ao O
JANUARY 17-18, 1973


Soil and water conservation districts have been leaders in sedi-
ment control for about 35 years. They have the experience, capa-
bility, and leadership to accept new challenges and handle new
responsibilities in this field of work.
The Environmental Protection Agency recognizes the role of dis-
tricts in this area. Here is an excerpt from the explanation
prepared by EPA in connection with the model sediment control
"For about 35 years, local conservation districts, organized un-
der 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 deep-
ly 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 occa-
sioned by rapid shifts in land uses from agricultural and rural to
non-agricultural and urban uses, by changes in farm and ranch enter-
prises, operations, and ownership, by construction of housing, in-
dustrial, and commercial developments, streets, highways, recreation
areas, schools and universities, public utilities and facilities
and by other land disturbing activities."
The objective of this Institute is to help bring about recognition
of a growing state and national concern about erosion prevention and
sediment control—awareness of existing and proposed actions in this
field by state and federal government—consideration of the physical
and organizational aspects of sediment control—consideration of the
model legislation prepared under the auspices of the Council of State
Governments, and development of a plan of action for sediment control
by responsible leaders in North Dakota.

10:00 a.m. - 12:00 Noon
Presiding			Mr. Ray Reich, Chairman
State Soil Conservation Committee, Richardton
Keynote	The Honorable Arthur A. Link
Governor of North Dakota
Erosion-Sediment Problem and Corrective Measures	Mr. Charles A. Evans
State Conservationist, USDA Soil Conservation Service-Bismarck
Panel Presentation:
State Game & Fish Department. . Mr. Russell W. Stuart, Commissioner, Bismarck
Farmer	Mr. Howard Bier, Hazelton
City Manager & Water	Mr. Vernon Fahy, Bismarck
State Legislator	Mr. Lee D. Christensen, Senator, Kenmare
1:15 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Presiding	Mr. Chris Christmann, President
N. D. Association of Soil Cons. Districts, Lemmon
Sediment as a Pollutant	Mr. Don Dubois, Assistant Deputy Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency, Denver
Existing N. Dak. Soil Conservation District Law. . Mr. Gary Puppe, Exec. Secretary
State Soil Conservation Committee, Bismarck
Explanation of Model Erosion-Sediment Control Legislation	David G. Unger
Assistant Executive Secretary
Nat'l. Ass'n. of Conservation Districts, Washington, D. C.
What is a Conservation Plan? 	 Mr. Don Aho, State Resource Conservationist
USDA Soil Conservation Service, Bismarck
Explanation of Discussion Groups & Topics.
The Council of State Governments Model Act
For Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. . .
Chris Christmann
Group Discussions
Group 1	Sections 1, 2 & 3 of the Model Act
William Bosse, Leader
Gerald Calhoun, Recorder
Group 2	Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Model Act
Allan Knudson, Leader
Duaine Dodds, Recorder
Group 3	Sections 7-14 of the Model Act
Vernon Krenz, Leader
Robert Morgan, Recorder

7:00 p.m. - Banquet
Master of Ceremonies 	 Mr. Robert F. Kadrmas, Director
N. D. Association of Soil Cons. Districts, Dickinson
The State-Federal Relationship . . . .Mr. Marvin Cronberg, Western Program Advisor
Nat'l. Ass'n. of Conservation Districts, Cheyenne
9:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.
Presiding	Mr. Leo Klosterman, Vice President
N. D. Association of Soil Cons. Districts, Mooreton
Presentation of Group Reports	Group Recorders
Review of the Necessity for Manpower and
Funds if a Model Act Should be Adopted 	 Mr. Bud Lannoye, Program Director
N. D. Association of Soil Cons. Districts, Bismarck
	 Mr. Ray Reich, Chairman
State Soil Conservation Committee, Richardton
Floor Discussion - Follow up,
Summary and Recommendations	Mr. William Bosse, Director
Nat'l. Ass'n. of Conservation Districts, Cogswell
- Adjournment -

January 17, 1973
The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Conference convened at 10:00 A.M.
in the Embassy Room of the Town House Motor Inn, Bismarck, North Dakota,
with Mr. Ray Reich presiding.
CHAIRMAN RAY REICH: Good morning everyone. I am Ray Reich, Chair-
man of the State Soil Conservation Committee. First of all, I would like
to announce that any of you that do not have banquet tickets try to get
them as soon as possible because there is a limit and it is possible
that you could miss out on your tickets. I would like to welcome each-
and everyone of you to the State Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Con-
ference here in Bismarck. This conference is being sponsored by the
North Dakota Association of Soil Conservation Districts and the State Soil
Conservation Committee. The people that are in attendance at this con-
ference are from many sectors of North Dakota's society. They represent
various private and public organizations, state and federal agencies,
the North Dakota Legislature and most important—the people of North Dakota.
In the past few years our country and the people of our society have
focused attention upon the environmental issues before us today. At the
conference we are going to discuss one of these issues, erosion and sedi-
I would like to review briefly what has happened in the past year.
In March of 1972, the Council of State Governments and the Environmental
Protection Agency sponsored a symposium in Washington, D. C. to look at
the sediment problem. The National Association of Conservation Districts
and the Council of Environmental Quality joined in this symposium. Out
of this cooperative effort came a draft of a model state sediment control
law which was subsequently approved by the Council of State Governments
Committees on suggested legislation. The Federal Government, as well as
the people of North Dakota, are taking a new look at this problem.
This conference is designed to awaken public interest in North Dakota
on sediment and erosion control. Another objective is to stimulate discus-
sion on what might be done to alleviate the problem.
This meeting will be taped and it will be recorded. Each person who
registers will receive a printed copy of the proceedings of this conference.
There will be an opportunity for you to attend the discussion groups, to
ask questions, or to express your viewpoints. We then hope this will lead
to the development of a mechanism for action in whatever direction the
state feels appropriate.
We feel that the people are leaders, you people are leaders, in this
state. You are the leaders that can give the direction that North Dakota
should take. If you will look at your program, you will see that speakers
and a panel discussion are scheduled for this morning.
On this afternoon's program will be four speakers and three group dis-
cussions on various sections of the Model Act for Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control. This evening the banquet will be held in this room with Marv Cronberg,
NACD Western Program Advisor, delivering the message on the State-Federal

Relationship. Tomorrow morning we will have group reports from three
discussion groups, a manpower and funds discussion, and a follow-up
summary and recommendations.
Soil and water must be managed and controlled properly to be pro-
ductive. Out of control and poorly managed, it will cause destruction.
The two words I would like to phrase are production or destruction.
Simply, in short, life or death. It is easy to complain and it is even
easier to find fault. But the solution and ideas for correcting this
situation are always more difficult. You are the qualified leaders
in North Dakota. This is why we hope that each of you take the oppor-
tunity to study the material handed to you, and that you actively parti-
cipate in this conference.
The first speaker on our program this morning is beginning his six-
teenth day as Chief Executive of North Dakota. His record as a public
servant had its beginning when he was elected as state representative
in the North Dakota Legislature. He served in that capacity for 24
consecutive years before being elected to the United States House of
Representatives in 1970 from the West District of North Dakota. As a
Congressman, he served on the House Agricultural Committee and the
House District of Columbia Committee. During his entire adult life, he
was an active farmer-rancher near" Alexander, North Dakota, in McKenzie
County. This morning he will speak to us on "The Overview of the Problem
of Erosion and Sediment Control In North Dakota." Let us welcome our
Governor. Governor Arthur Link.
GOVERNOR ARTHUR LINK: Thank you Ray. Clean air, quality water, and
fertile soil are the hallmarks of an agrarian state such as North Dakota.
For nearly 100 years, our people have passed from pioneer to land owner
with success based on these three important resources.
Recent years have brought increasing awareness to the thin life-
line provided by these elements of our early existence. I'm pleased
to appear here today to speak about soil erosion and sediment control and
its close relationship to our economic and social well-being.
My years in rural McKenzie County, the North Dakota Legislature, and
the United States Congress have furnished me with many opinions regarding
land use. A comprehensive land use plan for all of North Dakota and the
nation is a realistic and necessary goal.
As we approach the 200th anniversary of this nation, I find it regret-
able that we have not assessed the precarious balance between the limited
capacities of our crop producing soils and the ever increasing population
on earth. In the 200 years since our forefathers first tilled the land,
we have dissipated one-third of our productive and fertile top soil. Simi-
lar parallels can also be drawn for major environmental factors such as
clean air and quality water, but my principal concern today is our relation-
ship to soil.
I support efforts which are currently being proposed in the 43rd Legis-
lative Session which will study comprehensive land use planning and hope
that such planning can be approached at every level of government. Local
government has long held responsibility for zoning practices. While such

responsibility should rest with people who recognize the value of pro-
perties, the situation testifies to inadequate local planning.
Therefore, comprehensive planning must be a massive effort invol-
ving local, state, regional, and national factors. Can you imagine
planning for land use in Ward County without involving people from
neighboring counties such as Renville County, or planning for careful,
lawful mining of western North Dakota without involving Montana which
holds similar resources?
Comprehensive land use planning holds value only if supported by
zoning laws, policies, and practices which facilitate wise and discri-
minate use of the resource.
Farming practices have had a principle role in both creating and
affecting problems and solutions to soil erosion. Intensive tillage as
we all know has led to exposed soil and extensive wind and water erosion.
Most farmers, particularly those who are successful, have found strip
farming, single and multiple row shelter belts, crop rotation, and cover
crop seeding reasonably successful means of erosion control. Thousands
of miles of beautiful shelter belts stand as testimony to your efforts.
Today's land owner, more than ever before, has a unique responsibi-
lity to continue and improve efforts which will protect American soils.
Before this era of real environmental awareness, farmers and ranchers
were largely occupied with the responsibilities of their economic existence.
Little, if any, thought was given to the long-term implications of in-
adequate or undesirable soil erosion control.
I am pleased to see increasing interest in environmental matters and
pledge my support to programs which contribute to conservation of our
natural resources. The State Soil Conservation Committee should be com-
plimented for the Awards Program which for years has recognized farm
families for unique efforts at soil conservation and farmstead plantings
. . . programs which are economically and socially important to North Dakota.
A summary report of probable effects on North Dakota following the
administration's actions in terminating the Rural Environmental Assistance
Program states that, "It is reasonable to conclude that tree planting pro-
grams will be reduced 80-85 percent." Six thousand, three hundred seventy
nine (6,379) North Dakota farms participated in the tree planting program
during 1971 involving more than 2,000 acres of trees. REAP (Rural Environ-
mental Assistance Program) has many other equally important implications
and the suspension of this program is a serious injustice to North Dakota's
Another program which relates closely to the goals of soil conserva-
tion districts is the Water Bank Program involving 15 North Dakota counties
and 20,000 acres of water fowl habitat and nesting areas. Most frustrating
about the suspension of these and other programs which are important to
North Dakota is the manner in which the funds were halted. Congress has
approved appropriations for continuing these efforts. Heavy-handed executive
pressure has halted the funding. I hope you will join me in voicing your
interest in seeing these programs re-established.

The function of soil conservation cannot and should not be under-
estimated. The increased burden placed on production agriculture, the
increased human need for recreation, and the obvious demand and stress
placed on Earth's delicate ecological balance brings your position into
increasing importance.
It is exciting to think that statewide leaders like yourselves are
using foresight and good judgement in considering a model piece of leg-
islation regarding soil erosion and sediment control. Such consideration
is necessary because never before has your function been any more sign-
ificant than it is today. North Dakota's economy and unique quality of
life is based on the band of soil which is your prime concern. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN RAY REICH: Thank you Governor Link. We certainly appre-
ciate your attending the conference and the remarks and enlightening
views on our erosion and sediment problems in North Dakota. Next on our
program I would like to introduce Charles Evans. Charles Evans,
North Dakota State Conservationist of the Soil Conservation Service, is
a native Oklahoman. In 1935 he began his career with the Soil Conserva-
tion Service as an engineering aid. He worked as project engineer, area
engineer, and area conservationist in Oklahoma. In August of 1960,
Mr. Evans came to North Dakota as Assistant State Conservationist. In
1966 he was appointed as State Conservationist for the Soil Conservation
Service in our state. This morning Mr. Evans will present a slide-talk
presentation on the "Erosion-Sediment Problem and Corrective Measures."
Mr. Evans.
MR. CHARLES EVANS: (Slides used in presentation) Thank you Ray.
Governor Link, fellow conservationists, I am indeed happy to be with you
this morning and to have an opportunity to talk with you about the ero-
sion and sediment problem in our state. As most of you know, the Soil
Conservation Service has been working with the soil conservation districts
of North Dakota for almost 35 years on this problem.
During these years the Service and the districts have accumulated a
world of knowledge about the problem and have assisted almost 33,000 land
operators and governmental units in establishing needed conservation mea-
sures. Much work has been done but there is still a big job ahead of us.
My purpose this morning is to give you background information on the
erosion and sediment problems in North Dakota and the various methods
which are being used to reduce them. Many of us when we talk about the
erosion and sediment problem in the state think of it as being entirely
an agricultural problem. This is something that is not necessarily true.
We have serious erosion in our state in some urban developments, indust-
rial developments, road construction, strip mined areas and other loca-
tions .
As an example, if you will permit me a personal reference, several
years ago a new school was built across the street from my residence.

Shortly after the site was leveled we had a wind from the northwest.
After the wind died down I spent the best part of two days removing
dirt from my newly established lawn. The correct use of snowfences
on the newly leveled site would have held the wind erosion to a minimum
and I would not have had a sore back for two weeks.
To further orientate our thinking on the problem of sediment and
where it is occurring, where and what kind of erosion is doing the most
damage, and what we can do to prevent misuses of our land, I have put
together a few slides which should help us understand this problem.
Slide //l. Most of our erosion problems in this state can be traced
directly to bare, unprotected soil. This is true whether it is a summer
fallowed field in the country or a newly disturbed area in town.
Slide #2. This chart indicates the trend in summer fallow acres in
North Dakota. You will note that in 1950 our summer fallow acres was
approximately 6 million, and it is estimated that it was in the neighbor-
hood of 12 million in 1972. When some people see this chart they imme-
diately think that all of the 12 million acres are a severe erosion
hazard. In jumping to this conclusion they forget or ignore the fact that
the farmers and ranchers of our state have established many conservation
measures. As a result, much of the summer fallow land in the state is
adequately protected from wind and water erosion and other acres have
partial protection. We estimate that less than 20 percent has little if
any protection.
Slide it3. Unprotected fallow fields result in this type of situa-
tion when our wind reaches an erosive velocity. All of us have seen
scenes like this during recent years. But those of us who were in the
Great Plains area in the thirties realize that we are not experiencing
dust storms that even approach the severity of those at that time.
Slides //4, 5, and 6. The major damage from wind erosion is to the
land itself and to the crops growing on the land. But there are other
damages. Among these are dirt in road ditches, drainage channels silted
full, and "snert." The next few slides will show various methods that
are being used to control wind erosion on agricultural land.
Slide #7. One of the simplest and most effective measures is the
maintenance of adequate crop residue on the surface of the soil during
the wind erosion season and leaving the soil in a rough condition. There
are, however, some objections to this type of control. Among these is
the possibility that the residue on the surface of the soil will harbor
the spores of leaf diseases thereby causing a decrease in yield of the
next crop. As a result of this possibility many farmers do not leave
adequate residue on the surface of the land.
Slides it8, 9, and 10. For the farmer who does not desire to leave
adequate residue on the surface of the soil there are several alterna-
tives. One of the most promising is the use of flax strips. These strips
are seeded in August and make a good growth before freeze-up. They fur-
nish protection to the fields from wind erosion and also distribute the

snow uniformly over the field during the winter months. The use of flax
barriers has grown from a few thousand acres in the mid-sixties to about
1,000,000 this year.
Slides #11 and 12. Another type of wind barrier which has grown
in popularity is the use of tall perennial grasses as a barrier. The
Agricultural Research Service Station at Sydney, Montana, has done con-
siderable work on this type of barrier and are recommending the use of
tall wheatgrass. It has an advantage over the flax strip barrier in
that it is permanent and does not have to be reseeded each year and also
grows taller thereby furnishing better protection.
Slide #13. Some farmers use other annual barriers such as sunflowers
and corn.
Slide #14. One of the most effective methods of wind and water ero-
sion control is the use of full seeded cover crops. There are, however,
objections to this type of cover—the main one being the decrease in avail-
able nitrogen and available moisture for the succeeding crop.
Slide #15. Another very effective method of controlling wind erosion
is the use of wind strip cropping. The width of the strips is based upon
the erodibility of the soil in the field. This has been and continues to
be one of the most popular conservation practices for the control of wind
erosion. Over 4,500,000 acres are strip cropped in North Dakota.
Slide #16. Another very popular and very effective method of con-
trolling wind erosion is the use of one-row windbreaks. Although it is
not commonly known, North Dakota leads the nation in the planting of field
windbreaks. Approximately 2,000 miles are planted each year. Over 55,000
miles have been planted.
Slide #17. This slide represents the ultimate in wind erosion con-
trol. You will note that this farmer is making use of one-row windbreaks,
strip cropping, and crop residue use. The possibility of damaging wind
erosion on this farm is practically nil. Let me hasten to add, however,
that the proper use of the single practices shown on the preceding slides
will hold the soil loss from wind erosion to acceptable levels.
Slide #18. Now let us take a look at the other part of the erosion
problem; namely, that of water erosion. This slide shows the beginning
of serious erosion from water on a field that is relatively flat. You will
note that the water is concentrating in a low place and you can see the
beginning of a gully.
Slide #19. Here we have a similar condition on a steeper and shorter
slope. In either instance if the erosion you see continues it could even-
tually result' in the abandonment of the field, and in the meantime contri-
bute considerable sediment to our streams and lakes.
Slide #20. Here you can see further results of water erosion and
the deposition of sediment at the lower end of the slope.

Slide #21. The runoff and sediment from an unprotected field even-
tually reaches a small stream and from there goes to the larger streams
and into the lakes, or perhaps even to Hudson Bay or the Gulf of Mexico.
Slides #22 and 23. But all of the sediment does not necessarily
come from agricultural land. This slide and the next slide show erosion
occurring along public roads. This type of erosion not only adds to the
sediment problem but if left uncontrolled can seriously damage the road
itself and become a deathtrap if an automotive accident occurs. A recent
inventory shows there are 2,670 miles of roads in North Dakota where
erosion is a problem.
Slides it2k and 25. Man in his attempts to control excessive water
can also create erosion and sediment producing hazards. This slide shows
the results of surface runoff into a new channel before the necessary
seeding or other structural controls have been established. The next
slide shows bank erosion on a new channel before it has been sloped and
Slides #26 and 27. Man is not the only culprit, however. This slide
and the next one show two natural streams where active erosion is taking
place and will continue unless man corrects the condition. The first
slide is in north central North Dakota; the second, in western North Dakota.
Similar conditions exist throughout the state.
Slide #28. Another source of erosion and sediment deposition occurs
when water collects in a field and runs into a ditch. It makes no dif-
ference whether the ditch is a road ditch, a man-made channel, or a natu-
ral stream. In all cases the erosion and the sediment deposition can
become serious.
Slide #29. As I have stated previously, all erosion does not occur
on agricultural land or in the rural areas of our state. We have erosion
on the spoilbanks in the strip mined area.
Slides #30, 31, 32, and 33. Quite often some of the erosion most
distressing to the general public occurs within our urban areas. As our
towns continue to grow it will become more and more of a problem. Erosion
on a square mile of land can increase from as little as 50 tons a year on
farmland to more than 25,000 tons a year on land being converted to subur-
ban uses.
Slide #34. The end result of water erosion is muddy water.
Slides #35, 36, and 37. The next few slides indicate the type of work
which is being done to control water erosion in our state. This first
slide shows a field with a gully forming. The next slide shows the same
gully after it has been shaped and made ready for seeding as a grassed
waterway. This slide shows how it will look after the grass has been
seeded and has had an opportunity to grow. Erosion in this channel has
been eliminated.

