts indicated their willing-
ness to proceed with a regulatory program, and there was apparent broad support
from interested agencies and organizations for the approach being taken.
Legislation drafted following the Institute died In comm Lttee but will be reintro-
duced En the 1975 session.
Tennessee . ThLs was a well-attended hnstLtute (over 200). There was a fine
presentation by Lieutenant Governor John S. Wilder (President of NACD).
However, presentations on the second day indicated opposition to regulatory
legislation by some State legislators, agriculturalists, and developers.
After the Institute, the Tennessee Farm Bureau took a stand opposing any
mandatory sediment legislation, and there has been no further activity.
Utah The problem of sediment and erosion control was portrayed In an
excellent fashion by speakers representing a wide variety of public and private
interests at this governor’s conference. Gov. Calvin Rampton delivered the
keynote address. Discussion was lively and to the point. The conference was
educational In informing those present of the magnitude and extent of the problem,
and plans are to follow through with studies of how to deal with the issue.
Vermont . This was an excellent Governor’s Conference with Coy. Thomas P.
Salmon giving the keynote address. Martin Johnson, Secretary of the Agency of
Environmental Conservation, spoke also. Attendance was good, representing a
cross-section of interests In the State, and presentations were of high quality.
An excellent second erosion and sediment control workshop was held to explore
the subjects opened up at the earlier institute. Attendance was even larger and
participation more Intensive than at the first conference.
—21—

-------
Washtr g on . This meeting, held in conjunction with the annualmeeting of the
State Association of Districts, was well-attended and provided coverage of
most of the key topics considered in the other State Institutes. A presentation
of the problem was followed by responses from representatives of agriculture,
forest industries, urban-suburban interests, recreation, local government,.
the State ecology department, and the EPA. Plans are to follow this with
approximately 35 local discussion meetings at the local level throughout the
State.
Additional background Es desirable En this case, as H. B. 22 was considered by
the 1972 Washington Legislature and there was no unanimity of support for a
regulatory measure for erosion and sediment control at any level of government.
West Virginia . Sponsored by the West Virginia Soil and Water Conservation
District Supervisors Association, this was an excellent Institute with good
representation from major interests among the 100 present. Especially good
cooperation and working relationships among concerned State agencies was noted.
All participants were well-informed. The steering committee, composed of the
heads of key agencies in the State (such as the Natural Resources, Health,
Highway, and Agriculture Departments; State Soil and Water Conservation Agency;
State University-; and others), was Instructed to consider follow-up action. They
have met and have drafted legislation which has been Introduced twice without
success.
Wisconsin . This was sponsored by the Governor and his representative was the
keynote speaker. With about 100 present, the Institute succeeded in creating a
consensus among key State leaders In favor of a mandatory erosion and sediment
control regulatory program. A number of pieces of legislation related to sediment
control were dtscu sed, Including a model County ordinance that has been In
preparation during the past nine months by the State Board of Soil and Water Con-
servation Districts. Serious attention was paid to the need for adequate financing
of a control program by the State legislature. The Institute ended with unanimous
approval of a recommendation that the legislative committees of the State Board
of SWCD’s; the State Association of Conservation Districts; and key representatives
of the Department of Administration, Department of Natural Resources, and
interested citizen organizations prepare legislation.
Three bills were introduced following the seminar: one by the Department of
Administration; one by the Department of Natural Resources; and one for
25-year cost-sharing contracts. None was passed. The State Board of SWCD
Issued a model sediment control ordinance for Counties to adopt.
—22—

-------
Wyoming.  This was a Governor's Conference and well attended despite compe-
tition with an EPA briefing session in another city that was of Interest to many
of the participants.  Governor Hathaway gave the keynote address and did an
excellent job.  One highlight of the first day's program was a presentation on
the effect of sediments originating from wind erosion. At the conclusion of the
conference, plans were made for a task force to consider the need for regulatory
legislation.

The task force has been appointed and Is presently considering the preparation
of legjl slatlon.