Slide #38. This slide is a follow up to one of the slides shown
previously. This is a channel in the Red River Valley after the sides
have been sloped and the sides and the bottom seeded to grass.
Slide #39. Here is another channel or waterway which was man-made
and then seeded to grass to control erosion.
Slide #40 and 41. The grade of some channels is so steep that it
is not possible to control erosion by seeding grass. Therefore it becomes
necessary to solid sod them as is shown in this picture. The next slide
shows a sod chute one year after the sod was placed.
Slide #42. Quite often it is not possible to use sod in dropping
water from a higher elevation to a lower elevation. In this type of situa-
tion it becomes necessary to use some type of mechanical control. This
slide shows the placement of a corrugated metal pipe which will drop the
water from the field into the adjoining channel.
Slide #43. Here we have a completed pipedrop after the backfill
has been placed and the area seeded to grass.
Slide #44. We are beginning to make progress on leveling and reve-
getating strip mine spoils. Pending legislation, if enacted, will take
care of this problem.
Slide #45. It is also possible to correct the erosion damage in
urban areas. This slide shows the use of sod. Other conservation prac-
tices designed for the specific problem are being used also.
Slide #46. Quite often we hear that man cannot do as good a job as
nature. I would like for you to mentally compare this channel which is a
man-made channel with the two previous slides showing channels under natu-
ral condition.
Slide #47. The object of conservation practices is to put an end to
careless damage to our soils, to slow down the filling in of our lakes,
and to replace these situations with this—which is the kind of North Dakota
most of us really want.
In summary, I would like to repeat again that much progress has been
made in the control of erosion and the reduction of sediment in our state
during the past several years. However, we must realize there is still a
big job to be done. The last Conservation Needs Inventory shows that
almost 47 percent of our cropland is adequately treated. It shows that
3.6 million acres of cropland needs what we refer to as intensive treat-
ment. This could be t"he use of conservation practices such as strip crop-
ping, field windbreaks, diversions, terraces, or grassed waterways. The
practice, or combination of practices, needed on an individual field must
be based upon the soils of that field, its slope, and the type of farming
that will be done. Another 6.8 million acres of our cropland needs only
improved residue management or annual cover crops or annual wind barriers
for adequate protection.

In conclusion, I would like to quote from a statement made by
Kenneth E. Grant, Administrator of the Soil Conservation Service:
"We continue to have problems today in the use of land and
air and water, some old ones, some new. Urban sprawl. Suburban
erosion. Burning dumps. Polluted streams. Unwise land use.
These are not insurmountable problems. Today's resource
users—with governmental and other help—can do the job.
If they want to. If they know how. If they work hard.
It has been done before. Americans can look at the past and
remember—then look to the future and work together on our common
CHAIRMAN RAY REICH: Thank you Charlie for doing a very good job.
I enjoyed the corrective slides much better than I did the problem slides.
I would now like to introduce a panel. I would like to have them
come forward. They are: Russell Stuart, Commissioner, State Game and
Fish Department; Howard Bier, former member and Speaker of the North Dakota
House of Representatives and presently a member of the Secretary of Agri-
culture's Advisory Committee on Soil and Water Conservation, Hazelton,
North Dakota; Vernon Fahy, Assistant Secretary, State Water Commission
and formerly the Minot City Manager; Lee Christensen, State Senator from
They will be talking on analysis of erosion problems as they see
them in their field of activity. I'm asking each to appear as I have
introduced them to you. Mr. Stuart.
MR. RUSSELL W. STUART: It may be unorthodox, but nevertheless I will
start my presentation with a quote - "We have grown in understanding and
knowledge of the causes, effects, and solution to erosion and sedimenta-
tion as related to ecology, land use and development, floods, and the
total aspects of man and the world around him; but we have failed to nar-
row the ever-widening gap in dealing with erosion and sedimentation pro-
The public is becoming more aware of the situation, and with better
information and education, the public is increasing pressures to do some-
thing to solve the problems. The public will no longer tolerate failure
to apply the control and management necessary to maintain a quality environ-
ment and to preserve and protect and wisely use our land and water resources.
There can be no more lip service to the erosion and sediment problems, and
we must have immediate and forceful action." - Robert L. Herbst, Commis-
sioner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Erosion is a natural geological phenomenon that has been going on
for billions of years and had shaped the earth as it appeared several thou-
sand years ago, before man's technology gave him the capacity to change it.

So, we are actually not too concerned about natural erosion but we must
become very concerned about accelerated, or man-caused, erosion. We take
pride in the ability of American agriculture to produce food and fiber,
but it may be time to start asking ourselves if we really can afford the
luxury of modern production techniques. In three years the United States
will be celebrating its bicentennial. These two hundred years are not
even measurable from the standpoint of geologic time, and actually cover
a relatively short period of recorded history. Perhaps it is time that
we begin using our. expertise and technology to better manage our soils
and waters if we expect this civilization to persist for a few hundred
years, or thousands of years, longer. Granted, the pressurers of pop-
ulation increases are upon all of us, but this same population increase
should be the incentive to do a better job of soil stewardship.
As a native North Dakotan, I am concerned when I read the press
release on the annual report released from Washington by the Department
of Agriculture that this state is runner-up to Texas in the number of
acres subject to wind erosion.
As a professional wildlife manager, I become concerned because I
know that the very valuable topsoil that comes off our fields finds its
way into our streams and ends up in the bottom of a lake or reservoir,
where it is undesirable and unwanted. Let me spend a few moments dis-
cussing what topsoil can do once it reaches a lake or reservoir, which
lowers the depth of water. An acre-foot of soil in a reservoir displaces
an acre-foot of water. As a body of water becomes shallower, its value
for recreational purposes decreases.
The second, and more serious, effect of topsoil finding its way into
a reservoir is the increased nutrient load that results. When I speak
of nutrients, I am referring primarily to nitrates, phosphates, and, if
you wish, you may add carbon. Very likely some of the soil scientists
in the room can give a relatively close estimate of the amount of nitrates
and phosphates that an acre-foot of good fertile North Dakota topsoil
may contribute to the water in a reservoir. Let me hasten to add that
there are many sources of nitrate-phosphate pollution of our waters other
than that contributed by topsoil; but, this symposium is devoted to dis-
cussing soil erosion and sedimentation, so I will not dwell on other
sources of pollution.
Eutrophication is a word that you have heard many times in the past
few years. It simply means the aging process of a lake or reservoir.
This, like erosion, is a natural phenomenon and, as such, man has found no
way of reversing it. What does concern the fish and wildlife manager is
when eutrophication becomes accelerated. When large amounts of nitrate
and phosphate are added to a body of water, the growth rate of aquatic
plants is accelerated, very much the same as plants growing on fertile
soils with optimum temperatures. This is, of course, undesirable in any
lake or reservoir, in that it becomes unattractive for boating, swimming,
or fishing. The greatest detriment caused by excess algae growth is the

fact that with the onset of cold weather these plants die and sink to
the bottom. Decomposition begins, and this process requires oxygen,
which must be obtained from the water. In North Dakota, with our long
winters and corresponding time period when lakes and reservoirs are
frozen, this plant decomposition can and does reduce the oxygen content
of the water below the level that fish require, which results in a fish
Actually, we have experienced summer fish kills in certain lakes
and reservoirs from extensive growths of certain blue-green algaes that
create a toxic situation.
Over the last 10 or 12 years the Department, together with the
State Water Commission, local water management and park boards, the
State Outdoor Recreation Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, has spent several millions of dollars constructing small
multi-purpose recreational reservoirs. At the time they were planned
and constructed, we anticipated a life expectancy of from 50 to 75 years
of maximum use. With the passing of every year we have had to revise
our estimate of useful like downward, until now we consider ourselves
fortunate if a reservoir will support fish life for a period of 20 or
25 years. Sweet Briar Lake, about 20 miles west of Mandan, is a classic
example. This reservoir filled in 1964 for the first time, and for the
past two or three years the lake has exhibited an increasing plant growth
so that by late July it has become unattractive to people.
Because of this problem, the Department has revised its policy in
regard to cooperating in the creation of new impoundments. The revision
is relatively simple, and provides that we will not participate in the
construction of a project unless land treatment measures are initiated on
all lands lying within the watershed. We believe this will prolong reser-
voir life as well as reduce loss of topsoil, which should be of concern
to us all.
MR. HOWARD F. BIER: The conservation goal of farmers and ranchers
throughout North Dakota and our nation should be the control of soil ero-
sion on agricultural lands. This will require that all crop and grass-
lands management decisions take into account the possible future loss of
the soil resource. We have the conservation knowledge available now—we
can accomplish this goal.
Soil erosion by wind and water can be a serious problem on all soils.
This will vary depending on climate factors, condition of vegetative cover,
soil factors, and cultural practices used in crop production. The poten-
tial for increased soil erosion is due to many things. Some we can con-
trol—some we cannot.
During the 1969-70 wind erosion season, the SCS reported that 1.8
million acres of the Great Plains area of the United States were damaged
by wind erosion. In North Dakota, the SCS has estimated the acreage of

cropland susceptible to various rates of soil loss in each land capabi-
lity class based on the 1967 Conservation needs inventory. In all land
capability classes, 16.4 million acres have a rate of soil loss of 0 to
5 tons per acre per year; 9.8 million acres have a soil loss of 6 to 10
tons per year, and 1.2 million acres have a soil loss of 11 to 20 tons
per acre per year.
The SCS has set 5 tons of soil loss per acre per year as the maxi-
mum acceptable rate of loss due to erosion. Rates higher are considered
excessive and corrective measures should be applied. The data indicate
that approximately 60 percent of the cropland in North Dakota is ade-
quately protected, but the amount of erosion on some of these lands should
be decreased. Cropland not adequately protected should be of prime con-
cern. By contrast, the soil loss on natural grasslands is about one-half
ton of soil per acre annually.
Farming or ranching has become a specialized business. Diversified
farms, so common in the past, are rare now. Modern, high-powered machi-
nery is costly—to be efficient it has to be used for maximum output. It
does not adapt itself to the large number of enterprises on the farms of
years ago. The grain farmer has one type of machinery—the rancher a com-
pletely different set of equipment. This large efficient machinery has
made it possible for the farmer to put into production land that is really
unsuitable for cultivation—rocky, hilly land that is highly erodible.
Years ago this type of land was used for pasture for the herd of cattle
found on every farm. Today with high taxes and farming costs the effi-
cient grain farmer must make every acre pay, so he puts it into crops.
Fall plowing and summer fallow are two farming practices considered
to be the major contributors to the problem of soil erosion by wind in
North Dakota. Acreage figures on the amount of fall plowing are not avail-
able, however, it is estimated that there are about 4 million acres. Unless
protection against wind erosion is provided by plowing or cultivating so
as to leave a rough surface and stubble exposed on the surface, erosion
is a real hazard.
The acreage of summer fallow has increased substantially since 1954
and is strongly influenced by Federal farm programs. We have never had
a farm program that was long range in scope. Farmers could generally only
plan for one year at a time. Acres idled under farm programs are usually
summer fallowed. The North Dakota Crop and Livestock Reporting Service
estimated 9.3 million acres of land were summer fallowed in North Dakota
in 1970. This is about 22.3 percent of the 42 million acres of land in
farms. Generally northern counties summer fallowed a larger protion of
the land in farms than southern counties. This ranges from 40 percent in
Towner County along the Canadian border, down to 7 to 9 percent in the
south central counties of Burleigh, Kidder, Sioux, and Billings. The
farm programs have locked land into production of wheat and feed grains
because of fear of loss of production history. I know of ranchers who
continue to plant their wheat base even though they would rather have the
acres into grass.

Too often, it appears, tillage provides a form of recreation. With
the large modern tractors and efficient machinery now available and in
general use, it is fun to get out in the field and turn the land black.
Frequency of tillage in preparing the seedbed—whether on fallow or stubble—
should be limited to those necessary to control weeds and to receive the
seed at planting. Tillage can hasten water loss when moist soil is exposed
at the surface or when the surface area exposed is increased. Tillage done
to eliminate weed growth, and thus to reduce water loss, often results in
more loss of water as a consequence of exposing moist soil than would have
occurred through transpiration from the weeds present. Experiments con-
ducted over the years by our Experiment Stations have shown that usually
4 or 5 tillage operations on summer fallow give a better crop response than
What can we as farmers do to stop erosion by wind and water? Well,
if we continue the practices that have proved themselves so effective, we
will be doing a good job. We will find new ways, too. of overcoming ero-
sion .
Strip cropping is a proven practice and is used throughout the coun-
try. The lighter the soil, the narrower the strips should be. Field
layout or orientation in relation to the prevailing wind direction should
be given consideration. Winds in North Dakota generally have the greatest
average speed during the fall, later winter, and early spring, when cover
by snow and growing crops is least. Fields oriented with the narrowest
side perpendicular to the prevailing wind provide for the best protection.
The final cultivation in the fall should be perpendicular to the prevailing
winter winds.
Flax strips planted on summer-fallow land for wind erosion control
has proven very effective. Flax barriers should be planted the first weeks
in August in a northeast-southwest direction across the prevailing wind
direction to provide the best protection. Two to four drill rows at nor-
mal seeding rate and 25 to 35 feet apart provides good protection and also
allows later cultivation between the strips should it be necessary for
weed control or to rough up the surface.
One-row tree shelterbelts are an excellent practice that prevents
wind erosion, catches and holds snow, and beautifies the countryside.
Perhaps we could reduce the number of cultivations on our summer fal-
low. Having it as black and clean as a garden is a source of pride to the
operator, but it may not pay from a cost and moisture-saving point of view
and certainly increases the chance of erosion.
Maybe we should take a closer look at spraying to take the place of
some of the tillage we are inclined to do. This would leave more vegeta-
tive cover on the land.
Contour farming is not very practical or popular with today's large
machinery even though we recognize it as the best method to conserve soil
and moisture on hilly land. Strip cropping can reduce wind erosion but

we are still getting soil erosion due to run-off from rain and winter
snow melt. Perhaps we could do more to eliminate this using some type
of pitting device or damming equipment behind our cultivators. This
system might hold the water on the hillsides instead of allowing it to
run down the furrows cutting ditches and carrying the topsoil with it.
Grassed waterways have proven themselves as the best method of
eliminating washing and gullying on rolling land. However, they take
some care and maintenance. Farmers can, with the equipment they normally
have, improve waterways by flattening and broadening the bottom to slow
the runoff and spread it over a larger area so the soil does not wash.
These are some of the problems as I see them and some things we can
do to eliminate or at least improve on them. We have been accustomed
to getting a payment for doing some of these things—things that we really
should be doing all the time. We as farmers are big gainers from good
farming and conservation practices—we had better keep at them.'
Perhaps we could take a lesson from the cowboy who was chasing a
steer one day as fast as his horse could run. The steer came to a fence
and veered sharply to the left, as did the cowboy's horse. The cowboy
and his horse parted company right there but the cowboy landed astraddle
of the barbed wire fence, and with the terrific speed he was going, slid
right down that fence a considerable distance, breaking off fence posts
as he went. By the time he got stopped, he discovered the barbed wire
had sawed him up the middle clear to his hat brim. He was in a terrible
predicament but there was only one thing to do—he pulled his hat down
a little tighter to hold himself together, caught his horse, lengthened
out the stirrups, got back on and went after that steer again!
He didn't quit—we can't either!
MR. VERN FAHY: The problems related to erosion of soils have been
with us since biblical times, but it is only in comparatively recent years
that man has attempted to seek solutions to these problems.
The municipal erosion problem had its roots in the most essential
ingredient in the settlement of this country—the need of the early settlers
to locate close to water and among the trees of our river valleys for pro-
tection and for fuel. In the beginning these river valley locations were
merely campsites or watering places, but the choice ones grew very rapidly
into our early settlements and continued to expand into the great cities
which we know today. .
Erosion from a municipal viewpoint was not a serious concern in most
areas of the midwest until the years of affluence following World War II.
Certainly all of us municipal dwellers had heard of the Soil Conservation
Service and the many efforts made to help the farmer utilize his land more
efficiently. Yes, and we had heard of the dust bowls of Kansas and Oklahoma
and the problems associated with the depression years, but we had not actually
worked with erosion as a problem for municipal administrators.

Rather suddenly, after World War II, we discovered that our modern
people were foresaking the pioneers desire for living in the sheltered
lowlands, and were seeking building sites that would give them broad vistas
and enough elbow room to permit them to enjoy living somewhat removed
from the neighbor's watchful eye. This privilege of isolation or remote-
ness was a luxury that could be afforded only by the very rich so the
"view seekers" or "suburban settlers" were relatively few in number and
the land disturbance caused by their relocation was not serious in the
eyes of the municipal administrators.
In the mid 1940's when the expansion of our cities was gaining momen-
tum very rapidly, the wise real estate developer began to recognize this
shifting trend to the highlands and decided to capitalize on the movement.
When the profit motive began to dictate the direction of this new type
of settlement in our highlands, the erosion became more than just a word
associated with agriculture. The developers glamourized their operations
with such names as Valleyview, Overlook Addition, Vista Acres, and many
other titles which seem to whet the appetites of our valley residents
for shifting to the highlands.
Many of these early developments were almost a crime against nature.
The lots were divided into the smallest possible sizes which meant that
the maximum amount of dirt had to be shifted in order to accommodate the
beehive-like clusters of homes which sat above our communities. The gov-
erning bodies of municipalities were unprepared for this rapid move, and
in most instances, had no master plans which required developers to meet
minimum lot criteria. Indeed there were some instances in which cities
had spent money for a master plan, but the profit motive became more power-
ful than the need for planning and it became easy to overlook planners'
In the type of layout which we experienced very early in the shift
to the highlands, the developer attempted to utilize the maximum amount
of land for the lot system and the minimum amounts for conveniences so
that all street systems were platted in a grid manner, thus making each
street a funnel for discharging water into the lowlands. The time lag
between the grading of the property and the paving of the streets was
generally so great that the handling of mud by municipal crews in the
valley bottoms became one of the major chores. The ability of a group
of developers to move soil greatly exceeded the abilities of the munici-
palities to maintain pace with street improvements and storm sewer systems,
and this imposed a tremendous tax burden upon the older sections of the
city where the cleanup operations were performed. This deplorable situa-
tion existed until the late 1950's when municipal administrators and
citizens decided that the time had come to strike a balance.
Of utmost importance to the improvement of this almost unreal situa-
tion was a decision by the Supreme Court that provided for recognition
of the fact that a person living on the highlands was as responsible for
storm water runoff as was the person in the lowlands who was receiving
the water and the damages caused by it. This decision was strengthened,
at least from the municipal viewpoint, by the fact that it contained a

provision which stated that there would be no recognizable protest against
the installation of a storm sewer project because it was for the health
and welfare of the citizens and not subject to protest.
Armed with this decision and with a desire to protect the hillside
areas, most municipalities worked for the adoption of a zoning ordinance
which would recognize that topography should be a major criteria in deter-
mining the size of lots to be developed. A realistic zoning ordinance
would provide that hillside areas would be in a zone which would provide
for maximum lot size and a minimum of land disturbance. In the munici-
pality which I represented, this led us to the development of an ordinance
which set up a permit system for all developers. The permit system pro-
vided that all contractors who were contemplating the movement of dirt
over any area which exceeded 2000 square feet must obtain a permit from
the city enginner prior to undertaking the work. One of the provisions
of the ordinance would require that the contractor or developer file a
complete landscaping plan prior to undertaking the development. Erosion
control evolved around the gradient of the property and required either
seeding, sodding, or riprapping depending upon the finished grade of the
disturbed area. In addition, all new areas of development would be re-
quired to file plans for the installation of storm sewer systems at the
time the plans for other segments of the development were filed.
We recognize that these measures cannot undo all of the damage that
has been done over the years, but if they are enforced as they should be,
we can be reasonably sure that problems due to erosion will be much less
We have discussed the erosion problems and the municipal maintenance
problem involved in cleaning the streets following a rain storm, but what
about the sedimentation problem? In periods of high runoff, much of the
mud that is washed from the hillsides finds its way into the streams which
bless or curse our cities depending upon your viewpoint and the time of
the year. One only needs to examine the areas around the storm sewer
outfall lines of our municipalities to recognize that tremendous amounts
of silt have been carried into our streams. In many municipalities a
stream that could be a thing of beauty is now silt laden and sluggish
except during flood periods.
It seems to me that recognition of our problem is not complete unless
we recognize the need for restoring these streams to the point where
they become an asset rather than a liability to the community. This is
an activity that in many instances will require dredging and will be of
such a magnitude that the local municipality cannot handle it as a muni-
cipal obligation. This means that Federal funds will of necessity be
needed for this work. With the current pinch on Federal spending, there
is no likelihood that such a program can be undertaken in the immediate
future. However, I think that municipal attitudes should recognize that
as a part of their long-range planning, the importance of a free-flowing
stream to the community must be recognized. The planning process must
involve both short-term and long-term goals and the cleanup of our streams
could very well be placed as a long-term goal.

Closer to this conference perhaps is the tremendous amount of erosion
that is taking place along the mainstream of the Missouri River with its
subsequent deposition in the headwaters of the reservoirs. The local city
engineer and the State Water Commission engineer have already filed reports
which indicate that aggradation in the upper reaches of the Oahe Reservoir
is causing high ground-water problems in the southern sections of the city
of Bismarck. The stabilization of the banks of the river should have been
considered as a part of the overall Garrison Dam project so that the
problems of aggradation could have been avoided. Although some bank pro-
tective works have been constructed along the river, these measures are
much too small in relation to the total problem to guarantee that serious
municipal problems in Bismarck will not occur in the future.
In summary then, we should state that most municipalities have recog-
nized, although much too late, the need for using erosion control as the
criteria for development. Establishing these controls is not always easy
because of the powerful influence of developers upon local governing bodies.
It would seem that there must be a closer liaison between municipal deve-
lopers and agricultural planners to assure that the areas around our cities
are properly planned so that problems are minimized both from the stand-
point to agricultural and urban uses. I would suggest that your efforts
to involve municipal planners in your various programs be continued be-
cause there is much to be learned from your experience in erosion control.
MR. LEE CHRISTENSEN: Members of the panel and gentlemen. When politi-
cians are asked to make statements at gatherings such as this, we generally
are given a time limit, and Bud did that to me today. I am reminded of a
story of a man that was out on a campaign trail, and he was giving a talk
one evening to a group of young people. He expounded at great length. He
went on and on and on and about played everybody out. When he finished his
discussion, he asked if there were any questions. A young man in the back
of the room stood up and said, "Who else is running?"
The next two days this symposium will be discussing soil erosion and
sediment control. Just a few blocks down the street the 43rd Legislative
Assembly is in session. They will be spending a lot of time dealing with
bills and resolutions concerned with conservation, with our environment
and with the ecological concern of today.
Some of you who have spent many years in conservation work are won-
dering why all this new interest, why the sudden impatience of some groups,
and particularly the young, to get on with the job of conserving and pro-
tecting our natural resources. I believe we reached a point in our national
history where mistrust of the responsiveness of government to the popular
will has reached a critical point, a point at which many people in our
state and nation feel denied of a right to influence public policy. People
want to be reassured that they have some control over our physical assets
and spiritual destiny. They want to assist in making decisions affecting
our life style. The public is demanding a larger role in determining the
direction of its fate.

These are exciting times because as some writers put it we are going
through a Quiet Revolution, a Quiet Revolution in the way we use our lands.
We see evidences of it all around us. At the federal level Land Use
policy legislation is being heard, many bills dealing with clean water,
clean air, noise pollution, solid waste disposal, recycling, you name it;
and there seems to be some group or agency making a study of the problems
and the related opportunities.
The same is true of the state level. This session of the Legislature
will be looking at bills concerned with strip-mined lands, Water Management
Districts, the Game & Fish Department, Land Use Study, Environmental Impact
Statement, the Department of Natural Resources, and many other areas that
deal with our environment.
What does it all mean, this sudden.awareness on the part of our citi-
zens that something must be done about preserving the whole ecological
Aldo Leopolds in his book, A Sand County Almanac put the pieces to-
gether very well. He believes we are in the process of developing a land
ethic. He says that we are in the third phase of the Ethical Sequence.
The first being the relationship of man to man; the second integrates the
individual into society, and third, man's relationship to the land. In
short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo Sapiens from conqueror of the
land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for
his fellow members and also respect for the land-community as such.
Dale Cochran, a member of the Iowa Legislature, says that in his
state soil erosions cause 700 times more pollution than all other sources
combined. I don't have any data or statistics on North Dakota, but I'm
sure it's significant.
You have important decisions to make in the next couple of days, and
I trust that in meetings such as this that people will be implementing
policy that will complement the new emerging land ethic. Thank you very
CHAIRMAN RAY REICH; Thank you panel. You have condensed your talks
so well that we end up with a little extra time. If any one of you would
like to have a few minutes more, we will give you this opportunity at this
time. It appears the panel has nothing more to add so we will take a few
minutes if there are any comments or- questions in regard to the panel's
report. If anyone would like to ask them a question, we will take a few
minutes. Are there any questions? Yes, there are still banquet tickets
available. Anyone wishing a. ticket for the banquet this evening should
secure these at the registration desk. Those people that are group dis-
cussion leaders and recorders at this afternoon's meeting, are asked to
meet in front of this room at 1 o'clock sharp. We are a little bit early
so we will try to get back here at 1:15 sharp this afternoon. Thank you.

January 17, 1973
The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Conference reconvened at 1:15 P.M.
in the Embassy Room with Mr, Chris Christmann presiding.
CHAIRMAN CHRIS CHRISTMANN: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I
am Chris Christmann, President of the North Dakota Association of Soil
Conservation Districts. I see one lady in the crowd. She happens to be
from down my way. I think I'll introduce her. She is the wife of a new
supervisor, elected a year or two ago, Mrs. Harold Peterson. Mrs. Peterson
would you please stand. It looks like many have taken an interest in this
topic, so right off the bat we will get into the program. I'll introduce
Don Dubois, Assistant Deputy Administrator from the Environmental Protection
Agency, Denver. Don has been with the Agency for 15 years. At this time
we will hear from Don. Mr. Dubois.
MR. DON DUBOIS: I thank you for inviting us, the Environmental
Protection Agency. Jack Green was listed on your program as a speaker.
Jack is our regional administrator in Denver, but unfortunately he got
tangled up in a meeting in Washington, which is a kind of occupational
hazard of federal bureaucrats to be called to Washington for one reason
or another. So, he had to take that assignment and it's my pleasure to be
number two, sometimes number two isn't so bad, to get the opportunity to
come up here and talk with you today.
I did have a earlier opportunity back in June of 1972 to participate
in a meeting of the National Association of Conservation Districts in
Jackson, Wyoming, and at that time became acquainted with some of the peo-
ple here, Dave Unaer on the program, Bill Bosse, Marv Cronberg, and others,
and I think that I have a little better feel for some of the kinds of pro-
grams that you are interested in, some of the problems that you see, and
so on. So it's a pleasure for me to renew acquaintances again and meet
more of you folks.
Before I proceed, I would like to give a little credit to a member of
our staff of the Environmental Protection Agency in Denver, Keith Schneider,
who put together most of the material that I will be talking about today.
And also, Keith is our guy that we look to for assistance on our staff in
areas dealing with agricultural environmental issues, land usage, and
that sort of thing. I would certainly encourage all of you, if you have
an occasion to give me a call, or Keith Schneider, at Denver if there is
anything that we can try to assist you with.
Certainly all of you are to be commended for taking time to partici-
pate in a conference of this sort. I do know that soil erosion and sedi-
ment control have been subjects of interest to most of you and to the
organizations represented here from probably the 1930's or even earlier.
I think it is a fair statement to say that probably you represent some
of the original conservationists, the original environmentalists, in as
much as soil conservation, I believe, is one of the first areas that came
to the attention of people in the area of preserving resources and

preventing environmental contamination. I am not much of a history buff,
but I suspect a lot of that interest arose out of the dust bowl problems
and that not unlike a lot of other issues that come to the forefront in
this country that are based on some kind of a crisis-type situation.
I think the broader aspect of environmental concern is similarly
based. It may be not on as quite a dramatic an example as the dust bowl,
but a very serious situation which people have begun to recognize and
take action. Now, I suppose that some of you become a bit dismayed at
times at some of the people you might call "Johnny come lately" environ-
mentalists. I must say that 1 too have some concerns once in a while.
But for the most part, I feel that this awakened interest or developing
interest in environmental protection is a very, very welcome sign of our
times and a very valuable kind of thing to have happen.
My topic is entitled "Sediment as a Pollutant." I presume I will
have a little bit of a leeway to wander around and talk about a few other
things, but I will try to stick reasonably close to that subject.
I would like to throw in a little bit of discussion of the ammend-
ments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which were passed just
last October because I think they do have a bearing on what we are dis-
cussing here these two days. The first question I think that should be
asked and there may be an attempt made to answer is simply, "Is sediment
a pollutant?" By and in large, I would say "Yes" in terms of my defini-
tion of pollution and what constitutes a pollutant. It does, of course,
depend on the amount and location of sediment, but because such things
as erosion, transportation, deposition, and so on are continuing and are
a continuing natural process, they are essential for support of various
life cycles and so on.
Now, I want to throw in here that EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
does not intend to make the waters of this country sterile streams, lakes,
and so on. They were not sterile before man started polluting them.
When they are cleaned up, they should not be sterile if they are to sup-
port life cycles and so on. But the real problem of sediment goes beyond
this sort of low level natural cycle that I talk about and when it does
get to be a form of pollution is where it is, in fairly gross terms, pri-
marily resulting from man's excessive impact on the ecological system and
upon the environment.
Man's impact on the environment, of course, is accelerating at pro-
bably a geometric rate. Population has been growing very rapidly; urbani-
zation in many areas, which is even going at a speed greater than the general
population growth. Wi have major industrial growth. We have new technology,
which in some cases, can present even additional problems for the environ-
ment. The wastes from all of this growth and from land misuse and so on,
does of course, produce imbalances in the natural cycle. It is here that
we start having what I consider the major kinds of problems. Improper
land use can be one of the causes of this kind of imbalance. Land develop-
ment is certainly one example bringing about readjustment of the natural
cycle of things. I think one example of that I just heard this morning
from Mr. Evans is a good example. I don't remember that I have his figures
exactly but as I recall it, he said that there were some fifty tons per acre

of sediment produced in the area that he was speaking of prior to develop-
ment and that this accelerated up to some 25,000 tons per acre of sediment
production after development. Now, this 50 ton level per year could well
be a natural and even desirable kind of regime, but certainly the 25,000
tons would almost certainly represent a gross pollution situation and this
is what I am attempting to address here. This kind of thing, of course,
can result from a variety of causes. I suspect they are all fairly similar
and have been or will be enumerated here today, but I will just go through
some of them that occur to me. Certainly, residental and commercial devel-
opment is a major cause of pollution as is industrial development, strip
mining, road construction, and construction of most other kinds of facility,
such as roads, canals, bridges, power lines, etc. I think, too, of course,
there can be resulting from improper farming and forestry practices, in-
creased sediment production. I think, maybe to some extent, that,farmers
and agricultural people have gotten a bit of a bum rap here. Too much
of the cause is attributed to this activity, but obviously it can, and is,
the cause in some cases, resulting from such things as the production from
marginal lands that maybe would be better left in their original state,
overgrazing of land, improper cropping, clear cutting of timber, or other
timber practices that may not be desirable in certain cases, etc. All of
these are some of the causes which can produce erosion and excessive sedi-
Now, certainly the causes as we have listed them are fairly clear.
I think just as clear is the adverse impact on water quality and air quality,
too, of sediment production. Speaking of water quality problems again just
to list a few of them. They are the covering up of natural fish spawning
areas; the burying under sediment, etc. of the food supply for fish and
other aquatic life; the filling in of reservoirs and canals and channels,
etc,; the increased cost of treating water for domestic and industrial
purposes, that is brought on by excessive sediment in the water; damages
to recreational values, to swimming, to boating, to various other recrea-
tional uses; and basically just the aesthetic damage. I don't think any-
body particularly likes to see a brown, red, or black running river when
it is supposed to be relatively clear, and this kind of aesthetic, of course,
is one that is obviously visible and has meaning to everybody. That is,
everybody is not going to be particularly concerned about fish population
declining but when people are used to and accustomed to looking at a clean
appearing stream and it turns up to be unclean, this has a very strong
Beyond that, of course, these damages can and certainly do, cost
money, measurable, tangible amounts of money, both in terms of the damage
to the downstream users and in terms of the damage to the persons whose
property is being washed away and down the river. Quite often the person
downstream is the one who has to pay the cost of problems caused by some-
body else upstream.
Thinking here in terms again of water treatment costs or whatever, in
other words, a ton of soil that washes off a farm or construction site in
North Dakota certainly costs that individual something, but it also costs
the people at Omaha, Kansas City, and so forth on down the line additional
money for various things such as treatment of the water they use and so on.

Often times the cost of erosion control are relatively minimal. I
don't mean they are negligible or very small but they are, I think, in
many cases less expensive certainly than the cost of correcting the pro-
blem and I will get into that a little bit later along with the figures
I have.
I think, too, we are seeing a change in the public perception of"this
problem of soil erosion and sedimentation. I think at one time the focus
was very strongly ,on the concern, and it is still valid, certainly on the
value of soil loss as it is washed off the countryside for agricultural
purposes or what not. X think now there is becoming increasing concern
for the other costs associated with that; namely, the kinds that 1 have
already enumerated; the cost for the guy downstream that has to cope
with this soil and sediment thought of somewhat in the past, is getting
much more attention now days.
Public expenditures are very substantial for correcting problems
caused by soil erosion and sedimentation. Some of the figures I have would
indicate that about a hundred million dollars annually in damages are
caused by flooding which is directly attributed to sedimentation. That
is, reservoirs that have filled up and no longer provide for the kind
of flood protection they were designed for, channels and canals and so
forth that have filled up, don't provide the storage they once did.
So this represents somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 percent of the
total annual flood damages in this country. By the figures I have this
can be attributed to just the excessive sedimentation and the filling in
of reservoirs and so on of that I mentioned. The total estimated damages
from accelerated erosion and from deposition of sediment in this country
has been estimated up to around the level of 1.3 billion dollars annually.
This is measured in terms of the cost of dredging; the loss of agricultural
land; the damage to roads and structures; the increased water treatment
costs and that kind of thing. So we are talking about really a very signi-
ficant quantity of money even on a national scale when we talk in term of
1.3 billion dollars annually.
The Environmental Protection Agency is contracting for some study work
to try to compare the cost of erosion control measures on construction sites
with the cost of damages caused by this erosion to downstream users. This
study is not complete yet but the preliminary indications and findings are
that the prevention-type program would be much less expensive than the
cleanup-type program. In other words, it's cheaper to prevent this pro-
blem at the source, than it is to allow it to take place and then to try
to correct the damages caused by it. I guess this always gets back to the
old adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," and I think
it certainly does apply in this case.
Some other studies that I have reference to here are: the Department
of Interior has done some studies which are similar to the kind that we
are involved in in the Potomac River Basin, and they have found that 91
percent control of sediments can be accomplished from construction sites
through the application of conventional-type soil erosion sediment control
techniques that is nothing fancy or exotic but simply the kinds of things
that most people who are involved in the business know how to do in terms

of bank stabilization and that sort of thing. The cost of applying these
conventional-type controls to construction sites, and here I am sure they
are speaking in terms of residential and commercial-type developments,
rather than agricultural, is in the neighborhood of $1,125 per acre. They
have found that the sediment damages in the absence of these controls
ranged up to approximately $1,500 per acre. Thus a savings up to $375
per acre by this study could be accomplished by applying conventional
sediment control or the erosion control-type techniques. Now, if you want
to get a little fancy and start extrapolating this thing out and apply
that $375 savings to the four thousand or so acres per day that are
being put to the bulldozer and going under construction in this country,
you could conclude that an annual saving of some five hundred million
dollars could be made simply by applying conventional sediment control
measures to construction sites. Now, I don't know how valid it is to try
to extrapolate this out and say that _the annual saving would be a five
hundred thousand dollars, but I think that the point is well taken rather
than the specific figure. The point is obviously that probably major
savings in this country to public expenditures, private expenditures, and
so on could be affected if we do a better job in this one area by applying
known control measures on construction sites.
Let me go a little bit here into the area of legislation. I men-
tioned earlier the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. They're very far reaching. It sets some very, very strong goals.
One of which is to establish or provide quality of water in the streams
of this country, such as to protect and provide for the propagation of
fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation in and on the navigable waters
of the United States. And these navigable waters are now defined as the
waters of the United States. So it is practically everything. This goal
is to be accomplished by the year 1983. It is ten years away.
A second goal established in these new amendments is the elimination,
and I stress the word elimination, of discharges of pollutants by 1985
to the navigable waters of the United States. Pollutants being defined
as practically everything from heat, to sand and gravel, and industrial,
municipal, agricultural waste discharges, etc. The goal of this bill
then is to eliminate the discharge of wastes in the waters of the
United States by 1985, 12 years away.
This is a very large order of business as you can well recognize.
Quite obviously something the Environmental Protection Agency, although
we are the primary federal administers of this bill, cannot carry out
by ourselves. As a matter of fact, the states are very explicitly written
into the responsibility in this new bill and have been in the previous
bills also. It states quite clearly that the primary responsibility for
carrying out this new act does rest with the states and the various state
agencies. Of course, in North Dakota the primary state agency dealing
with water pollution control and water quality -is the State Health
Department. Mr. Van Heuvelen heads up the environmental program. Mr.
Norm Peterson, who was here with you this morning, and some of the staff,
have been working very closely with us and will continue to do so, trying
to carry out this act. Beyond these arrangements that I have mentioned,
we are certainly going to need the help of practically every federal, state,

and local organization along with private organizations and every indi-
vidual to carry this out because it does have tremendous implications
and is a tremendous job to do. Some of the specific areas of the new
water legislation that I think fit quite closely to the subject we
are discussing here are in the areas of research, dissemination of in-
formation, providing technical assistance, etc., all of which are jobs
of my agency and have been, but they have in this new job been thrown
into more and more reference to the non-point sources of pollution, etc.,
which, of course, gets into the area of sediment control.
In the area of water quality management planning, a new goal places
some rather specific and strong new requirements in that area. The
governors, for example, are required to designate so called urban indus-
trial areas or other problem areas where water quality is a problem and
are to designate planning agencies to develop water quality management
plans for these problem areas. The assessment here must include speci-
fically non-point sources of pollution. In other words, we are not just
talking about industrial and municipal districts, but all forms of pollu-
tion in this planning process. This is to be a continuous planning pro-
cess but not one to develop a fancy plan, tie a ribbon around it and
send it in kind of a thing, but a continuous process planning for water
quality contol. Another section of the act requires similar kind of
planning to be done not only on the so called designated problem areas,
but also on areas on whole river basins.
Yet another section requires that EPA put in the first year of the
act, in other words by next fall and periodically thereafter, to publish
information on a variety of subjects including guidelines for identifying
and evaluating non-point sources of pollution; control methods for this
pollution, etc. All of this should be done in consultation with other
agencies, individuals and organizations. I suspect that we will be work-
ing with many organizations such as NACD and others in the development
of this kind of information which will land under another section of the
act which will require the states to submit by 1975, and every year there-
after, a description of the nature and extent of non-point sources of
pollution in their state; recommend control measures for those sources
fo pollution; estimate the control cost, etc. EPA will then report, as
required in the act, this information back to the Congress.
There are more and more sections of the new act which get into this
area of common interest to you today, but in summary I think we can simply
say that the new act does contain many provisions related to non-point
sources, such as sediment. Most of the references to non-point source
pollution and to sediment, etc., relate in nature to performing studies,
research, doing planning, dispensing or dispersing information to people
on the subject, developing guidelines and that sort of thing.
This is in rather stark contrast to other sections of the act which
deal with point sources of pollution where there the act talks in terms
of applying best available technology; no discharge being a goal by 1985;
requiring permits for all municipal and industrial discharges; of stiff
enforcement programs for violation of the permits, including fines and
jail sentences.