Puerto Rico.  Attended by some 100 persons,  this Institute was supported
actively by the highest levels In the Commonwealth government. There was
good representation from different Commonwealth and local agencies, as well
as other organizations. The need for early action to enact legislation to control
serious erosion and sediment problems was well developed at the meeting.
                                 -23-

-------
SECTION VI
REFERENCES
(1) “Control of Agriculture-Related Pollution,” a report to the President
submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology, Washington, D.C., January, 1969.
(2) “Model State Act for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control,” 1973 Su ested
State Legislation, Volume XXXII , The Council of State Governments, Iron
Works Pike, Lexington, Ky. 40505, September, 1972.
—25—

-------
SECTION VII
APPENDICES
Appendix A--”Model State Act for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control”
Appendix B—- tt Selected Bibliography on Sediment Control”
—27—

-------
REPRINTED FROM
I
I ***..**
I*****.***
I**t* *.*e
I*** **e
I*** ***
*t* ***
cOUcU S U G G EST ED
STATE LEGISLATION
VOLUME XXXII
MODEL STATE ACT FOR SOIL EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL
Developed by
The Committee on Suggested State Legislation
The Council of Slit. Government.
Iron Works Pike
Lexington, Kentucky 40505

-------
11
Model State Act for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Explanatory Statement. Soil erosion and sediment controls have long been
recognized as a first line of defense against water and air pollution. Preventative
in nature, these controls can, when applied effectively in urban, suburban, and
rural areas, materially reduce the scope of the pollution problem.
For over 30 years, local conservation districts, organized under state law to
promote the wise use, care, and management of the Nation’s land, water, and
related resources and supervised by a state agency which often has independent
responsibilities for the conservation and management of natural resources, have
been deeply involved in establishing and maintaining erosion and sediment
control measures on agricultural and forest lands. Today, these same districts,
which cover over 98 percent of the privately owned lands in the Nation, are
directing their attention to the increase in and acceleration of soil erosion and
sediment deposition occasioned by rapid shifts in land uses from agricultural
and rural to nonagricultural and, urban uses; by changes in farm and ranch
enterprises, operations, and ownership; by construction of housing, industrial
and commercial developments, streets, highways, recreation areas, schools and
universities, public uilities and facilities; and by other land-disturbing activities.
Evidence made available by current research suggests, for example, that sedi-
ment yields in areas undergoing suburban development can be as much as 5 to
500 times greater than in rural areas.
The Model Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Law was prepared by a task
force acting under a mandate from, the Workshop on Soil Erosion which met in
conjunction with the Special Committee on District Outlook of the National
Association of Conservation DiStricts on March 15—I 8, 1972, in Washington,
D.C., under the auspices of the National Symposium on State Environmental
Legislation.
The model law is premised on two basic recommendations agreed to by the
Workshop on Soil Erosion. These recommendations are that:
I. Responsibility for an erosion and sediment control regulatory program
should be placed in the conservation districts which have the responsibility
under the laws of all SO States for the control of erosion and sediment depos-
ition. This responsibility would be in conjunction with, but would not replace,
those state and local regulatory programs concerned with the quality of Soil and
water resources and pollution abatement activities.
2. Suggested state erosion and sediment control legislation should be drafted
in the form of an amendment to existing conservation districts’ enabling laws.
The general structure and substantative provisions of the model law reflect,
with certain minor revisions, the general principles developed bythe Workshop
to guide the task force in preparing draft legislation.
The conclusions and recommendations of the Workshop on Soil Erosion were
based in part On a paper entitled ‘ Approaches to Urban and Rural Erosion and
Sediment Control — Administrative and Legislative Actions to Extend State
Programs,” prepared and presented by Mary M. Garner, Attorney, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture. This paper describes some of
the accelerated erosion and sediment control programs inaugurated by con-