Quite obviously, the diffuse sources of pollution don't lend them-
selves to this strong regulator type of approach in most cases, and the
act does recognize that. But on the other hand, I think it makes the
diffues and non-point source of pollution a more difficult thing to deal
with. You don't have the handles in the act or any other place to solve
this problem to the degree that you do when you have a pipe neatly dis-
charging the waste and you find out who is putting waste into that pipe
and you can do something about it.
It is much different when we are talking about sedimentation or
other non-point sources of pollution. Yet, I think we probably all agree
that in many cases the non-point source pollution problem is even greater
than the point source pollution problem in terms of the impact on water
quality. So, its going to take a great effort of all of us at all levels
of government and outside government to first of all become aware of the
nature of the problem. I feel that we are well on the way to doing that
at conferences like this and many others. To develop solutions to the
problems, which hopefully are on their way, and many which have been
available for many years and ultimately of putting these methods of con-
trolling sediment and other non-point sources of pollution are putting
them into practice and really using them. I'm very hopeful that this
process will result in better control of sediment and other non-point
sources of pollution. First of all, as the damages become more and more
apparent and as the cost savings we talked about earlier become known,
this should encourage all to carry these out. I would certainly like
to enlist the support of you and each of your organizations that you
represent to try to carry this out. It's a very big but a very important
job and it can only be done if we all pitch in and work together on it.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CHRIS CHRISTMANN: Thank you Don. Very well put. Our
next speaker, I'm sure he wouldn't need any introduction, but for those
of you who are new here, he's our Executive Secretary of the State Soil
Conservation Committee. He's going to be talking on existing laws of
the Soil Conservation Districts. Gary Puppe.
MR. GARY PUPPE: Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen. My remarks
this afternoon will focus upon the existing Soil Conservation Districts
Law in North Dakota. This Law had its beginning in 1937, when President
Roosevelt wrote to each governor and encouraged them and their legislators
to pass a law allowing the states to organize soil conservation districts.
Their job was to encourage farmers and ranchers to adopt soil conservation
practices on the land to keep the precious top soil in place. Since 1937,
several revisions were made to keep the law in perspective with our chan-
ging times. In the next few minutes a recap will be made, outlining the
Soil Conservation Districts Law as it exists in North Dakota today.
Upon passage of the Law, the State Soil Conservation Committee was
created in 1937 as a state agency to organize soil conservation districts
within the state, and to administer and coordinate the activities of each.
The State Committee consists of seven members, one from each of the five

designated areas of the state, and two appointed by the Governor. This
comprises the voting members of the State Committee. The term of office
of every voting member is two years. However, a member of the Committee
is eligible for re-election and reappointment, but no member may serve
for more than two successive terms or a total of four years. The State
Committee also invites representatives from the following organizations
and agencies who serve as advisory, non-voting members of the Committee:
the North Dakota Association of Soil Conservation Districts, the Cooper-
ative Extension Service, the Soil Conservation Service, the North Dakota
State Water Commission, the Commissioner of Agriculture, and the State
Game and Fish Department.
The major duties of the State Committee are to foster the conservation
of soil and soil resources of the state by disseminating information
throughout the state concerning the activities and programs of the soil
conservation districts and to encourage the formation of such districts
in areas where their organization is desirable. As of 1962, the entire
state was completely organized into soil conservation districts including
every acre of land in the state. This is not to mean that only farms
and ranches are in soil conservation districts, but districts also include
every city and town. At present there are sixty-five (65) soil conserva-
tion districts in the state encouraging farmers and ranchers to adopt
soil conservation practices on their land.
The soil conservation district is the local unit of government, or
political subdivision of the state, having its own governing board at the
local level. The districts governing board are the supervisors who are
responsible for the operation of the district. They are local elected
officials, elected at the time of the General Election. Their job is to
determine the conservation needs of the district and establish priorities
for conservation work. Each soil conservation district receives technical
assistance from the U. S. D. A.'s Soil Conservation Service on the basis
of correcting the conservation problems that exist in the district. In
addition, each district may appoint two (2) additional supervisors to
represent interests within the district which are not represented by the
elected supervisors. The supervisors of soil conservation districts
receive no salary or compensation for their services other than travel
and subsistence expenses.
We might now ask the question, what are the powers and duties of the
soil conservation districts? First of all, soil conservation districts
have the power to conduct surveys, investigations, and research relating
to the character of soil erosion and the preventive and control measures
needed. Soil conservation districts may conduct demonstrational projects
within the district, uf major importance is the provision to carry out
preventive and control measures within the district, but not limited to,
engineering operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of vegetation,
and changes in use of land. Here is where the conservation practices
come into being, such as contouring, stock ponds, stubble mulching, cover
crops, field and farmstead windbreaks to name just a few. Soil Conservation
Districts may cooperate with other agencies to further advance the provi-
sion of the law. They may purchase land, make equipment available to
district cooperators, such as grass drills, and other equipment. They also

provide trees and shrubs for planting to cooperators. Soil Conservation
Districts may construct, improve and maintain structures and buildings
as may be necessary to carry on conservation operations. Tree storage
facilities are the most common in this instance. They may develop com-
prehensive plans for the conservation of soil resources in the district.
They may administer any soil conservation project undertaken by the
United States and may accept donations, gifts, and contributions in money,
services, materials or otherwise from the United States or any of its
agencies or from this state or any of its agencies to carry on conserva-
tion operations.
A soil conservation district may sue or be sued in the name of the
district, have a seal, and make and execute contracts. They may also
borrow funds and pledge all or any part of any income from the district.
These basically are the general powers and duties of every Soil Conserva-
tion District in North Dakota.
The supervisors of any soil conservation district may formulate
regulations governing the use of lands within the district in the interest
of conserving soil and soil resources and preventing and controlling soil
erosion. Any proposed regulations shall be embodied in a proposed ordi-
nance for submission to the qualified electors in the district. A refer-
endum date is selected and copies of the proposed ordinance must be made
available for inspection by the eligible voters in the district. No
ordinance shall be effective unless it is approved by at least three-
fourths of the voters voting in the referendum. If a proposed ordinance
is approved, the supervisors shall enact it into law. The land-use
regulations prescribed in the ordinance have the force and effect of law
in the district and are binding upon all qualified electors living within
the district. What may be contained in land use regulation? They may
include provisions requiring the carrying out of necessary engineering
operations including the construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check
dams, dikes, ponds, ditches, and other necessary structures. They may
contain provisions requiring observance of particular methods of culti-
vation, including contour cultivating, contour furrowing, stripcropping
planting to grasses, trees to name a few. Specifications of cropping
programs and tillage practices to be observed may be included in the land
use regulations. Provisions requiring the retirement from cultivation
of highly erosive areas or of areas on which erosion may not be controlled
adequately if cultivation is carried on; and land use regulations may
contain provisions for such other means, measures, operations, and pro-
grams as may assist conservation of soil and water resources and prevent
or control soil erosion in the district.
The land use regulations in the soil conservation districts law also
provide provisions for non-compliance with the regulations. The super-
visors have the authority to go on the land to perform necessary work or
other operations or otherwise bring the condition of such lands into con-
formity with the requirements of such regulations, and may assess the
costs and expenses thereof, with interest, to the occupier of such land.
These are the major provisions of the Soil Conservation Districts
Law as it applies to North Dakota. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHRIS CHRISTMANN: Thank you Gary. It looks like we are
running right on the button here. We were a little late to start, but
we are gaining time. The next speaker we will hear from will be explain-
ing the Model Erosion-Sediment Control Legislation. He is the Assistant
Executive Secretary, National Association of Conservation Districts from
Washington, D. C. He has been with the Association since 1964. Dave Unger.
MR. DAVE UNGER: Thank you Chris. We have been talking this morning
and early this afternoon about how for 35 years soil and water conservation
districts have been working on the problem of erosion and sediment control
and this is because as Gary has pointed out this has been the responsibi-
lity under state laws existing. We talked a good deal about their accom-
plishments and what they have been able to do on a voluntary basis.
Entirely on a voluntary basis with agreements with land owners and, of
course through the technical and educational and financial assistance,
they have gotten from their cooperating agencies from the federal govern-
ment, and the state government, and the local level as well.
Nationally it amounts to the fact that about one-third of the job
has been accomplished over these years. You've done better than that
here in North Dakota as some of the figures given eariler this morning
indicate. On agricultural lands about a third of the job is done, but
there has also been a good deal of work done in these urbanizing areas.
But now we are getting to the point that is we agree that all these things
need to be done and the sediment control problem is a serious one in the
state and if we need to accelerate this work and so forth and so on where
do we go from here. It's my job to talk about one particular approach.
What about the rest across the country as a whole with 66 percent
of the job nationally that remains to be done as far as erosion and sedi-
ment control is concerned.
What about these many, many .more areas that are developing every
year—highway construction and urban development—as we continue to expand
our population and become more urbanized and more mobile society and a
more affluent society.
There seems to be a growing feeling that the day has come when volun-
tary programs may not be enough or fast enough to do the job. People,
now that they have discovered the environment, are impatient. They seem
to want to move ahead faster and want things to be done now. Even though
much has been done, its not enough and it hasn't been done fast enough
and they don't want to wait. We are talking about here, as Mr. Dubois
pointed out, a program of cleaning up the nation's streams by 1985, a
tremendous goal and objective within a relatively short period of time.
There also seems to be at large in society at this point the feeling
that regulation is one of the important ways to achieve these kinds of
things in order to be fair to everybody and in order to get the job done
on time. So, as I have been saying many times, little by little soil
erosion is becoming illegal in this country. There has been a response
over the years and this started many, many years back. I was interested

in the discussions of the man who was talking about the problems in
Minot in a municipality and how it approached these problems after the
Second World War and also in many other communities in North Dakota.
There have been soil and water conservation districts and municipal and
county governments, for example, that have been responding to this for
some time. They have been having and enacting county ordinances and there
are references to many of these in the pack of the material in Mary Garner's
paper in the materials you have of the conference here, some in Maryland,
some in Michigan, some in Minnesota, California, Wisconsin, and Virginia.
1 live in a county in Fairfax County, Virginia, where the county
government has developed a soil erosion sediment control ordinance which
requires certain kinds of actions to be taken in cooperation with the
local soil conservation districts by all those that disturb land within
the county. There are a lot of people disturbing land within the county.
We have over five hundred thousand people in our county, almost as many
as you have in the whole state of North Dakota. You can imagine the
wear and tear on the land if you were to put all your people in one county.
Then there have been things that have gone further than this. States
have declared soil erosion illegal so to speak. The state of Maryland
was one of the first and most widely known laws. South Carolina has such
a law. Ohio passed a law last year. The Virgin Islands passed a law
and just got it under way last fall, and Iowa has perhaps passed one of
the most well publicized of these state laws. The reason the Iowa law
has gotten more attention than some of these earlier ones is because it
was the first one to extend the principle of this kind of mandatory ero-
sion control program to all land, including agricultural land. The
earlier ones dealt mainly with the urban problems and construction-type
There have been developments in Pennsylvania and Illinois, other
kinds of amendments to existing state laws and policies, that have
achieved the same effect and they are, especially in Pennsylvania, fast
under way in dealing with erosion control on the mandatory basis from
this day on. There are laws right now either pending in the legislatures
or ready to be introduced in Virginia, New York, Washington, North Carolina,
and Oregon. The Oregon law is a result of one of the same kind of insti-
tutes that we are conducting here today and tomorrow in North Dakota.
Another thing that is going on, of course, is the Federal Action as
Mr. Dubois outlined to you. These amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and the summary of some of those key amendments is contained
in your package, and I urge you to read those carefully because they do
set forth a step-bywstep process whereby eventually state governments are
going to require to come up with sediment programs that are satisfactory
to the federal government. What you do as a result of this kind of
meeting and the kinds of discussions we have here today and tomorrow can
certainly have an important role in whatever comes out of that process.
This is the background and context of this model law and your presiding
officer here this morning explained it very well, I think, how this came
about and the cooperation between the various agencies and organizations.

Model Law for Sediment Control is just one of 30 proposals that the
Council of State Governments presented to state legislatures in 1973, and
they cover a number of other subjects—alcoholism, marriage and divorce
laws, and other environmental laws—as well as sediment control. It's
just a way of putting before the states one suggested way of dealing with
a particular problem. The conclusion of the task force that developed
this law was to cast it in the form of an amendment to the State Soil
and Water Conservation District Act that existed in all the 50 states
and in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Gary outlined the other details
for your act here in North Dakota.
I will just go through these provisions and try to indicate the
main outline. I know we will be discussing these in these group sessions
this afternoon.
I would like to make two things clear. One is that nobody can con-
sider this model law any kind of a Bible or Holy Scripture. It's a col-
lection of ideas from a number of states that have been doing things,
and if somebody wants to develop a mandatory erosion control program, it
is the suggestion of several people and several organizations as a way
to start thinking about it. Second, I would also like to mention that
it was a committee effort and you know when you get several people
trying to write a law sometimes all the language doesn't quite hang
together. So there are a few gaps and points of confusion, but nobody
expects anybody to adopt it the way it reads here, so that doesn't matter
too much.
I would like to ask all of you to dig this out of your package and
it might help it if we read along enumerating a few of the key provisions
here. We'll just pass over the first few pages of introduction which you
can read at your leisure. They just give the background.
I'd like to start with page 1. At the top where it says "Model
State Act for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, Bill number blank. I'd
just like to refer briefly to the first few lines there. This is cast
as I mentioned, not as a new law, not as something that will stand on its
own, but as "an act to amend the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law
to provide for an acceleration and extension of the program for control
of soil erosion and sediment damage resulting from land disturbing acti-
vities within the State." In other words, we're thinking about accelerating
and extending a program that's already under way by using some additional
means and techniques rather than a whole new program.
The other things we can skip over and go right on to Section 1 which
is on page 2. I think this is important. I'm going to read this whole
section about findings and declaration of policy.
"The Legislature finds that erosion continues to be a serious
problem throughout the State and that rapid shifts in land use
from agricultural and rural to nonagricultural and urbanizing
uses, changes in farm and ranch enterprises, operations, and
ownership, construction of housing, industrial and commercial
developments, streets, highways, recreational areas, schools

and universities, public utilities and facilities, and other
land disturbing activities have accelerated the process of soil
erosion and sediment deposition resulting in pollution of the
waters of the State and damage to domestic, agricultural, in-
dustrial, recreational, fish and wildlife, and other resource
uses. It is, therefore, declared to be the policy of this act
to strengthen and extend the present erosion and sediment con-
trol activities and programs of this State for both rural and
urban lands,(we're talking about the whole thing) and to esta-
blish and implement through the State Soil arid Water. Conserva-
tion Committee (it says commission but it's committee here in
North Dakota) hereinafter referred to as 'districts,' in coop-
eration with counties, municipalities, and other local govern-
ments and subdivisions of this state and other public and pri-
vate entities a statewide comprehensive and coordinated erosion
and sediment control program to conserve and protect land,
water, air, and other resources of the State."
So that's the heart of it—the declaration of policy; that.there is
a serious problem with erosion; that it's acceleration because of all these
changes in our economy and society; and that we need to strengthen and
extend our sediment control program, and it should be done through these
existing agencies that have been created for this purpose in the past.
Section 2 and I'll just read some of this—just this first part,
Paragraph A under definitions.
"'Land disturbing Activity' means any land change which may result
in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments
into State waters or onto lands in the State, including, but not
limited to, tilling, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting
and filling of land, other than Federal lands, except in that
the term shall not include such minor land disturbing activities
as home gardens and individual home landscaping, repairs, and
maintenence work."
Now, before you turn the page, that is designed to cover the whole
thing—again all kinds of land disturbing activities. Obviously since
it's a state law that we are talking about, it can't require the federal
government to do any thing on its land which is why that is excluded
there—"other than federal lands." This last exclusion of minor land dis-
turbing activities was put in there to remind everybody that there are
things that you will probably want to exclude in any.state sediment
control program whether it be home gardens; you may have a surface
mine control program that's already going that doesn't need to come under
this act. In some states they have rather elaborate forest practice con-
trol programs that really accomplish the same thing as sediment control
which may or may not be excluded in the operation of the act. So there
may be some exclusions but basically the thought was to include as much
as possible.
Now, let's go down to page 4, Section 3—State erosion and sediment
control program. Here's where we talk about what you do.

"The Commission shall, in cooperation with State Water Quality
Control Agency and other appropriate State and Federal agencies,
develop and coordinate a comprehensive State erosion and sedi-
ment control program. (This is the beginning. The State
Committee would develop and coordinate a comprehensive State
erosion and sediment control program.) To assist in the develop-
ment of such program, the Commission shall name an advisory
board of not less than seven nor more than 11 members, repre-
senting such interests as housing, financing, industry, agri-
culture, recreation, and local governments, and their planning,
transportation, health, public works, and zoning commissions
or agencies."
Then under Paragraph B: "To implement this program, the Commission
shall develop and adopt guidelines of erosion and sediment control." The
rest of this particular section indicates what those guidelines shall
consist of and the kinds of things that shall be taken into account in
developing the guidelines, such as Paragraph 1 really outlines the fact
that the guidelines should contain information about general resource
facts and conditions within the state and parts of the state and other
regions of the state. On the next page, page 6, Paragraph 2 indicates
that these guidelines should also have included within them an identi-
fication of critical areas, not just the broad situation but what are
the critical areas that need attention first. The third paragraph says
that there shall be*conservation standards included in these guidelines
which include criteria, techniques, and methods for control of erosion
and sediment. Now that's the state program and the state guidelines,
with the help of an advisory committee carried out by the State Soil
and Water Conservation Committee.
Now Section 4 deals with district programs on the district level.
"Each district in the State shall, within so many years after the adop-
tion of the State guidelines, develop and adopt a soil erosion and sedi-
ment control program consistent with the State program and guidelines
for erosion and sediment control." After the state has set forth its
program guidelines the district adopts its own program consistent with
those state program and guidelines. The districts again form an advi-
sory committee to help it in doing that with the same kind of interest
in the community to be represented on the advisory committee.
If you will turn on to page 7, the language at the top goes through
a number of details as to how this shall be reviewed and approved by
the commission and what happens there in the area where there are no
districts. You don't have that situation in North Dakota. What happens
if the district doesn't do the job—the commission is supposed to do
some of this.
Go on down to Paragraph B:
"To carry out its program the district shall, within such and
such a time after the program has been approved by the Commission,
establish, consistent with the State program and guidelines,
conservation standards for various types of soils and land uses,
which standards shall include again criteria, guidelines, tech-
niques, and methods of control of erosion and sediment resulting
from land disturbing activities."

There are in your package some publications that indicate some of
the kinds of information that could be included in both state and district
conservation standards in these kinds of guidelines and standards. Again
there is some more detail on that.
If we get down to page 8, Section 5, I think this is the next point—
Prohibited land disturbing activities. Now here is where the crunch comes.
"Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, no per-
son may be engaged in any land disturbing activity until he
has submitted to the district a plan for erosion and sediment
control for such land disturbing activity and such plan has
been reviewed and approved by the district."
The way this law is set up is that it is divided into sections and this is
really aimed at the private nonagricultural land owner—the builder, the
developer, the nonfarmer, the nonrancher, the construction-type erosion
situation—although the basic idea is carried through for agricultural
and forest land owners as well. If you take that as" the beginning, we
say that you can't engage in a land disturbing activity unless you have
a plan for erosion and sediment control that has been reviewed and
approved by the district.
On the top of page 9 under Paragraph 1, this is how this process
shall be carried out.
"The district shall review plans submitted to it (by such a land-
owner) and shall approve any such plan if it determines that the
plan meets the conservation standards of the district (those
standards which are written out as a matter of public record,
and there has been a public hearing on them and so forth) and
if the person responsible for carrying out the plan certifies
that he will properly perform the erosion and sediment control
measures included in the plan and will conform to the provisions
of this act."
Let's skip over these other things which are really subdivisions
of this, special cases and so on and go on to page 10 to Paragraph E,
which was excluded at the beginning from this general statement and
"Any person owning, occupying, or operating private agricul-
tural forest lands who has a farm or ranch conservation plan
approved by the district and is implementing and maintaining
such plan with respect to normal agricultural and forestry
activities, or any person whose normal agricultural and for-
estry practices are in conformance with the conservation
standards established in pursuant to this act, shall not be
deemed to be engaged in prohibited land disturbing activities."
Again, you see its the same idea. The conservation plan approved by the
districts and in operation being carried out, whether its a construction-
type job or an agricultural operation of some kind. Now, this little

phrase in here beginning "or any person whose normal agricultural activity
and forestry practices are in conformance with the conservation standards
established pursuant to this act," is where there are no soil and water
conservation districts which can make this available or where you have
a situation of the landowner where its obvious that you don't need to go
to the entire matter of,, developing a complete conservation plan because
its, for example, a forest landowner who is maintaining the land in a
completely undisturbed condition or something like that where it is ob-
vious that he is meeting conservation standards. There is that exception.
Some people might not want to have that assumption in this state law, but
that's what that was intended to mean.
At the top of page 11 is another thing that specifically applies to
agricultural landowners and which is why there is not a great big explana-
tion under Section 5 for all these kinds of situations rather than dividing
them up between construction landowners and agricultural landowners. The
model law says, "If there is not available to any such owner, operator,
or occupier at least 50 percent cost-sharing assistance or adequate tech-
nical assistance for the installation of erosion and sediment control
measures required in the approved farm.or ranch plan, etc., etc., etc., he
shall not be deemed to be engaged in prohibited land disturbing activity
subject to penalties under the act." The farmer or rancher, according
to this act that did not have available to him adequate technical assis-
tance and 50 percent cost sharing to carry out his plan, would not be deemed
to be in violation of the act. There was a good deal of debate on this
subject in the task force and the Iowa law which has a 75 percent provi-
sion. They felt that some of the people who developed the Iowa law were
not too happy with that. They thought this meant that nothing would be
done and that this excluded all agricultural landowners. The task force
that developed this law put in 50 percent because they thought that was
about the average amount available under the REAP program. The REAP pro-
gram at this point is no longer with us. This is a shock to the people
in Iowa because they were going to their legislature this year and
asking for over $2,000,000 in state cost-sharing funds to supplement
federal cost-sharing funds so that they could get up to the 75 percent
level and make it available to landowners in the state. The floor has
dropped out from under their feet and they don't know what they are going
to do. There were some people that have dealt with this matter who have
felt very strongly that there needs to be a cost sharing for agricultural
landowners because they are not able, in a general marketing system in
the market place, to recover the cost of the work that they had to do
through the pricing system as compared with a builder-developer who is
putting up X houses and required by this law to carry out erosion and
sediment control work. It cost him so many dollars that he adds on to
the price of his house or shopping center or whatever so he could get it
back. The farmer is not in a position, according to this line of argu-
ment, to be able to recover his costs in that way. In some places, such
as in the state of Hawaii where they're getting ready to go along this
line of sediment control on a mandatory basis, they feel that they should
treat farmers, ranchers, builders, developers all equally and that there
should be no favortism of any kind. It is felt that all should be ex-
pected to carry on this work even though there are public benefits as
well as private benefits in this kind of work. This is a question that

has been debated and thrown into considerable confusion at the moment
because of the action regarding REAP.
Section 6 is the one that is confusing if you do not think about
"Approved plan required for issuance of grading, building, or
other permits. No agency authorized under any other law to
issue grading, building, or other permits for activities involving
land disturbing activities may issue any such permits unless
the applicant therefore submits with his application an erosion
and sediment control plan approved by the district, etc., etc."
The idea is that in any given state you are going to have certain county
governments, municipal governments, townships, cities, whatever, who
already have some kind of permit system in operation that involves
building, grading, or what not that they already are requiring of peo-
ple who want to build houses or develop land or for whatever purpose
disturb land. This, by state law, adds to whatever other requirements
they have for that particular permit, the requirement being an erosion
and sediment control plan approved by the district. It does not set
up any new permit; it simply builds on whatever existing program there
is. Not all counties, not all municipalities have this kind of permit
program, but where they do have them, it automatically would make ero-
sion control a part of the condition of granting that permit.
Section 7 gets down to enforcement. I don't want to read through
all this. There are three main sections under Section A, three main
paragraphs dealing again with three different situations. The first
is a land disturbing activity where a permit is issued. This situa-
tion I just described—if blank county has a permit system, and now
they are requiring an erosion and sediment control program plan approved
by the district as a part of the conditions for granting that permits,
they would enforce this law. They would be responsible, the county,
the municipality, or whoever, for inspection and determination of whether
there is failure to comply with the law and notification of the person
that he has failed to comply and take legal action before the courts.
Under Section B, Other land disturbing activities except agricul-
tural and forestry operation. This would refer to construction-type
(just to use a short way of referring to it) problems where there is no
permit system, where the county or municipality does not have the per-
mit system, where its just out there in the county and nobody has control
over it, and somebody is building houses or building shopping centers
or what not. This provides for enforcement by the soil and water con-
servation districts and the same kind of situation that applies generally
as far as inspection, notification, notification of failure to comply,
and so forth as referred to in the first section. By the way, there's
a typographical error on the top of page 13, fifth line where it says
"and farming operations." That should say "and forestry operations."
If you want to correct your copy, the word forestry should be put in place
of farming on the fifth line on page 13. Then on the next page, Item C
agricultural and forestry operations, to make it simple, the district

enforces these just as they enforce the construction-type erosion problems
where there is no permit system in operation. B and C are very similar
in their wording—there are just a few differences which the lawyers
decided they needed to have a separate section for each of them.
On page 15, Section 8, it simply says that "the district'and Commission
are authorized to cooperate arid"enter into agreements with Federal agency
in connection with plans for erosion and sediment control with respect
to land disturbing activities on lands which are under the jurisdiction
of such Federal agency." A federal agency can work with the district,
get assistance from a district if they choose in dealing with erosion
problems on their lands.
Section 9, Financial and other assistance. "The Commission and the
districts are authorized to receive from Federal, State, or other public
or private sources financial, technical, or other assistance for use in
accomplishing the purposes of this act." Now, I think Bud Lannoye is going
to talk about this some more tomorrow. I would like to say that there
are some people that have put forth the idea that you can accelerate
and develop a massive program of this kind without appropriating any
money to it. Whether you have money for cost sharing or not is one thing.
It seems to me that it is impossible to expect to accomplish a program
of this kind without money for administration, without funds that are
needed for personnel to provide technical assistance to carry it out.
That's my opinion; you will have to come to your own conclusions.
Section 10, Appeals. It provides that any decisions by anybody
under the provision of the act shall be subject to review by the courts.
In Section 11 at the very end, it provides for penalties, injunc-
tions, and other legal actions.
"A violation under sections 5 or 7 of this act shall be deemed
a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subject to a fine
not to exceed $500 or one year's imprisonment for each and every
violation. Each day the violation continues shall constitute
a separate offense."
That sounds pretty strong. It's relatively mild in comparison with a lot
of the fines and provisions for violation of other kinds of pollution
control laws. This is just something you picked out of a ball park whether
it be $500, $1000, one year, or six months. This figure was something
that seemed reasonable to the drafters of the model law.
Again, under Section 12, Appropriations, "Provision should be made
for an appropriation out of funds in the State treasury to finance the
activities authorized by this act."
That's it. There are a lot of details here but those are the basic
principles. I'd be happy to try and answer any questions I could now if
you want to do that. We'll be going into these items in detail at the
workshops and perhaps it would be better if we wait for questions at that

I'd just like to say that it seems to me that any state, and North Dakota
since we are here today, is in this position in connection with all the
needs to decide just how critical erosion and sediment control is a pro-
blem and whether a mandatory program is indeed needed, and what the state
is going to be required to do by the federal government and if there is
going to be a mandatory program, who is going to be responsible for it,
who is going to carry it out. If you are going to have a program, some-
body is going to do it. You need to decide how you want to handle that
part. We present this model law only to help stimulate discussion of
these issues and to encourage you to think about this whole problem. We
hope that whatever you decide to do, you'll take action to accomplish
your objectives. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CHRIS CHRISTMANN: Thank you Dave. Next thing on our pro-
gram is "What is a Conservation Plan." Don Aho is the State Resource
Conservationist from the Soil Conservation Service over in the Federal
Building in Bismarck. Donald Aho.
MR. DONALD AHO: Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen. You notice that
there was reference under the present soil conservation district's act,
which Gary Puppe reviewed, to a conservation plan. There also is reference
to a conservation plan under the proposed model act which Mr. Unger just
reviewed. So, whether we are talking about the proposed model act or
whether we are discussing the current district laws which are operating
in the state of North Dakota, we are dealing with conservation plans.
For that purpose, I'd like to briefly review with you what is this thing
that we call a conservation plan. Probably different people have diffe-
rent things in mind when they think about what a conservation plan is.
There undoubtedly are a number of kinds of documents that are called
conservation plans. The conservation plans that I will be talking to you
about are the type that soil conservation districts and the Soil Conser-
vation Service have been assisting landowners or operators with for some
35 years. These plans deal with proper land use and the conservation
treatment of that land. They are voluntary plans developed by land users
with the technical assistance of Soil Conservation Service specialists.
In the early years these plans were developed almost exclusively to
solve erosion problems on farmlands. Wind erosion control received pri-
mary attention for many years here in North Dakota. In the last several
years, greater attention has bfeen given to water erosion which has in-
creased at an alarming rate.
The demand for conservation planning assistance also has grown rapidly
over the years. Lately many non-agricultural users of land have been seek-
ing help. These include urban land developers, strip miners, and many
A good sound conservation plan can be developed only when we have an
inventory and understanding of the soils that occur on the lands being
planned. To get this inventory we have soil scientists dig many holes

and examine road cuts and the landscape to determine what the soil is
like, not only on the surface but several feet down. The soil scientist
records this information onto aerial photo maps.
The planning specialist, with help of the soil scientist, then makes
many kinds of interpretations from the soils map. The kind of interpre-
tations made depends on who has asked for planning assistance and for what
purpose. For example: A county planning commission wants information for
urban development. We can provide a variety of interpretations. We can
provide one for septic tanks. Here we will interpret the soil in terms of
hazards or limitations for that purpose. We can provide information on the
suitability of the land for low buildings with basements. We can provide
information as to the suitability of the area for streets and roads. We
can provide information as to the areas' suitability for parks, and play
grounds, and so forth.
For overall agricultural purposes, we will classify the land as to
its general suitability for cultivation, grassland, or woodland use.
For detailed planning assistance on an individual farm, we will
determine—field by field—the suitability of the land for its intended
use and the erosion hazards. We will then discuss these in detail with
the farmer and summarize them for his future reference in the form of an
interpretive soil legend.
The farmer's decisions, as to how he will use his land, are then
recorded on a separate aerial photo map. Some of the more permanent
planned conservation treatments will also be shown on that map.
All of the conservation treatments including details of management
are always fully discussed with the farmer. In addition, these treatments
are summarized in narrative form for his future reference. For example:
On cropland we will spell-out the agreed to rotations, residue management
to be followed, and so forth. We will include recommendations for future
improvement of his farming system. Similar recording of agreed'and recom-
mended treatments are made for pastureland, hayland, and other land uses
on the farm.
A conservation plan for non-agricultural purposes also is based upon
needs as determined by a soil survey and the use the land will be put to.
The decisions and recommendations on use and treatment are recorded in the
same manner as for a farm unit.
Multi-county resource plans are useful guides for the development of
individual conservation plans. While they do not provide information on
a field-by-field basis, they usually outline the direction land use should
take. For example: They point out such things as the suitability of a
certain area for irrigation.
A conservation plan, then, in its final form is a document that con-
tains :
1. A soil survey map with interpretations of the soil for the in-
tended uses the land is to be put to.

2.	A land use map that shows what uses the various fields or areas
are planned to be put to. It may also show some of the key treatments
to be applied.
3.	A narrative summary of the land uses and treatments agreed to
be carried out, plus recommendations for improved use and treatment of
the land.
A. Job or instruction sheets on how to carry out the planned conser-
vation treatments.
CHAIRMAN CHRIS CHRISTMANN: Thank you Don. Before we stop for our
coffee break now, I might explain about your registration badge. You
have a number on your badge (1-2-3) that's the various group meetings we
would like you to attend. Group 1 is to go to Embassy Room A; Group 2
is to go to Embassy Room B; and Group 3 is to go to the Regency Room.
We will adjourn for coffee for 15 minutes.

January 17, 1973
The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Conference reconvened at 7:00 P.M.
in the Embassy Room with Mr. Robert Kadrmas presiding as Master of
MASTER OF CEREMONIES ROBERT KADRMAS: We will now begin the banquet
with a speech by Marv Cronberg. He is Western Program Advisor with the
National Association of Conservation Districts. He lives at Cheyenne,
Wyoming. He originally comes from a sheep farm in Wyoming, and when we
had a discussion about pollution once, he said that the water in his home
state is so clean that it does not even support life and this is just
about true of North Dakota also—its just that clean. Being born on a
sheep ranch, he has to be called a sheepherder. About the time he got
old enough to help with the work, his dad sent him out with a band of
sheep—they were just going to see what he could do. So they sent him
out with a band of sheep and knowing that his abilities were quite limited,
they gave him this band of old gentle ewes to take out. When he got
home in the evening, he was just beat; he was dragging his tail and all
sweated up and they couldn't figure out just where he could have had any
problems. They asked him, "Did you have problems?" "Yes," he replied.
They could not figure out where so they grabbed this lantern and went
out to the corral to check the sheep; they saw what was the problem.
He said that the ewes were all right but he sure had problems with the
lambs. Pa knew that he hadn't sent out any lambs in that bunch, and so
he quick went out to check and by golly if Marv hadn't corraled six jack-
rabbits. So Ma and Pa sat down and got their heads together, and they
said, "Well this boy is just not smart enough to be a sheepherder," and
they decided to send him to school to do something else. Here he is. I
give you now Marv Cronberg. He was a friend of mine up until about 30
seconds ago.
MR. MARV CRONBERG: Thank you Bob. My topic at this seminar is
Federal-State Relations, as it pertains to erosion control and sedimen-
tation control. Sedimentation has drawn national interest and the effort
to control this pollutant has gained rapid support in just recent months.
It's really one of those things that "somebody" wants controlled, I think.
I expect if I asked the desk clerk out here at the motel if he wanted
sediment controlled, he. would probably, say "huh" or "what"; but somewhere
along this line the pressure is generating.
It's something like the two college guys that met in the hallway,
and one said to the other, "I'm mad at you; I may never speak to you again.
I heard what you said the other day in class."
"Well, what did I say," the other fellow asked.
"Well I heard that you said you were against ecology."
"No, that isn't what I said. I think ecology is the greatest thing
that ever happened. I think it's going to save the world. I'm completely
in favor of ecology. What I said was that I don't know what it means."

Maybe this is the position some of us found ourselves in today when
the discussions began on sedimentation. It's sort of always been with
us recognizable, but unrecognizable. I have always been used to "tending
ray flocks" along the Medicine Bow River and seeing that muddy water. I
drank it, swam in it, and fished in it and never thought much about it—
never caught many fish either!
Then as man's wisdom grew, as our society became more complex and
much greater in number, we began to discover that this situation, like
many others,, didn' t have to exist. The water didn't have to be muddy,
at least to the degree it was. Moreover, as people concentrated in larger
numbers in smaller areas, they became more acutely aware of the situation
and began asking questions about it. Science began to lend credulfence
to their ideas when they discovered that sediment is the agent that trans-
ports many other pollutants into the water. As the volume of discussion
increased, it began to be heard in the halls of Washington, and we have
today the situation where the mud we are so used to living with, but not
necessarily liking, is going to be brought under control.
One might sum up the general degree of federal and state relations
quite simply. The Environmental Protection Agency has been given the charge
to control non-point sources of pollution, such as sediment. They in turn,
have appealed to the states, and you heard Don Dubois ask for your coopera-
tion to handle this problem. Under the Council of State Governments model
act, the responsibility for control of sedimentation placed in the hands
of a state agency, the Soil and Water Conservation Committee and their
legal sub-divisions, the conservation districts. The EPA's desire to
clear up the water by 1985 would certainly indicate that they are not go-
ing to wait a long time for some degree of implementation to begin at the
state and local level. I think the opportunity afforded us here is in
many ways unique, and as Dave Unger noted, if sediment is determined to
be a critical problem, or a growing problem here in North Dakota, now
is the time to attack it. I had the opportunity to participate in the
Montana Sediment Institute just a few weeks ago, and I heard Ave Linford ,
president of the Soil Conservation Society of America, cite figures on
the silt load of the Yellowstone River. He said that studies indicate
that the annual silt load in that river would cover 35,000 acres each
year to a depth of six inches and that most of this silt is coming from
areas of improper land use. Incidently, Dave, Montana is another state
that has legislation pending as a result of an institute such as this.
In another instance, at the Kansas Institute, a siltation study revealed
a much greater problem than the study principles expected. They were
sounding a small reservoir, a combination recreation and stock pond. The
rancher told them that the pool was 35 feet deep, six years before when
it was constructed. They found that the deepest point in the reservoir
was only nine feet! In six years 26 feet of silt had poured into that
reservoir. Well, I realize that North Dakota is not Montana or Kansas,
but the more of these institutes I attend, the more I become convinced
that the sediment problem is more widespread and acute than originally
Well let us review briefly some of the items stated here today—
items that demonstrate the scope of the problem.

Erosion is not just a rural problem, nor just an urban problem, or
just a geological situation, but a combination of all three. Sedimenta-
tion is not just a local problem, or a state problem, or even a regional
problem, but a national problem because of its extent and its "transportable"
We have heard that there is a growing mistrust with government, part-
icularly among young people, because they want a voice in the policy
decisions that are being made. We have seen demonstrated that the model
act, through state and local inputs and the use of advisory boards, pro-
vides this "citizen" input.
We all believe, I'm sure, that the best government is that government
that is closest to the people, and we have seen in the model act authority
placed in the hands of locally elected officials. We have seen that the
scientific expertise to attack sedimentation certainly exists and is at
We have heard of studies that indicate that prevention is apparently
significantly less expensive than the "cure."
All of us, many times have complained of the tax money we forward
to Washington so a large chunk can be lopped off for administrative pur-
poses, thus leaving too little to get the job done where it will do the
most good. So, in summation on this topic, X would say the relation seems
to indicate that the more we do at the local level, the less we will have
to do at the state level—and the more we do at the state level, the less
we will have to do at the federal level. All of these would mean less
cost and greater efficiency, and I would thing we are all interested in
that type of a program.

January 18, 1973
The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Conference reconvened at 9:00 A.M.
in the Embassy Room with Mr. Leo Klosterman presiding.
CHAIRMAN LEO KLOSTERMAN: Good morning. I am Leo Klosterman, Director
of the North Dakota Association of Soil Conservation Districts. At this
time I would like to turn the program over to Gerald Calhoun, who served
as recorder of Group 1 in yesterday afternoon's group discussions of
Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Model Act.
MR. GERALD CALHOUN: Our group discussed Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the
Model Act. I will not read the entire act nor will I try to cover all
the discussion that took place.
As we ended our discussion we more or less took a vote as to whether
we should recommend a change or addition to the present act. So I will
run through just those items that were recommended as either changing or
adding or deleting.
In Section 1, the section on Findings and Declaration of Policy, the
first item of change is on page 3. Throughout the act it refers to "com-
missions" and we changed this portion on page 3 to the State Soil Conservation
Committee. This is as it is referred to in our state and throughout the
act we will refer to it as "committee" instead of "commission."
Also on that same page where it refers to the soil and water conser-
vation districts, we deleted "and water" so it will read "soil conserva-
tion districts." We had quite a bit of discussion on how serious is the
erosion problem in North Dakota and how rapid are the shifts being made
in land use. So after much discussion it was recommended that the word
"rapid" be deleted on page 2 in Section 1. There were no other recommen-
dations for Section 1.
In Section 2 on definitions the first item that came up was "What is
erosion?" Is it the movement of soil within the field or within the area
of consideration or is it the leaving of soil or materials from the field
unto other lands? It was recommended that the word "erosion" be clearly
defined as it relates to the act.
On page 3 about the second line under Section 2 where it refers to
results in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediment,
it was recommended that after the word "wind" the word "gravity" be in-
serted because erosion does take place from water, wind, or gravity. You
are referring to slides, bank slides, or land slide-type activities that
are natural occurances—earth and gravity. The word "sediment" had quite
a bit of discussion. A little bit of this discussion was centered around
whether sediment included such things as agricultural chemicals, pesticides,
herbicides; so it was recommended that the word "sediment" be defined as
a soil material that is moved by wind, water, or gravity.