-------
12 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
servation districts under their existing legal authorities, identifies various types
of legislation adopted .by the States to strengthen state soil erosion and sediment
control programs, and contains suggestions for accelerating district erosion and
sediment control programs. These suggestions include a proposal to amend state
soil and water conservation laws similar to the model law.
in carrying out its mandate, the task force critically reviewed each provision
of the model law from the standpoint of practicality and efficacy in achieving
the desired objectives of the legislation. The task force is of the opinion that
further comments and suggestions regarding these aspects of the legislation
would be particularly beneficial. Recognizing that any model law must be
tailored by each State to comply with its constitutional and statutory require-
ments, the task force has endeavored to set down in as clear and straightforward
a manner as possible the essential requirements of an effective soil erosion and
sediment control law.
Principal authorities and requirements of the model law include:
1. establishment of a comprehensive state soil erosion and sediment control
program applicable to different types of land use and soil conditions, with
identification of areas having critical soil erosion and sediment problems; adop-
tion of statewide guidelines including conservation standards for the control of
erosion and sediment resulting from land-disturbing activities;
2. establishment of district soil erosion and sediment control programs and
conservation standards consistent with the state program and guidelines;
3. prohibition of certain land-disturbing activities unless conducted in accor-
dance with approved soil erosion and sediment control plans, with special
requirements applicable to land-disturbing activities resulting from normal agri-
cultural and forestry activities;
4. use of existing regulatory mechanisms, such as building, grading, and other
permits applicable to land-disturbing activities, to implement erosion and sedi-
ment control plan requirements;
5, inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements; provision for modi-
fication of approved plans by mutual agreement; -
6. penalties, injunctions, and other enforcement provisions; and
7.. appropriations to carry out the Act.
Suggested Legislation
I An Act to amend the [ soil and water conservation districts law] to
2 provide for an acceleration and extension of the program for control of
3 soil erosion and sediment damage resulting from land-disturbing activi-
4 ties within the State; to provide for adoption of a comprehensive state-
S wide soil erosion and sediment control program and guidelines and for
6 adoption by [ soil and water conservation districts] of soil erosion and
7 sediment control programs consistent with such statewide program and
8 guidelines; to require the filing and approval of plans for the control
9 of soil erosion and sediment damage in connection with land-disturbing

-------
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control 13
10 activities; to provide for inspections and reports; to declare certain
11 acts to be unlawful; to provide for administration and enforcement;
12 to provide for financial and other assistance to districts and the
13 [ state soil and water conservation commission) for the purposes of this
14 Act, and making an appropriation for those purposes; and for other
15 purposes.
16 Be I: Enacte4 by the Legislature of the State of [ I that
17 the [ soil and waler conservation districts law] shall be amended
18 by adding a: the end thereof the following sections:
1 Section 1. [ Findings and Declaration of Policy.] The IAgislature
2 finds that erosion continues to be a serious problem throughout the
3 State, and that rapid shifts in land use from agricultural and rural to
4 nonagricultural and urbanizing uses, changes in farm and ranch enter-
5 prises, operations, and ownership, construction of housing, industrial
6 and commercial developments, streets, highways, recreation areas,
7 schools and universities, public utilities and facilities, and other land-
8 disturbing activities have accelerated the process of soil erosion and
9 sediment deposition resulting in pollution of the waters of the State
10 and damage to domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, fish and
11 wildlife, and other resource uses. It is, therefore, declared to be the
12 policy of this Act to strengthen and extend the present erosion and
13 sediment control activities and programs of this State for both rural
14 and urban lands, and to establish and implement, through the (state
15 soil and water conservation commission], hereinafter referred to as
16 the “Commission,” and the [ soil and water conservation districts],
17 hereinafter referred to as “districts,” in cooperation with counties,
18 municipalities, and other local governments and subdivisions of this
19 State, and other public and private entities, a statewide comprehen-
20 sive and coordinated erosion and sediment control program to con-
21 serve and protect land, water, air, and other resources of the State.
I Section 2. (Definitions.]
2 (a) “Land-disturbing acitivity” means any land change which may
3 result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments
4 into state waters or onto lands in the State, including, but not limited
5 to, tilling, clearing, grading excavating, transporting, and filling
6 of land, other than federal lands, except that the term shall not
7 include such minor land-disturbing activities as home gardens and
8 individual home landscaping repairs, and maintenance work.
9 (b) “Person” means any individual, partnership, firm, auocia-
10 lion, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate,
ii commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative,
12 municipality, or other political subdivision of this State, any inter-
13 state body, or any other legal entity.
14 (C) “State waters” means any and all waters, public or private,