Then I guess we kind of got hung up on the word "soil." What is
soil? Is it the top material or how far down does it go? Apparently,
some of the engineers and geologists considered anything below a depth
of eight or ten feet is geological material. So it was recommended
that the first time the word "soil" is used that it be referred to as
"soil and geological material" and then hereafter referred to as "soil."
In case there are materials of a deeper depth, it would be taken care
In Section 3 on page 4, it refers to the State Water Quality
Control Agency, and in North Dakota it is the State Health Department
that is the water quality control agency.
On page 5 there is a blank space for the date to be inserted, and
it was the concensus of the group that this date be established at a
later time or at the time that the bill would be drafted. This would
also depend on some federal action that might be coming up.
In the middle portion on page 5 where it refers to due notice, there
is an asterisk that refers to a footnote. The present soil conservation
district law, Section 4-22-02, refers to due notice, and this would not
have to be changed in any particular way for this act.
On page 6, Item 2 in parenthesis at the top of the page, the question
came up of what is a survey and apparently there are different groups
that have different definitions of survey. So rather than try to define
the word "survey," I believe we retained the meaning by deleting the
first two and one-half lines; delete everything before the words "identify
areas." So Item 2 would begin with "identify areas including. . ." Then
the question came up, "What is the result or what happens from an act of
God—a severe rain storm or a wind storm or some other situation?" What
would be the ramifications of this particular act? The group felt that
any erosion occuring as a result of an act of God is exempt under the
penalty clauses of this particular act as it is written now; since it
would have to have a permit, the individual would be in compliance. That's
all of the recommendations that were made on Sections 1, 2, and 3.
Bill Bosse was our group leader. Bill, do you have any thing that we over-
looked or any other comments?
MR. BILL BOSSE: I think that's probably everything, unless there is
someone that was at our group discussion who would like to add something.
Does anyone in Group 1 have any suggestions that we haven't covered? I
think that you covered everything.
CHAIRMAN LEO KLOSTERMAN: Thank you Gerry. Next we will hear from
Duaine Dodds, who served as recorder for Group 2. This group discussed
Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Model Act.
MR. DUAINE DODDS: Discussion Group 2 was chaired by Allan Knudson,
and we discussed Sections 4, 5, and 6.

In Section 4, on page 6, it deals primarily with the district develop-
ing an erosion and sediment control program and conservation standards
which follow the state plan. One item of concern there was the time period
designated for the district to adopt a soil erosion and sediment control
program consistent with the state program and we indicated that it should
encourage early or timely development of overall district programs.and the
development of conservation standards.
Then within that same section, Section A, it lists a naming of advi-
sory groups or an advisory committee. It states not less than seven or
not more than 11 members should be selected from the various groups such
as housing, finance, and so on. We changed that to a small degree to not
more than 11 members representing, and we added "all pertinent interests
such as," and that is on about the fourth line from the bottom of page 6
and starts out "members representing all pertinent interests such as
housing, finance, industry, agriculture," and so forth.
Now, several items are inferred, I think, within the model act which
came up for discussion and may need clarification later;,I'11 just men-
tion them. (1) Is the advisory committee appointed or elected? Well, I
think it states "named," "the districts shall name an advisory committee,"
which probably means appointed but that probably needs some thought given
to it. (2) How permanent is the advisory committee? The general feeling,
I think, is that this committee once named could be called upon to consult
with the districts in the formulation of a plan and then later on if it
was deemed that changes were necessary, they would probably call on them
again. (3) Another point was that the advisory committee should be resi-
dents of the local district.
In Section 5 which deals with prohibiting land disturbing activities,
the group felt that a time interval should be specified for the district
or commission to approve or reject conservation plans received for review.
The thought here is that there should be a timely approval or rejection
of the plan so people can get on with the work on hand.
On page 10 there is reference to a plan approving authority and that
reference is made without any definition, although we feel that it is the
district or commission, but maybe that needs defining. Then we got into
Subsection E, page 10, which contains a statement relative to a conserva-
tion plan that a rancher may have active now on his farm or ranch which
if he had a plan with the district would exempt him from the program.
We changed this. The first line says, "any person owning, occupying, or
operating private agricultural forest lands who has a current farm or
ranch conservation plan." The thought there would be that a diversified
farm may have changed into a continuous small grain farm and his plan
may not have been updated since the time he originally obtained the plan.
Then on page 11 at the top of the page, we-got into the section that
deals with cost-share assistance and there was quite a bit of discussion
here and this is how we summarized the concensus of our group. If there
is not available to any such owner, operator, or occupier adequate techni-
cal assistance, or if adequate cost-share assistance is not available for
specified practices as designate by the district or committee for the

installation, and then we go on to erosion and sediment control practices,
then he is considered exempt. Now, then let's put it this way. If you
take your text and you go through down to "or occupier,'" the first two
words in the second line we deleted "at least 50 percent cost-share assistance";
then we continued with "adequate technical assistance," and then we inserted,
"or if adequate cost-share assistance is not available for specified
practices as designated by the district or committee for the installation"
and so forth. The thinking of the committee here was that if the district
or committee designated that cost-share assistance was necessary, and if
it were available, we'll say on certain high cost practices, then the
owner, operator, or occupier would obtain this assistance; but they didn't
necessarily want the farm or ranch exempt from soil erosion control if
cost share wasn't available.
Then also in this section, there was discussion relative to concern
for the increased work load for supervisors in reviewing the conservation
plans that are submitted to the district and that possibly compensation
may be necessary if the increased work load is substantial.
Section 6, which deals primarily with securing permits and says that
anyone securing a permit for grading, building, and so on would have to
have a conservation plan before he could obtain his permit from any other
authority. There were no comments or additions made to that section by
our group. This completes our group report.
CHAIRMAN LEO KLOSTEKMAN: Thank you Duaine. That floor mike there
is open if there are any questions of this particular group relative to
Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Model Act; of course, they can be brought
back later after the last group is finished because I think a lot of these
sections sort'of overlap each other... If" there.are no questions, I'll call
Bob Morgan next to give us the report of Group 3 which discussed Sections 7
through 14 of the Model Act.
MR. ROBERT MORGAN: Group 3 covered Sections 7 through 14 of the Model
Act. The group leader was Vernon Krenz.
Section 7 deals with monitoring reports and inspections. I think
we'll cover it by subsections.
Subsection A, Land disturbing activities where permit is issued, is
a little different in that we have here a permit-issuing authority. In-
stead of the district or committee following up on the conservation plan
and seeing that it is carrying out the erosion and sediment control plan,
under Subsection A the permit-issuing authority carries out and sees that
the plan is fulfilled. The comment of the group was that this will put
an additional load on the permit-issuing authority and where will they
get additional funds for this increased work load. The comment,.too, was
that the permit-issuing authority may need further technical assistance
from the district or the committee whoever authorized the plan, because
under Subsection A the permit-issuing authority mast go out and make per-
iodic inspections and see that the contractors are complying with the plan.
The permit-issuing authority may need the technical assistance of the

district or committee after either has made a periodic inspection of the
site as is required by the act. To assist them to arrive at a future
course of action to fulfill requirements of the plan or to understand
portions of the erosion and sediment control plan, provisions should be
made in Subsection A to provide for this consultation or additional
information meeting between the permit issuing authority and the district
or committee. In other words, if the permit issuing authority needs
help from the district or the committee to carry out the provisions of
the erosion and sediment control plan, they should be able to get it
from the district or the committee. That was our only comment on Sub-
section A.
Subsection B, Other land disturbing activities except agricultural
and forestry operations. We took this to mean that the same activities
that are carried on in Subsection A would be carried on in Subsection B,
except in this case there would be no permit-issuing authority in that
local area. The question came up as to what exactly is considered agri-
cultural and what is not. An example of this is, is the construction
of a feedlot lagoon or dike considered agricultural? What if it is done
by the contractor or what if the small lagoon or dike is put in by the
farmer? Would there be any difference in the classification? So our
comment number two, point two, is that there is definitely a need to
clarify the terms "agricultural" and "forestry operations." Clear de-
finitions for "agricultural" and "forestry operations" should be added
to Section 2 definitions.
Point three, the group assumed that the wording, "upon conviction
shall be," should be added to the last sentence in Subsection B as was
done in Subsection A, page 12, between the words "and" and "subject."
If you will look at the bottom of page 12, you'll see that this report
has added the words "upon conviction shall be" in that last sentence on
page 12 in Subsection A. Now we assume that this same wording should
be the same in Subsection B as it is in A. We'll find that we'll be
adding this same wording to Subsection C. There may be some reason
why they didn't do it, but we just assume that it should have been done.
In point four phrases such as "specifying the time" and "within the
specified period" brought forth a great deal of discussion in our group;
that is, referring to the time that the owner or operator has to correct
certain things. When we get into Subsection C, they had a definite time
period; "he shall have six months to commense and shall finish in twelve
months." So we wondered why the difference until we got to discussing
it and since time would or could vary greatly, the committee or the dis-
trict might wish to have this corrected in a day or two days or a week
or maybe a month. We decided that we better leave it as is. Since time
would or could vary greatly from one day to several weeks or months, it
was the concensus of the group that wording is correct and time periods
should be left up to the authority approving the plan, whether it be the
district or the committee.
On Subsection C, page 14, Agricultural and forestry operations. The
group felt that the resident owner, occupier, or operator shall commence
such corrective measures within six months from the date of the notice
and shall complete the same within twelve months of such date. The comments

here were that the group felt that the resident owner, occupier, or
operator might need more than six months in North Dakota to commence
such measures needed for compliance, as frozen ground in November, 1-
December, January, February, March, and parts of April, plus a wet
spring, could actually prevent him from physically beginning to com-
mence such measures needed to comply. Then the group also felt that
there might be cases where the approving authority, the district, or
the committee may want to correct a bad situation in a day, week, or
month instead of waiting six months. So after much discussion on
points one and two that I just mentioned, the group recommended that
the sentence stating, "Such notice shall require that such resident
owner, occupier, or operator shall commence such measures within six
months from the date of the notice and shall complete the same within
twelve months of such date," at the bottom of page 14, should be changed
to read as follows, "Such notice shall specify the time within which
such measures shall be completed by the resident owner, occupier, or
operator of the land involved." In other words, we feel it's better
that the authority, just as we have in Subsection A and B, for the time
specified be given back to the district or the committee or to whoever
approved the plan.
Another comment the group had was	that the wording, "upon conviction
shall be," should be added to the last	sentence of Subsection C, page 15,
between the words "and" and "subject."	This is just keeping it the same
through all the subsections.
Section 8, Cooperation with Federal agencies. The first comment
was that the word "district" should read plural; it should read "districts."
Comment two,.the group wondered if the words "permit-issuing authority"
shouldn't be included in the wording of Section 8. In other words, we
realize that only the district and the commission will be working in
connection with a plan for erosion and sediment control but its possible
that a permit -issuing authority might be involved in issuing a permit
for some construction activity on federal land.
Section 9, Financial and other assistance. First comment that the
group suggested was that Section 9 be changed to read as follows, "The
committee and the districts and where appropriate, the permit-issuing
authorities, are authorized to receive from federal, state, or other
public or private sources financial, technical, or other assistance for
use in accomplishing the purposes of this act." So on your copy if you
will add the words "and where appropriate the permit-issuing authority"
between the words "district" and "aire." In other words, we felt there
would be cases where the permit-issuing authority might need a little
financial assistance; chis should be given consideration.
On Section 10, Appeals, the first comment was that the group did
not wish to comment on which court should be inserted. The second com-
ment was that the group felt that there was a definite need to clarify
the term "decisions." The group recommends that a clear definition for
"decisions" should be added to Section 2 of definitions.

Section 11, Penalties, injunctions and other legal actions. Under
Subsection A the group did discuss the penalties but made no recommended
changes. Subsection B the group found to be okay and Subsection C the
group recommended that the county attorney be changed to the states
On Section 12, Appropriation; Section 13, Separability; and Section 14,
Effective Date; the group found these to be satisfactory.
CHAIRMAN LEO KLOSTEKMAN: That concludes the reports by the group
recorders of yesterday's group discussions of the Model Act.
At this time, I would like to call upon Bud Lannoye, Program
Director of the North Dakota Association of Soil Conservation Districts
for his remarks.
MR. BUD LANNOYE: The topic that I am to talk about is manpower needs
and financial needs. I have a few notes but I don't know how appropriate
they are going to be.
In the model act in one of the last sections that was discussed, it
calls for an appropriation from state funds to finance the act. As far
as the amounts needed are concerned, I don't know who would have this
answer. I don't believe anyone has the experience to say that we are
going to need $50,000, $100,000, or what it might be.
If we go back to some of these other things it does call for cost
sharing to establish a practice. How are these funds going to be pro-
vided? Where are they going to be coming from? Will they be coming from
state appropriation? Will they be coming from federal sources? As the
model act reads, they could come from any source. However, if we're
looking toward funding from the Rural Environmental Assistance Program,
as some of you folks well know, this is no longer available, unless some-
thing happens in the future to change this. So with that in mind, It
would seem that you are going to have to look to other sources for these
kind of funds.
There are possibilities, I suppose, of using revenue-sharing funds,
but this would have to be investigated because I don't know how these
funds are going to be appropriated back to the districts.
A lot of things are going to happen in this act that are going to
require funding. Administration—no question about that to start with.
Monitoring—certainly if you're going to set sediment and soil erosion
loss limits, there is going'to have some sort of monitoring pro-
gram. Are you going to set up limits that allow you, for example, five
tons per acre? If that would be the case, how are you going to know
that five tons have eroded. So this creates a problem. Certainly if
you are going to start a monitoring system throughout the state, you
can visualize that this could cost a considerable amount of money because
any time we talk about monitoring we are talking about people and people
are going to require money.

Now, as we said earlier, the act does authorize the committee or
district to receive funds from the federal, state, or other public or
private sources, but as I have also said, we don't know where these
funds would be available from at the present time.
For an example, the present staff of the State Soil Conservation
Committee is staffed by one person, Gary Puppe, with secretarial help.
So you aren't looking at a lot of people from this standpoint to be
able to assist in the particular program unless you do something further
As far as getting technical assistance from the Soil Conservation
Service, yes, they're staffed throughout North Dakota; but they are run-
ning into the same problems everyone else is budgetwise. Their budgets
remain about the same, but with the cost of everything going up, the
number of people go the other way, so the number of people available for
this particular thing in the immediate future certainly doesn't look
very great. So these are two sources.
Now, if it wouldn't be the State Committee administrating the act
and if another agency would be designated to handle this, for example,
the State Health Department, who already have the air and water pollution
regulations, they have the same problem as everybody else. Financially,
their budgets don't provide enough money to take care of what they have
already, at least as I understand it. So therefore, you can't look to
that source either for a means of money to provide people to do this kind
of monitoring or to administer this act.
Whatever we do, it appears to me that you are going to have to seek
new sources and probably the most logical place would be going to your
state legislature. I think before you can see how much money is going
to be needed, you're going to have to take this act to each of your organ-
izations and work on it. Maybe a task force or something can be set up
and something can be decided upon in this way.
It was alluded to earlier that if the soil conservation districts
are going to do this, and maybe many of you do not know this, but soil
conservation districts supervisors are locally elected officials . . .
and they receive no salary. They can receive mileage from state funds
for attending the local SCD meeting, but that's it. If you are going
to increase the work, load of the supervisor and those elected are all
farmers, chances are that they are not going to take this much more
time away from their business. Some compensation is going to have to
be made somehow or another. What this salary would be, I don't know.
This has been discussed by the districts considerably. Even at the pre-
sent time, with the new programs that come along, they are being pressed
for more time as they go along.
As I see this whole thing, it is going to require money, it's going
to require manpower—the two run hand in hand. You can't separate them.
The kind of act adopted will determine how much money you are going to
need. No matter what kind of act you have, there are going to be addi-
tional funds required for this.

Ray do you have anything else to add to this? If not, that's all
I have. Maybe there are other suggestions from the floor on this parti-
cular subject, and we certainly should hear them.
CHAIRMAN LEO KLOSTERMAN: Thank you Bud. Do you have anything to
add to this Ray?
MR. RAY REICH: Bud and I conferred some on this, and I believe any-
thing I might add would just be repeating what Bud said.
CHAIRMAN LEO KLOSTERMAN: Now I would like to call on Bill Bosse,
Director of the National Association of Conservation Districts for the
follow up and. summary of the program.
MR. BILL BOSSE: Thank you Leo. First of all, I would like to thank
the recorders and everyone that participated in this program yesterday
and today. I thought it was an outstanding conference.
Each of the speakers was knowledgeable and presented a lot of real
good information. I'm sure everyone gained a lot from this meeting and
we finally realize just how important this really is. You can tell by
the group that is here and took such an interest in this. I certainly
hope that we can come up with a recommendation so that two years from
now we can have a law that we can all live with and be satisfied with.
I think we are going to need a task force of some kind and have all
of these organizations represented on this task force. We are going to
need all the help and assistance we can get from every organization to
get this off the ground.
I'm supposed to conclude this conference with a floor discussion and
summary. Does anyone have any comments they wish to make about this con-
ference? What are your recommendations? Are you happy with what we have
done? Are you satisfied? Are there some changes we should make in the
Model Act? I would like to get your reaction. We have a live microphone
in the center of the room If anyone would like to talk about the proposed
model legislation we've been discussing.
MR. GEORGE HEINRICH: Bill, are we going to do something with these
streams our Bureau of Reclamation plans to release additional water in after
Garrison Diversion is completed? Will this cover or enforce the bank
MR. BILL BOSSE.; This hasn't been discussed in my group. I imagine
that they would be involved in this the same as anyone else. If there
is a pollution problem, the Bureau of Reclamation would certainly have to
abide by whatever legislation we adopted.
MR. GEORGE HEINRICH: Once the diversion canal is completed, there
wouldn't necessarily be any personal requirements. All it would be is a

matter of releasing the water to increase the flow; this is what will
cause the erosion and as the law reads it probably wouldn't cover this.
MR. BILL BOSSE: I would think it would be covered. The canals
that are put in by the Bureau of Reclamation are to be seeded down and
they certainly wouldn't create a hazard or erosion problem and leave it.
I would think that they would be included in this the same as every-
thing else.
MR. GEORGE HEINRICH: Yes, where they construct; but what I am trying
to say is, for instance, at the Jamestown Reservoir there will be a
release of additional water on the James River between here and Oakes
which will suffer additional erosion without bank stabilization or channel
stabilization or some manner of preventing additional erosion.
MR. BUD LANNOYE: Excuse me. I don't know if everybody in the back
can hear . . . can we use that floor mike. Then we can also get it on
the recorder so we have your questions.
DR. BAUER: I think that was one of the reasons why we included gra-
vity as an agent of erosion. It was to take care of these contingencies
because stream-bank erosion or a roadside erosion is primarily brought
about by gravity as the transporting agent.
MR. BILL BOSSE: Does that answer your question? Are there any other
comments from the floor? How about some of the other organizations here.
We have quite a few of them here—State ASCS, Dr. Gillis, and Fish and
Wildlife people. Do you have any comments?
MR. KEITH HARMON: Just taking this from a national viewpoint, which
our organization gets involved in, and we're involved in numerous types
of programs—state, federal, and this type of thing—the thing that we
continuously run into, and I think the thing you're up against here is
that there are new funds available but some of us fail to recognize the
fact that there may be some possibilities of shifting priorities. We
run into this with State Game and Fish all the time throughout the nation.
In many cases they are unwilling to let go of past programs, which in some
cases, may not even be functional any more. I'm just throwing this out
as a possible alternative or a possible source of some revenue in this
type of thing. There may be some shifts in priorities, a redirection of
programs to fill in the gaps in some, respects.
MR. BILL BOSSE: Would anyone else like to comment? Charlie Evans,
do you have anything you would like to say?
MR. CHARLES EVANS: I think I've talked enough in two days.
MR. BILL BOSSE: Anyone else like to make a comment? Dave Unger, do
you have anything that you'd like to add while yOu are here?
MR. DAVE UNGER: wo, except to say that I was real impressed with the
discussion in our group, and I had a moment in an other group and the
results of this conference indicate to me that you have really gone into
it throxoughly. I know that I have gotten a lot of good ideas to take

back. Just as I said, this act is no Bible and we will be able to pass
on your suggestions to other states; so I would just like to say that I
have been impressed with the way in which you have conducted the con-
ference and the manner in which you conducted business. Thank you.
MR. BILL BOSSE: Well, it looks like I am going to wind this up
much quicker than I expected. I thought there would be more discussion.
What is the feeling then from the group about having a task force set
up to work on this? It is going to be two years before the legislature
meets again, and we should come up with something real good in two years
time if we have a task force, say one from each of these groups that
are involved. What do you think about that? What is your feeling? Do
you think this is the proper way to go? Should we have an advisory com-
mittee, task force, or something like that? It must be all right; no-
body disagrees with it.
MR. AL REDDIG: Bill, one of the speakers yesterday talked about one
of the biggest problems of soil erosion in North Dakota being summer
fallow. If summer fallow is one of the main causes of erosion in North
Dakota, there is no place in this act so farmers have to put on a cover
crop. You see, ASCS not withstanding, you receive no cost share. You
drive through North Dakota now and you'll have fields from one end of
the state to the other that are not covered with a cover crop, and this
is one of the worst forms of pollution as the speaker said yesterday.
In disturbing land activity, you see hills that are plowed, that are
blowing now, and there are no penalties in the act. Supervisors are not
forcing the farmer to cover crop summer fallow. I think this conference
is a wonderful thing since we are going to have to get into it, but we
have pollution and erosion now, and we have no way of enforcing it.
What this speaker said yesterday was that summer fallow was one of the
worst sources of soil erosion problems that we have in North Dakota.
We got a job to do right now without getting all these advisory boards
MR. BILL BOSSE: That's so true, but this is what this act is sup-
posed to stop. This is the purpose of this in hopes that there is teeth
in here so that we can stop this erosion problem.
PR. FRANK: To that same subject of erosion due to 6ummer fallow,
I have a question. We heard yesterday from Mr. Evans that less than 20
percent of a summer fallowed land is unprotected. On the other hand,
there is literature according to which the Fish and Wildlife people
found 98 percent of summer fallow land in North Dakota unprotected. Now,
I don't know where such enormous differences come from. I know monitoring
costs money and that may have something to do with it, but 98 percent
or less than 20 percent are such enormous differences that what are act-
ually the facts?
MR. BOB MORGAN: The Fish and Wildlife in this case happen to be the
Game and Fish Department. Since I was in charge of this survey, I had
better answer the question. Our report indicated that 98 percent of the
1971 set aside acres were summerfallowed. So there isn't necessarily any
discrepency between what Mr. Evans said and what I say. We say that you
can't produce much wildlife or summer fallow and that's the reason we made
the point.

MR. ALLAN KNUDSON: I don't want the group to go away with the
opinion that summer fallow would not come under this law. Our group,
discussion group two, discussed the 50 percent cost-share line; I
believe it was our general agreement that 50 percent cost-share line
should be struck completely in favor of allowing the district and com-
mittee to decide what cost would be needed or if any cost share would
be needed. Now, I'm sure that districts and committees would not
require cost-share assistance to enforce adequate summer fallow pro-
tection. I see no reason that if we strike the 50 percent cost share,
why we can't say that this law does not cover the summer-fallow problem
as we have it today. I'd like to have you say a few more words now or
do you agree that that would take care of it?
MR. AL REDDIG: Yes, but it can or cannot put on a cover crop and
the supervisors cannot force him to put on a cover crop.
MR. ALLAN KNUDSON: Yes, they could force him to put on a cover
MR. AL REDDIG: Yes, if we go through with this. But as it is now,
I've never heard of it.
MR. ALLAN KNUDSON: Okay, what you were referring to is what has
been in the past., You are not referring to what we might do /by this law.
MR. BILL BOSSE: Thank you Allan. Vernon Krenz, would you like to
make some remarks from your group or anything you would like to add?
MR. VERNON KRENZ: Well, I think Bob did a pretty good job of re-
porting, an excellent job; however, if there is anyone here that parti-
cipated in Group 3 that has anything that they would like to bring up,
Bill, it would be an excellent time to do it. We had a real good group
discussion but should there be anything else that should be brought up
at this time, it would be the right time to do it.
MR. BILL BOSSE: Thank you Vernon. Jack Bond, do you have any com-
ments to add?
MR. JACK BOND: I was in Section 2 yesterday, and it relates to the
current discussion relative to this paragraph on page 11. One of the
thoughts, I think that to a degree represents the concensus of the commit-
tee in those instances which cost sharing may or may not be available,
could be greatly simplified or clarified if the following statement were
added in the beginning of that paragraph; specifically, "If the district
or committee rules that cost sharing should be provided, and if it is not
available," etc. as is expressed in the statement then I think it would
clear up the point in instances with respect to cost sharing.
MR. BILL BOSSE; Those that were in proup 2, did you get this?
MR. DUAINE DODDS: Bill, we were taking that comment into mind when
we were trying to incorporate it into that first paragraph. If that is
more clear, that's fine.

MR. CHARLES EVANS: Bill, I said that I would keep quiet, but there
are a couple of things that I would like to clarify. Yesterday, I made
the statement, basically, that there is less than 20 percent of summer
fallow that is being damaged by wind erosion, but there is protection of
one type or another on a large percentage of it. That 20 percent is based
upon the field checks that we have during periods of high winds when
there was a serious wind erosion taking place. I would suggest to those
of you that question it the next time there is a high wind with consider-
able wind erosion taking place, that you pick out a section of land and
drive around it and just see which fields are blowing and which are not.
When we have winds of erosive velocity if you would do that and take a
field check and you will find that there is a pretty small percentage
of land that is actually blowing seriously enough to get above our five
tons per acre loss. There is one other statement made yesterday which
is true; that is, that the wind erosion reports that we in the Soil
Conservation Service publish during the wind erosion season indicate that
North Dakota is second to Texas in the amount of acreage damaged and the
amount of acreage subject to wind erosion. I would like all of you to
know this, that North Dakota is the only state in the Great Plains area
that makes that study in every county in the state. The other states do
it on a sample basis of about 20 percent of the counties, so naturally
we will come up with a higher acreage subjected to wind erosion and a
higher acreage damaged than the other states. So the next time you see
those wind erosion reports, remember that that reflects an estimate for
every county in North Dakota; whereas in Oklahoma or Kansas, it's about
20 percent of the counties. Maybe if you multiply the conditions of
those other states by four or five, why you'll get a more comparable fi-
gure than the way in which it has been interpreted by some people.
MR. BILL BOSSE: Thank you Charlie. Getting back to Mr. Bond's
recommendation, if this would be all right with the leader of Section 2
and the recorder that it be recorded that way, I would like to hear your
comments on that. Allan?
MR. ALLAN KNUDSON: We really struggled with that, as Jack knows,
and I am not quite clear on what your suggestion would change.
MR. JACK BOND: My comments aren't necessarily in terms of the recom-
mendation. I was attempting to translate some of the discussion as you
recall, Allan.
MR. ALLAN KNUDSON: Let's try and do it together here so we can change
some of the words. I still don't know just what you want.
MR. JACK BOND: As it stands and taking the paragraph and striking
out, "at least 50 percent cost-share assestments," or striking out all
those words and then adding after "technical assistance," "or if adequate
cost-share assistance is not available." This implies to me that if cost-
share assistance is not available, then the last paragraph shall not be
deemed engaged in any prohibited land-disturbing activity. It does
not have a statement relative to those instances in which cost sharing
is not used appropriately. My interpretation may be wrong here, too.

MR. ALLAN KNUDSON: Okay, that was the reason why we added "for
specified practices" in trying to say the same thing as you are trying
to say here. We are giving the district and committee the power to
specify practices that were large enough in cost to require cost share.
We were having trouble wording this, do come back with your reading again
and maybe it says what we want to say, better than ours does.
MR. JACK BOND: What I indicated is to begin the- paragraph with
the statement similar to the following: "If the district or committee
rules that cost sharing should be provided, and if these are not avail-
able," etc., etc.
MR. ALLAN KNUDSON: Okay, then the next thing we were attempting
to do was to allow the district or committee to determine what was
adequate cost share so that in some instances zero amount would be ade-
quate or in other instances 90 percent may be required. That is why we
added those words.
MR. JACK BOND: Allan, could you read those words again. I think
it would help everybody understand this point—the ones that you recom-
MR. ALLAN KNUDSON: All right, then starting at the top of page 11,
"If there is not available to any such owner, operator, or occupier
adequate technical assistance of if adequate cost-share assistance is not
available for specified practices as designated by the district or commit-
tee for the installation of erosion and sediment control measures
required," and then it goes on to exempt those who do not have cost share
if an adequate cost share level has been determined by the committee or
district. It goes on to exempt them if they do not have that level of
cost share.
MR. GERALD CALHOUN: I missed the three words "for specified
practices" in taking my notes. I'm sorry.
MR. ALLAN KNUDSON: Do you think that makes our thinking somewhat
along the same line or is there a suggestion again to make a change here?
MR. BILL BOSSE: Is there any other discussion on this part of Section 2?
Okay, we'll continue then with any other recommendations from the group.
MR. RICHARD FRANK: I have a question about shelter belts. The Soil
Conservation Districts are justifiably proud of the shelterbelts that
are being planted every year. I have a question. Is the shelterbelt
sheltered against being taken down? Several of my friends claim having
seen shelterbelts being taken down by individual farmers on their property
in recent years, and I wonder if the shelterbelt is being put up with
some public funds helping. Now, how is it—does the individual farmer
have the right of property of doing with the shelterbelt what he pleases?
Can he take it down as he pleases or does the Soil Conservation Districts
have a word to say in this? If it has a word to say in providing the
means for putting it up, somehow logically it should also be asked if
it can be taken down. I wonder about this from a legal point.

MR. BILL BOSSE: Okay, does anyone want to answer this?
MR. MARTIN BUCHLI: I think as far as the shelterbelt, the question
is, where they are destroying a shelterbelt that has been established and
if ASCS paid a cost share under the ACP or REAP program would he be re-
quired to maintain it, and if he doas not maintain it, would he be required
to pay back the cost share? I think what we are getting into are these
type of cases where these shelterbelts have been destroyed after ten or
15 years. ASCS no longer has a record in our office on these kinds as
to whether we paid cost share or not; therefore, the man may not be required
to pay back the cost share.
MR. BILL BOSSE: Okay, thank you Marty. Is' there any one that would
like to make any comments?
MR. HARVEY MILLER: I am chairman of the Soil Erosion Committee for
the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society. The Chapter in 1968
set up a committee for this purpose of investigating the magnitude of the
problem of soil erosion principally from wind in North Dakota and of
recommending means of accelerating.the application of treatments neces-
sary to stop or to reduce that problem. In 1970 the Chapter resolved to
ask the legislature to pass or consider legislation similar to the Colorado
State Law regarding wind erosion and that was submitted to a senator for
introduction. It was withdrawn at his request because of inadequate tech-
nical backing for the measures that might be considered treatments, the
standards as proposed by this law, and for some other political ramifi-
cations which I don't understand. Hence, I personally am considerably
interested in the matter of soil erosion and delighted to see that water
erosion is included. I am disappointed in seeing the amount of time it
looks like this is going to take. Is there any particular reason why
the model legislation will be prevented from introduction this year? I
understand that, for example, they have until next Tuesday to introduce
a bill openly. Following that they will have to go through a special
select committee but could I ask that question, What are the chances of
getting it done now? As I would understand, the act in itself provides
some time for the state committee to prepare the state guidelines, con-
ceivably a year or so, then for the district to have a year or more to
develop their guidelines, and in effect this would be four or five years
possibly after the passage of the act before anything would be done
anyhow. Second question—it appears to me that this act has some parallel
in the possible comprehensive land use planning that may be required by
proposed legislation in the National Congress, but what correlation of
this act and our planning might you be considering in the state committees?
MR. BILL BOSSE: Does anyone want to attempt to. answer these ques-
tions? In regard to getting this ready for the legislature, I don't
know whether this would be possible. It was my thinking that possibly
these different groups, this task force that is going to sit down and
work this out. To get something that they are all satisfied with might
take a day or so, I don't know. Does anybody want to comment on it? Bud?
MR. BUD LANNOYE: I think the discussion from the Soil Conservation
Districts Annual Meeting and other discussions we have had with super-
visors that since this model state act has such broad application, that

it was their feeling at least that we should hold a conference of this
kind and from this conference hopefully each of the organizations would
take this home and have some time to discuss this without hastily going
into the legislature and all of a sudden finding someone coming up and
throwing you out on your ear. This could happen very easily with legis-
lation of this type because it does have a broad application. I am
sure even in this group although we sent out many, many invitations on
it that there are undoubtly many groups that have been missed and maybe
through the news media they would be come aware of it and start asking
questions. So, I think from the standpoint of soil conservation districts
and from the discussion they have had prior to this time on this act,
that they thought it would be best if a task force could be set up and
work on this to get the wording that will agree pretty much with every-
one here. I realize that you've gone through two days of group discus-
sions on this particular subject and have come up with some wording,
but maybe there are other things that you are going to see in this as
you study it further.
MR. DAVE UNGER: Mr. Miller, in regards to your second question,
Senator Jackson introduced his land use policy bill that was passed by
the Senate last year. He reintroduced it last Wednesday, I believe it
is SB 268 this time around. Some of you may want to get ahold of a copy.
It is identical to the bill that was passed in the Senate and not the
House last year. That bill in its present form is pretty much a matter
of giving grants and money to the states to get their state land use plans
processed and in operation. It would obviously,.as it developes in the
states, the state land use plans would have some correlation with sedi-
ment control programs and other kinds of things that we were talking about
at this meeting. I don't see any reason why there should necessarily be
any conflict between these two approaches at this point and that as your
state would develop its own land use plan in connection with this national
act, if it passed, and it probably will in one form or another, that the
work that you have been doing in sediment control can be incorporated
in it and be compatible with it. Now maybe someone else has another
MR. BILL BOSSE: Does that answer your question, Mr. Miller?
MR. HARVEY MILLER: Yes, quite well. Is there a possibility that
the funding will be useful in the model act?
MR. DAVE UNGER: It will depend on the interpretation in the law and
what the state planning agency would decide is a part of the land use
planning effort. I don't think it would have any value in the administra-
tion and enforcement of an act like this. It can conceivably be helpful
in preparing the plan for this kind of work.
MR. ROBERT MILLER: I'm Robert Miller representing the U. S. Forest
Service of Billings, Montana. A couple of points that I. would like to
bring out here, our viewpoint. One: as far as the state of North Dakota
as it relates to other areas such as our situation in Montana, I certainly
would not want to lose heart if I were you as far as a progressive atti-
tude and a good start on this act—you sure have it. I know for a fact

that North Dakota is way out there in front, and you should keep right
on going. Another point that you might consider here, that is the thing
that we are facing in the Badlands area relative to coal development,
strip mining, and this sort of thing. If a two year lapse or more occurs
because of the mechanics, the ground work, etc., before this act goes
into effect, then its apt to have much less affect on strip mining reclama-
tion. Now, the state of North Dakota is going to face this pretty darn
soon. I know its only one phase, one part of the problem, but its going
to be in some very vital watersheds. In many cases its going to be tied
in with the Badlands, the Little Missouri grasslands, and we're trying
to work with companies like Burlington Northern to get something going
on a plan basis to tie in with the Little Missouri plan and the national
land use planning efforts that are going to come out. I agree with the
other gentleman here that time is of essence and if we could have some-
thing like this on the books before we start turning the ground on coal,
we would be that much further ahead.
MR. BILL BOSSE: Thank you sir for those comments.
MR. BUD LANNOYE: Relative to your comments, of course, I am sure
that you are aware that there is a bill in our state legislature to amend
our mine reclamation act, and as I read that reclamation bill, there
could be prohibitions on some phases of these things. It certainly does
require reclamation, and erosion and sedimentation should be and will be
considered as part of that plan, I'm sure, by the administrative agency
in the mining area. So I think part of your problem is covered.
I'd like to refer to two other things. To Dr. Frank in your question
about some tree belts being taken out and this is true. We made a survey
recently, and I can't remember the figures of the number of miles that
were taken out in North Dakota, but really it was quite small. Our survey
was taken by writing to each of our soil conservation districts and asking
the board members to estimate in their area how many tree belts had gone
out and then we followed up with another question as to how many tree
belts they expected to go out in the future, and it was very small.
Basically, those that were going out possibily was due to some poor plan-
ning or some things we did not know about planning in the early days
when they started this. I think if you will look in your particular area
there, that you will find that there are some of the big wide belts that
are going out. May be there is also a disease problem in them. We don't
know for sure, but these are the ones we feel that have been going out.
Also in referring to Albert Reddig's question on the things that super-
visors can do, this might be something worthy of further investigation.
We do, as Gary said yesterday, have a portion of our State Soil Conserva-
tion Districts Law that refers to land use regulation. Now, depending
on the interpretation that would come from something like this, there may
be something there that could be used immediately, but basically that
land use regulation clause calls for someone to put in a complaint; the
district supervisors then would have to have a hearing and then before
anything can be done, you would have to have a referendum of the vote of
the people on the particular problem. So again, there could be time in-
volved, but may be this is an avenue for a shorter approach. Now, those

of you that are interested from the mine standpoint, we did inquire
could this last act be used relative to regulation in this area and the
answer we received verbally was no, that the other reclamation law
takes presidence over this particular part. So apparently, this land
use regulation couldn't be used in this area. 1 don't know if this
clarifies or helps anything, but I thought it was a point of informa-
tion for you.
MR. BILL BOSSE: Thank you Bud. Is there anyone else that would
like to make some comments?
MR. ROLF BERG: One comment here in the definitions. We have the
committee, the districts, and everybody else defined. This permit-
issuing authority, I think, should be defined too, because as time-runs
on, you get more authorities and more people involved. The districts and
committee will be working with these groups, and I thought may be there
should be more of a definition as to who the permit-issuing authority
is. Who is the permit issuing authority? May be this should be in the
MR. DAVE UNGER: This actually refers to those agencies under
Section 6, such as the county or municipality that have the authority
and issuing permits to those grading or whatever, but it is used so
many times that it would probably be a good idea.
MR. HOWARD BIER: Some of the problems, when you start pinning
down permit-issuing authorities or something like-this, is that anytime
there is a change in the permit-issuing authority, then your law is out
of compliance and you have to amend it every session of the legislature.
So a little broader concept is a little better in writing a law like
this, otherwise you are not current every session of the legislature.
Another point I might say about rushing into introducing a piece of
legislation like this is it has to be approved for form and style. This
is generally done by the Legislative Council. It has to be introduced
by a Representative or a Senator. I would say that there isn't time
to get it in this session. You don't have adequate agreement on the
Act yet. It takes some time to write the bill. You don't have public
opinion in your favor as yet. I believe the Iowa people went out and
held meetings in their soil conservation districts and in this way got
support for their Iowa bill. I just don't think there is time to intro-
duce it in this session. I think it would do more harm than good.
MR. HARVEY MILLER: I would juut like to comment to the task force
that they consider the coincidental development of guidelines for both
the committee and the districts with the development of the act itself.
MR. ALLAN KNUDSON: Who is the task force and how are they appointed?
MR. BILL BOSSE: This is something I would like to have a suggestion
from the group. First, we had better find out if we want a task force.
This is one question I would like to get from the group now; do you feel
this is the proper direction to go? Should we organize a task force to
work on this in the next two years, so that every organization that has