-------
14 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
15 on the surface of the ground, which are contained within, flow through,
16 or border upon the State of [ ] or any portion thereof.
17 (d) “Erosion and, sediment control plan” or “plan” means a
18 plan for the control of soil erosion and sediment resulting from a
19 land-disturbing activity.
20 (e) “Conservation standards” or “standards” means standards
21 adopted by the Commission or the districts pursuant to Sections 3 and 4,
22 respectively, of this Act.’
I Section 3. [ Stale Erosion and Sediment Control Program.]
2 (a) The Commission shall, in cooperation with the [ state water
3 quality control agency] and other appropriate state and federal
4 agencies, develop and coordinate a comprehensive state erosion and
5 sediment control program. To assist in the development of such a pro-
6 gram, the Commission shall name an advisory board of not less than 7
7 nor more than 11 members, representing such interests as housing,
8 financing, industry, agriculture, recreation, and local governments,
9 and their planning, transportation, health, public works, and zoning
10 commissions or agencies.
11 (b) To implement this program, the Commission shall develop and
12 adopt by [ (date)] guidelines for erosion and sediment control, which
13 guidelines may be revised from time to time as may be necessary.
14 Before adopting or revising guidelines the Commission shall, after
15 giving due notice,t conduct public hearings on the proposed guide-
16 ,lines or proposed change. in existing guidelines. The guidelines for
17 carrying out the program shall:
18 (1) be based upon relevant physical and developmental information
19 concerning the watersheds and drainage basins of the State, including,
20 but not limited to, data relating to land use, soils, hydrology, geology,
21 size of land area being disturbed, proximate water bodies and their
22 characteristics, transportation, and public facilities and services;
23 (2) include such survey of lands and waters ‘as may be deemed ap-
24 propriate by the Commission or required by any applicable law to
25 identify areas, including multijurisdictional and watershed areas, with
26 critical erosion and sediment problems; and
27 (3) contain conservation standards for various types of soils and
28 land uses, which standards shall include criteria, techniques, and
29 methods for the control of erosion and sediment resulting from land-
30 disturbing activities.
31 (c) The program and guidelines shall be made available for public
32 inspection at the office of the Commission.
1 Section 4. (District Erosion and Sediment Control Program.]
2 (a) Each district in the State shall, within [ ] year(s) after
3 the adoption of the state guidelines, develop and adopt a soil erosion
4 and sediment control program consistent with the state program and
‘Districts laws generally contain a definition of “due notice.” If the law does not contain such a
definition, one should be included in Section 2 of this Act.

-------
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control 15
5 guidelines for erosion and sediment control. To assist in developing its
6 program, each district shall name an advisory committee of not less than
7 7 nor more than 11 members representing such interests as housing,
8 financing, industry, agriculture, recreation, and local governments,
9 and their planning, transportation, health, public works, and zoning
10 commissions or agencies. Upon the request of a district the Commission
11 shall assist in the preparation of the district’s program. Upon adop-
12 tion of its program, the district shall submit the program to the
13 Commission for review and approval, if a district fails to submit a
14 program to the Commission within the period specified herein, the Corn-
15 mission shall, after such hearings or consultations as it deems appro-
16 priate with the various local interests in the district, develop and
17 adopt an appropriate program to be carried out by the district. In areas
18 where there is no district, the Commission shall designate a local unit
19 of general government such as a county, municipality, town, parish,
20 borough, or township to develop, adopt, and carry out the erosion
21 and sediment control program and exercise the responsibilities of a
22 district with respect thereto, as provided in this Act.
23 (b) To carry out its program the district shall, within [ I
24 year(s) after the program has been approved by the Commission, es-
25 tablish, consistent with the state program and guidelines, conservation
26 standards for various types of soils and land uses, which standards
27 shall include criteria, guidelines, techniques, and methods for the
28 control of erosion and sediment resulting from land-disturbing
29 activities. Such conservation standards may be revised from time to
30 time as may be necessary.’. Before adopting or revising conservation
31 standards, the district shall, after giving due notice, conduct a.
32 public hearing on the proposed conservation standards or proposed
33 changes in existing standards.
34 (c) The program and conservation standards shall be made available
35 for public inspection at the principal office of the district.
1 Section 5. [ Prohibited Land-Disturbing Activities.]
2 (a) Except as piovided in subsection (e) of this - section, no
3 person may engage in any land-disturbing activity until he has sub-
4 mitted to the district a plan for erosion and sediment control for such
5 land-disturbing activity and su ch plan has been reviewed and approved
6 by the district, except that (I) when proposed land-disturbing activities
7 are to be performed on state lands or by or on behalf of a state agency,
8 plans for erosion and sediment control shall be submitted to the Corn-
9 mission instead of the district for review and approval, and (2) where
10 land-disturbing activities involve lands in more than one district,
II plans for erosion and sediment control may, as an alternative to sub-
12 mission to each district concerned, be submitted to the Commission
13 for review and approval.
14 (b) Upon submission of an erosion and sediment control plan to
15 a district or to the Commission:

-------
16 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
16 (1) the districts shall review plans submitted to it and shall
17 approve any such plan if it determines that the plan meets the con-
18 servation standards of the district, and if the person responsible for
19 carrying out the plan certifies that he will properly perform the
20 erosion and sediment control measures included in the plan and will
21 conform to the provisions of this Act;
22 (2) the Commission shall review plans submitted to it and shall
23 approve any such plan if it determines that the plan is adequate in
24 consideration of the Commission’s guidelines and the conservation stand-
25 ards of the district or districts involved, and if the person re-
26 sponsible for carrying out the plan certifies that he will properly
27 perform the conservation measures included in the plan and will con-
28 form to the provisions of this Act.
29 (c) When a plan submitted for approval under this section is
30 found, upon review by a district or the Commission, to be inadequate,
31 the district or the Commission, as the case may be, may require such
32 modifications, tenns, and conditions as will permit approval of the
33 plan.
34 (d) An approved plan may be changed by the district which has
35 approved the plan or by the Commission when it has approved the plan,
36 where:
37 (1) inspection has revealed the inadequacy of the plan to ac-
38 complish the erosion and sediment control objectives of the plan,
39 and appropriate modifications to correct the deficiencies of the plan
40 are agreed to by the plan-approving authority and the person responsible
41 for carrying out the plan; or
42 (2) the person responsible for carrying out the approved plan
43 finds that because of changed circumstances or for other reasons the
44 approved plan cannot be effectively carried out, and proposed amend-
45 ments to the plan, consistent with the requirements of this Act, are
46 agreed to by the plan-approving authority and the person responsible
47 for carrying out the plan.
48 (e) Any person owning, .occupying, or operating private agricultural
49 nd forest lands who has a farm or ranch conservation plan approved
50 by the district and is implementing and maintaining such plan with
51 respect to normal agricultural and forestry activities, or any person
52 whose normal agricultural and forestry practices are in conformance
53 with the conservation standards established pursuant to this Act, shall
54 not be deemed to be engaged in prohibited land-disturbing activity.
55 11 there is not available to any such owner, operator, or occupier at
56 least 50 percent cost-sharing assistance or adequate technical as-
57 sistance for the installation of erosion and sediment control measures
58 required in an approved farm or ranch plan, or for measures to con-
59 form agricultural and forestry practices to conservation standards
60 established pursuant to this Act, any such owner, occupier, or operator
61 who shall fail to install erosion and sediment control measures required
62 in an approved farm or ranch conservation plan, or to conform his

-------
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control 17
63 agricultural and forestry practices to such conservation standards,
64 shall not be deemed to be engaged in prohibited land-disturbing
65 activity subject to penalties under the Act.
I Section 6. (Approved Plan Required for Issuance of Grading
2 Building, or Other Permits.] No agency authorized under any other
3 law to issue grading, building, or other permits for activities in-
4 volving land-disturbing activities may issue any such permits unless
5 the applicant therefor submits with his application an erosion and
6 sediment control plan approved by the district, or by the Commission
7 where appropriate, and his certification that such plan will be fol-
8 lowed. These requirements are in addition to all other provisipns of law
9 relating to the issuance of such permits and are not intended to other-
10 wise affect the requirements for such permits.
1 Section 7. [ Monitoring, Reports, and inspections.]
2 (a) Land-disturbing activities where permit is issued. With
3 respect to approved plans for erosion and sediment control in connec-
4 tion with land-disturbing activities which involve the issuance of a
5 grading, building, or other permit, the permit-issuing authority shall
6 provide for periodic inspections of the land-disturbing activity to
7 insure compliance with the approved plan, and to determine whether the
8 measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and
9 sediment resulting from the land-disturbing activities. Notice of such
10 right of inspection shall be included in the permit. If the permit-
11 issuing authority determines that the permittee has failed to comply
12 with the plan, the authority shall immediately serve upon the permittee
13 by registered mail to the address specified by the pcrmittee in his
14 permit application a notice to comply. Such notice shall set forth the
15 measures needed to come into compliance with such plan and shall specify
16 the time within which such measures shall be completed. If the permittee
17 fails to comply within the time specified, he shall be deemed to be in
18 violation of this Act and upon conviction shall be subject to the
19 penalties provided by the Act.
20 (b) Other land-disturbing activities except agricultural and
21 forestry operations. With respect to approved plans for erosion
22 and sediment control in connection with all other land-disturbing
23 activities except agricultural and farming operations, the district,
24 or the Commission in connection with plans approved by it, may require
25 of the person responsible for carrying out the plan such monitoring
26 and reports, and may make such on-site inspections after notice to the
27 resident owner, occupier, or operator, as are deemed necessary to
28 determine whether the soil erosion and sediment control measures re-
29 quired by the approved plan are being properly performed, and whether
30 such measures are effective in controlling soil erosion and sediment
31 resulting from the land-disturbing activity. Such resident owner,
32 occupier, or operator shall be given an opportunity to accompany the

-------
18 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
33 inspectors. If it is determined that there is failure to comply with
34 the approved plan, the district, or the Commission where appropriate,
35 shall serve upon the person who is responsible for carrying out the
36 approved plan a notice to comply, setting forth the measures needed
37 to be taken and specifying the time in which such measures shall be
38 completed. Such notice shall be by registered mail to the person re-
39 sponsible for carrying out the plan at the address specified by him in
40 his certification at the time of obtaining his approved plan. Upon
41 failure of such person to comply within the specified period, he will
42 be deemed to be in violation of the Act and subject to the penalties
43 provided by the Act.
44 (c) Agricultural and forestry operations. With respect to
45 agricultural and forestry operations, the district shall have authority
46 to make on-site inspections to determine if the approved farm or ranch
47 conservation plan is being followed, or, where there is no such plan,
48 to determine if the agricultural and forestry practices are being
49 carried out in conformance with conservation standards established
.50 pursuant to this Act On-site inspections may be made after notice to
51 the resident owner, operator, or occupier of the land involved, and
52 such person shall be given an opportunity to accompany the inspector.
53 If such inspections reveal that an owner, operator, or occupier of agri-
54 cultural or forestry lands is not complying with the approved farm or
55 ranch conservation plan or is not carrying out his agricultural and
56 forestry practices in conformance with conservation standards established
57 pursuant to this Act, such owner, operator, or occupier shall be noti-
58 fled by registered mail addressed to him at his usual abode or customary
59 place of business of the measures needed for compliance. Such notice
60 shall require that such resident owner, occupier, or operator shall
61 commence such measures within 6 months from the date of the notice
62 and shall complete the same within 12 months of such date. Upon failure
63 to comply with such notice, the owner, occupier, or operator will be
64 deemed in violation of this Act and subject to the penalties provided
65 by the Act.
I Section 8. [ Cooperation with Federal Agencies.] The district
2 and the Commission are authorized to cooperate and enter into agree-
3 ments with any federal agency in connection with plans for erosion and
4 sediment control with respect to land-disturbing activities on lands
5 which are under the jurisdiction of such federal agency.
I Section 9. [ Financial and Other Assistance.] The Commission
2 and the districts are authorized to receive from federal, state, or other
3 public or private sources financial, technical, or other assistance for
4 use in accomplishing the purposes of this Act.
1 Section 10. [ Appeals.] Decisions of the districts, the Commission,
2 and the permit-issuing authorities under the provisions of this Act

-------
Soil Erosion and Sediment Con ro1 19
3 shall be subject to review by the [ ] court; provided, an ap-
4 peal is filed within 30 days from the date of any such decision.
1 Section 11. [ Penalties, Injunctions and Other Legal Actions.]
2 (a) A violation under Section 5 or 7 of this Act shall be deemed a
3 misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subject to a fine not to
4 exceed $500 or one year’s imprisonment for each and every violation.
5 Each day the violation continues shall constitute a separate offense.
6 (b) The appropriate permit-issuing authorIty, the - district, the
7 Commission, or any aggrieved person who suffers damage or is likely to
8 suffer damage because of a violation may apply to the [ ] court
9 for injunctiye relief to enjoin a violation or threatened violation under
10 Section 5 or7 of this Act.
11 (c) The [ county attorney] shall, upon request of a district or the
12 permit-issuing authority, take legal action to enforce the provisions
13 of this Act. The State Attorney General shall, upon request of the
14 Commission, take appropriate legal action on behalf of the Commission
15 to enforce the provisions of this Act.
I Sect ion 12. [ Appropriation.] [ Provision should be made for
2 an appropriation out of funds in the state treasury to. finance the
3 activities authorized by this Act.]
I Section 13. [ Separability.] If any provision of this Act
2 is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such unconstitutionality
3 or invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions àí this Act.
I Section 14. [ Efftctive Date.] ThisAct shall take effect...

-------
Selected Bibliography on Sediment Control
America’s Conservation Districts: 3, 000 Local Programs for Improvement of the Environment .
National Association of Conservation Districts, J .eague City, Tex. 775/73.
Annotated Bibliography of Erosion and Sediment Control on Urban and Construction Sites .
Mherican Soiciety of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich. 49085.
Approaches to Urban and Rural Erosion and Sedimeni Control: Administrative and Legislative Actions
to Extend State Programs . Mary M. Garner, Office of the General Counsel, U. S. Department of Agri-
culture, Washington, D. C. 20250.
Community Action Guidebook for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control . National Association of Counties
Research Foundation, 1001 ConnectIcut Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20036.
Consider the Soil First (slide set about soil limitations and uses). Office of Information, 13. S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 20250. $15. 00.
Conservation Goes to Town . Reprinted from Soil Conservation magazine, Soil Conservation Service,
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 20250.
Controlling Erosion on Construction Sites . Agriculture Information Bulletin 347, Soil Conservation
Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 20250.
Control of Erosion and Sediment Deposition from Construction of Highways and Land Development.
Robert E. Throzison, Office of Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D . C.
20460.
Ecology of Roadside Treatment (W. C. Young). Reprinted from Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
Soil Conservation Society of America, 7515 N.E. AnkeflyRd.,, Ankeny, Iowa 5Q021. $1.00.
Erosion and Sediment . U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C. 20402.
Four Critical Sediment Sources . Reprinted from Soil Conservation magazine, Soil Conservation Ser-
vice,• U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, I). C. 20250.
Model State Act for Erosion and Sediment Control . Council of State Governments, Iron Works Pike,
Lexington, Ky. 40505.
MUD (16 mm. motion picture about urban erosion). Rental from NACD Environmental Film Service,
P. 0. Box 855, League City, Tex. 77573.
Proceedings of the National Conference on Sediment Control: Environmental Planning Paper . Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D. C. 20410.
Sediment (A. B. Robinson). Reprinted from Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Soil Conservation
Society of America, 7515 NE. Ankeny Rd., Ankeny, Iowa 50021. $1. 00.
Sediment: It’s Filling Harbors, Lakes and Roadside Ditches . Agriculture Information Bulletin 325,
Soil Conservation Service, 13. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,, I). C. 20250.
Soil and Water Conservation in Suburbia , Reprint from Soil Conservation magazine, Soil Conservation
Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250.
Soil Erosion in the Detroit Metropolitan Area (J. B. Thompson). Reprinted from Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, Soil Conservation Society of AmerIca, 7515 N. E. Ankeny Rd., Ankeny, Iowa
50021. $1.00.
(Over)

-------
Suggested Guidelines aiid Standards for Erbsion and Sediment Control Programs . Nationai Association
of Conservation Districts, League City, Texas 77573.
Washout (slide set about sediment in the suburbs). Office of Information, U. S. Department of Agri .-
culture, Washington, D. C. 20250. $8. 00.
* U I. GOVERNMENT PRINTING 0010!: 1975— 582—421/246

-------