anything to do with sediment control or interested in it has a repre-
sentative on this committee or this group? Do you think this is the right
way to go?
MR. RAY REICH: I represent the State Committee. I think the only
route this can go is the "task force." Who else is going to do it? I'm
thinking this is going to be difficult with all the different agencies
that we'd like to represent. How are you going to make a workable task
force that is small enough so it can be functional? I understand there
are many agencies in the state that should be included, and I don't
know what the solution and who is going to appoint this task force. Some-
how we have to come up with an X number of people and a small enough group
that can put the thing together properly. I agree that it is not right
to go into this thing hastily and get a lot of repercussions. Public
opinion is a big thing in this, too.
MR. BILL BOSSE: I would like to make this suggestion if we do have
a task force that we don't tie it down to a certain number of people.
We should leave this flexible enough so that if there is an organization
or some group that we don't think about today, or we don't think about
two months from now, that they would not be excluded from this task force.
I think that everyone should be included. This is why if we do have a
task force, I would rather see that left open so that other groups could
be included in this. That would be my suggestion. I am sure that by
just spending two days at this, we are not covering everything., and I
know that there are probably other people that want to be involved in
this and we should leave an open door.
MR. GARY PUPPE: If I could just make a few comments at this time.
This conference has been planned for about the past three to four months
when we first selected the date. This is being sponsored by the
North Dakota Association of Soil Conservation Districts and the State
Soil Conservation Committee. We sent out invitations to 74 or 75 agencies
and organizations, and if we are talking about a task force of representa-
tives from each of these, we are going to have a meeting the size of
this or more. It gets to be a cumbersome thing. If you select a lesser
number of people, you are going to leave some out. Possibly, you want
to go along the lines of one representing the real estate business,
somebody from the highway development, somebody from agriculture, some-
body from urban development, and some of these different areas that are
covered in the model act. But to work with 75 people or even more, would
be a problem. There's the possibility that we have even left some out.
This was quite evident from some of the phone calls we received—why wasn't
I invited? It's real difficult to determine how many we should invite
and at the same time try and get everybody. There are some people that
we overlooked, but we hope that there are no hard feelings. We just
wanted to call key people or people who we thought were in key positions
in the state representing as many different interests as possible to get
your ideas on what direction to go on this particular model act.
MR. MARV CRONBERG: The intent of this model act is directed at the
State Committee and the conservation districts that is to .implement-

this thing, and I thought your Governor gave you a pretty good charge
along this line. I would like to suggest as Howard Bier says that one
of the first things you have to do is to talk to your own people, these
are important people, because they are directly involved in this thing.
So, I would suggest that the charge for the appointment of this taak
force would be at the discretion of your commission or committee, and
Ray, I think that probably is one of the things that you would want to
discuss with your group. I believe that you do have the fairness and
the intellegence to select industrial representatives as Gary noted,
to decide just exactly how you are going to approach this thing. I
believe the appointment of the task force should come from and through
the Soil Conservation Committee here in North Dakota. That is the way
it has been done in other states, incidently.
MR. BILL BOSSE: Thank you for those comments, Marv.
MR. RAY REICH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to
Marv Cronberg. What has been the size of task forces in other areas?
MR. MARV CRONBERG: I can't give you a specific figure on that, Ray.
Perhaps Dave knows.
MR. DAVE UNGER: In other states, 12 or 15. In some cases, they
have appointed advisors and advisory members to sit with them to observe
and provide comments when necessary but not to be involved at all in the
discussions. Certainly, no matter what size task force you have, it
should be a reasonable number in order to get the work accomplished. You
will want to constantly consult with all these other 74 or 75 other interests
you are dealing with by sending them copies of your drafts, getting com-
ments back, possibly holding meetings, and so forth. Even if you have
ten people on the task force, they can't represent every interest, and
you will have to get ideas from all these other people, too.
MR. BILL BOSSE: Thank you, Dave. Are there any other comments in
regard to the size or those that should be eligible to serve on the task
force? Well, would it be okay then if we dropped this in the lap of the
State Committee to go ahead and appoint a task force. Ray and Gary
would you accept that responsibility?
MR. RAY REICH: Well, I would like to have Gary comment on this.
We have our official meeting, and we will certainly give it serious con-
sideration. I think we have a good enough deep thinking group that they
will probably accept the responsibility.
MR. GARY PUPPE: i think this is something we are going to take a
real close look at. If we look at our particular soil conservation
districts' law, what we are talking about here is a model state act for
soil erosion and sediment control and one of the duties of the State
Committee is to represent the state in matters affecting soil conserva-
tion. I think something like this fits into it hand in glove. As was
pointed out by Chairman Ray Reich, we have our State Committee meeting
coming up Monday morning and this will be on the agenda. I am sure we
will accept the responsibility for this.

MR. BILL BOSSE: I think possibly if you wanted to, it wouldn't
hurt if the State Association of Conservation Districts be involved in
this also. The districts are going to be the ones held responsible
for carrying this out if we do get an act. They probably should be
involved in this too as advisors or something. Is there any further
discussion on that? Are you happy with this law as the way we have
discussed it today? Do you think we are going the right direction?
It sounded like the comments from everyone of those that have taken the
microphone are pretty much satisfied with what we are doing. If there
are no other comments, again I want to thank you people for attending
this conference. It's been a real good conference.
MR. BOB MORGAN: I would hope now, and I assume this is what you
will do, will be take all these comments and then make up a new model
law and mail it out to all the participants.
MR. GARY PUPPE: If you folks have noticed, we have had this tape
recorder up here for the last day and a half. We have asked people who
have been on the scheduled program like yesterday to have a copy of their,
prepared remarks available, and at the same time we have been recording
the conference. Now, everyone who registered at this conference will
receive a copy of the printed proceedings. So, you will have in print
what everybody said at this conference. Now, just to touch on possibly
how we will handle this task force. We are going to be just as fair
as we can about this. This Model Act doesn't only affect farmers in
North Dakota, it affects just about everybody. When we are talking
about land-disturbing activities, as it is mentioned in the law, it in-
cludes just about everything except for home gardening and landscaping ,
and some minor improvements. So its a pretty broad thing. The sug-
gestion from Bob Morgan that the model act be rewritten and be sent out
for comments from the people we invited to this meeting, I'm sure will
be done. It's just the idea of running off some additional copies,
mailing them out, and giving you folks time to comment on them because
this is the reason we invited you to this conference—to get your sug-
gestions on which way to go and we certainly do not want to drop it
at this point. We want to continue to seek your advice as we set this
thing up because as you folks are representing different organizations
and different people throughout the state, this Model Act is going to
affect them also.
MR. BILL BOSSE: Anyone else like to make some comments? With that
I sure want to thank you people for attending this fine conference. It
looks like we are going in the right direction, and we hope that the
enthusiasm keeps on as we work on this and hope that you come up with
some real good ideas on this law. Thank again for coming.
CHAIRMAN LEO KLOSTERMAN: Thank you Bill. This will adjourn our

Bismarck, North Dakota; January 17 and 18, 1973
Governor Arthur A. Link
Governor of the State of North Dakota
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Cas Aarestad, Supervisor
Griggs County SCD
Cooperstown, North Dakota 58425
Mr. Donald T. Aho
State Resource Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
Box 1458
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Robert Andes, Sr., Supervisor
Ft. Berthold SCD
Parshall, North Dakota 58770
Mr. Richard H. Bares
Research Assistant
Institute for Ecological Studies
University of North Dakota
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58201
Mr. Armand Bauer
Professor of Soils
North Dakota State University
Soils Department
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
Mr. Dale D. Bautz
Program Director
Soil Conservation District
Beach, North Dakota 58621
Mr. Gordon Berg
Sweet Water - Dry Lake Water
Management District
Webster, North Dakota 58382
Mr. 0. K. Berg
Area Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
1213^ N. P. Avenue
Branick Building
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
Mr. Rolf Berg, Director
North Dakota Association of
Soil Conservation Districts
Maddock, North Dakota 58348
Mr. Howard F. Bier
North Dakota 58544
Mr. Jack Bond Director
Agricultural Research Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Northern Great Plains Research Center
Box 459
Mandan, North Dakota 58554
Mr. William Bosse, Director
National Association of
Conservation Districts
Cogswell, North Dakota 58017
Mr. Martin Buchli
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
Mr. Alfred Bye
County Extension Agent
Extension Service
304 East Broadway
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Gerald R. Calhoun
Assistant State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
Box 1458
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. L. D. (Lee) Christensen
State Senator
Kenmare, North Dakota 58746
Mr. Gene A. Christianson, Director
Division of Environmental Engineering
N. D. State Department of Health
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501

Mr. Chris H. Christmann, President
North Dakota Association of
Soil Conservation Districts
Lemmon, South Dakota 57638
Mr. Donald Cline, Director
North Dakota Association of
Soil Conservation Districts
Beulah, North Dakota 58523
Mr. Robert E. Conklin
Project Coordinator
Lake Agassiz Area RC&D Project
102 Federal Building & Courthouse
655 First Avenue North
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
Mr. Marvin Cronberg
Program Advisor
National Association of
Conservation Districts
1603 Central Avenue
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
Mr. Elvin C. Dahl
Reclamation Inspector
Public Service Commission
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. John R. Davis, Chief
Planning and Assistance
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Building
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Rep. Lawrence Dick, Chairman
Natural Resources Committee
North Dakota 58028
Mr. Theo Dockter, Chairman
Sheridan County SCD
Denhoff, North Dakota 58430
Mr. Duaine L. Dodds
Extension Soil Conservationist
N. D. Cooperative Extension Service
North Dakota State University
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
Mr. Don Dubois
Deputy Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Mr. Joseph Dusek, Supervisor
Three Rivers SCD
Route 1
Grafton, North Dakota 58237
Mr. Russ Dushinske
Executive Vice President
N. D. Water Users Association
Box 5007
Minot, North Dakota 58701
Mr. John Eggl, Supervisor
Towner County SCD
Cando, North Dakota 58324
Mr. James Engelhart, Supervisor
Mcintosh County SCD
Venturia, North Dakota 58489
Senator & Mrs. Walter Erdman
North Dakota 58318
Mr. Ron Erickson, Biologist
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Building
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Charles A.' Evans
State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
Box 1458
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Richard Fenske
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
Carrington, North Dakota 58421
Mr. Robert C. Fields, President
N. D. Chapter - The Wildlife Society
Salyer Refuge
Upham, North Dakota 58789
Mr. Francis W. Fischer, Supervisor
Bowman-Slope SCD
Bowman, North Dakota 58623
Mr. Edward Flanagan, Supervisor
South Burleigh County SCD
Route 1
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501

Dr. Richard E. Frank
Associate Director
Institute for Ecological Studies
University of North Dakota
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58201
Mr. Warren Froelich,
County Extension Agent
Bowman, North Dakota 58623
Mr. Clayton N. Gerboth, Geologist
The North American Coal Corp.
Box 1916
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Kenneth A. Gilles
Vice President
North Dakota State University
State University Station
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
Mr. Richard Gilmore
District Forester
N. D. Forest Service
501 Webster
Lisbon, North Dakota 58054
Mr. Frank Gowan, Supervisor
Eastern Grand Forks County SCD
Oslo, Minnesota 56744
Mr. James Gritman, Area Manager
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Building
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Burnett Grove, Supervisor
Eastern Grand Forks County SCD
Reynolds, North Dakota 58275
Mr. Elmer Hammer, Supervisor
Walsh County SCD
Fairdale, North Dakota 58229
Mr. Keith W. Harmon
Field Representative
Wildlife Management Institute
Route 2
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
Mr. Dale Hegreberg, Director
North Dakota Association of
Soil Conservation Districts
505 24th Street N. W.
Minot, North Dakota 58701
Mr. George Heinrich, Member
State Soil Conservation Committee
Adrian, North Dakota 58410
Mr. Rudolf Hildebrand, Chairman
Mercer County SCD
Hazen, North Dakota 58545
Mr. Lee W. Hinds, Manager
Lincoln-Oakes Nursery
Box 1601
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. H. S. (Red) Hokenstad
Ass 11 State Resource Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
Box 1458
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Logan Holm
Holm Construction
604 Sixth Avenue N. W.
Mandan, North Dakota 58554
Mr. Robert Hughes
District Supervisor
N. D. Cooperative Extension Service
North Dakota State University
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
Mr. Don Jacob
State Representative
1003 Boyd Drive
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58201
Mr. Harold Jelleberg
Area Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
Rm. 301, Fedl. Bldg., 1st Ave. & N. 4th St.
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58201
Mr. David E. Johnson, Chairman
East Morton SCD
Route 4
Mandan, North Dakota 58554
Mr. Harry Johnson, Supervisor
North Central SCD
Fillmore, North Dakota 58333
Mr. Jerome E. Johnson
Associate Professor
Agricultural Economics Department
North Dakota State University
Fargo, North Dakota 58102

Mr. David A. Jordan, Conservationist
Montana Dakota Utilities
400 North Fourth Street
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. R. F. Kadrmas, Director
North Dakota Association of
Soil Conservation Districts
Route 3 Box 113
Dickinson, North Dakota 58601
Mr. Angus K. Kennedy
McKenzie County Grazing Ass'n.
Watford City, North Dakota 58854
Mr. Leo Klosterman, Director
North Dakota Association of
Soil Conservation Districts
Mooreton, North Dakota 58061
Mr. Allan Knudson, Director
North Dakota Association of
Soil Conservation Districts
Route 3
Bottineau, North Dakota 58318
Mr. Vern Krenz, Vice Chairman
State Soil Conservation Committee
Litchville, North Dakota 58461
Mr. Ernest E. Krueger, Supervisor
Logan County SCD
Fredonia, North Dakota 58440
Mr. Ray Kumroer, Member
State Soil Conservation Committee
Colfax, North Dakota 58018
Mr. Byron Langley
North Dakota 58381
Mr. Bud Lannoye, Program Director
North Dakota Association of
Soil Conservation Districts
Box 1601
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Alf N. Larson, Supervisor
Ransom County SCD
Enderlin, North Dakota 58027
Mr. Tollef Larson, Supervisor
Nelson County SCD
Mapes, North Dakota 58349
Rep. Bruce Laughlin
North Dakota 58230
Mr. A1 Leier, Director
North Dakota Association of
Soil Conservation Districts
Linton, North Dakota 58552
Mr. Gary Leppart, Director
State Outdoor Recreation Agency
900 East Boulevard Avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Maurice Lessard, Supervisor
Three Rivers SCD
Route 1
Grafton, North Dakota 58237
Mr. John Maguire, Supervisor
Sheridan County SCD
Denhoff, North Dakota 58430
Mr. Neal McClure
Assistant State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
Box 1458
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Percy McLean, Member
State Soil Conservation Committee
Sarles, North Dakota 58372
Mr. Clair Michels
Executive Vice President
N. D. Stockmen's Association
107 South Fifth.Street
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Harvey W. Miller, Wildlife Biologist
Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center
1113 Second Place N. E.
Jamestown, North Dakota 58401
Mr. Robert W. Miller
Deputy Forest Supervisor
U. S. Forest Service
U. S. Post Office
Billings, Montana 59101

Mr. Orville.Moe, Supervisor
Golden Valley SCD
Sentinel Butte, North Dakota 58654
Mr. Robert L. Morgan, Chief
Land and Development Division
N. D. Game & Fish Department
2121 Lovett Avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Frank Narloch, Supervisor
Three Rivers SCD
Minto, North Dakota 58261
Mr. Russell L. Nelson
Area Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
1425 West Villard
Dickinson, North Dakota 58601
Mr. Wesley D. Norton, Manager
N. D. Geological Survey
900 East Boulevard Avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. E. B. Norum
Professor of Chemistry
Department of Soils
North Dakota State University
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
Mr. Duane Olsen, Supervisor
East Morton SCD
Route 2
Mandan, North Dakota 58554
Mr. Carl Opstad
Chief, Farmer Programs
Farmers Home Admistration
Box 1737
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Robert O'Shea, Supervisor
South McLean County SCD
Turtle Lake, North Dakota 58575
Mr. Walt Pasicznyk
Deputy State Forester
State Forest Service
Bottineau, North Dakota 58318
Mr. Harold Peterson, Supervisor
Cedar SCD
Thunder Hawk, South Dakota 57655
Mr. Norman Peterson, Director
Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control
N. D. State Department of Health
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Douglas Plummer
Field Operations Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
Box 1755
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. J. F. Power
Research Loader
Agricultural Research Service
Northern Great Plains Research Center
Mandan, North Dakota 58554
Mr. George Pratt
Agricultural Engineer
North Dakota State University
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
Mr. Gary Puppe, Executive Secretary
State Soil Conservation Committee
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Paul Rasmusson, State Director
Farmers Home Administration
Box 1737
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Albert Reddig, Supervisor
Wells County SCD
Cathay, North Dakota 58422
Mr. Rolland Redlin, State Senator
1005 21st Street N. W.
Minot, North Dakota 58701
Mr. James Reed
Area Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
Box 878
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Ray Reich, Chairman
State Soil Conservation Committee
Richardton, North Dakota 58652

Mr. Alois Riehl, Supervisor
Grant County SCD
Raleigh, North Dakota 58564
Mr. Ernest D. Rivers, Supervisor
Soil Scientist
Bureau of Reclamation
Box 1017
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. James Rothschiller
Rothschiller Construction
Rugby, North Dakota 58368
Mr. Charles Russell, Supervisor
Stutsman County SCD
Buchanan, North Dakota 58420
Mr. Vernon Sandness, State Director
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service
Box 3046
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
Mr. Lester R. Schatz, Supervisor
West Morton County SCD
Glen Ullin, North Dakota 58631
Mr. A1 Schmalenberger
Land Commissioner
State School Land Department
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Robert W. Schottman
Ass't. Professor of Agricultural Eng'r.
Agricultural Engineering Building
North Dakota State University
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
Mr. Clifford J. Scott, Project Engineer
N. D. State Highway Department
State Highway Building
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Frank Shablow
State Senator
North Dakota 58249
Mr. Bill Starke, Director
North Dakota Association of
Soil Conservation Districts
New Rockfprd, North Dakota 58356
Mr. Earl Stewart, Chairman
Planning Program
North Dakota State University
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
Mr. Elmer Strand, Director
North Dakota Association of
Soil Conservation Districts
Portland, North Dakota 58274
Mr. Russell W. Stuart, Commissioner
N. D. Game & Fish Department
2121 Lovett Avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Roland Swanson, Design Engineer
North Dakota. State 'Water Commission
900 East Boulevard Avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. John Swedell, Engineer
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation
304 East Broadway
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Mr. Ingvald Teigen, Supervisor
Pierce County SCD
Rugby, North Dakota 58368
Mr. Obert Tharaldson, Supervisor
Griggs County SCD
Aneta, North Dakota 58212
Mr. Elmer R. Umland
Area Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
108 Federal Building
Minot, North Dakota 58701
Mr. David G. Unger
Assistant Executive Secretary
National Association of
Conservation Districts
1025 Vermont Avenue N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Mr. Duncan R. Warren
Project Coordinator
Lewis & Clark RC&D
Box 236
Mandan, North Dakota 58554

Mr. Don Wenaas, City Engineer
City Hall
Jamestown, North Dakota 58401
Mr. Erich Wilkens, Supervisor
West Morton County SCD
New Salem, North Dakota 58563

Developed at the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Conference held at Bismarck, North Dakota
January 17 - 18, 1973
Published by the State Soil Conservation Committee
State Capitol, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501

	Bill No.	
AN ACT to amend the Soil Conservation Districts Law to provide for
an acceleration and extension of the program for control of soil erosion
and sediment damage resulting from land disturbing activities within the
State; to provide for adoption of a comprehensive statewide soil erosion
and sediment control program and guidelines and for adoption by soil
conservation districts of soil erosion and sediment control programs
consistent with such statewide program and guidelines; to require the
filing and approval of plans for the control of soil erosion and sediment
damage in connection with land disturbing activities; to provide for in-
spections and reports; to declare certain acts to be unlawful; to pro-
vide for administration and enforcement; to provide for financial and
other assistance to districts and the State Soil Conservation Committee
for the purposes of this act, and making an appropriation for those
purposes; and for other purposes.
BE IT ENACTED BY The Legislature of the State of North Dakota that
the Soil Conservation Districts Law shall be amended by adding at the
end thereof the following sections:
Section 1. Findings and declaration of policy. The Legislature
finds that erosion continues to be a serious problem throughout the
State, and that shifts in land use from agricultural and rural to non-
agricultural and urbanizing uses, changes in farm and ranch enterprises,
operations, and ownership, construction of housing, industrial and
commercial developments, streets, highways, recreation areas, schools

and universities, public utilities and facilities, and other land dis-
turbing activities have accelerated the process of soil erosion and
sediment deposition resulting in pollution of the waters' of the State
and damage to domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, fish
and wildlife, and other resource uses. It is, therefore, declared to
be the policy of this act to strengthen and extend the present erosion
and sediment control activities and programs of this State for both
rural and urban lands, and to establish and implement, through the
State Soil Conservation Committee, hereinafter referred to as the
"Committee," and the soil conservation districts, hereinafter referred
to as "districts," in cooperation with counties, municipalities and
other local governments and subdivisions of this State, and other public
and private entities, a statewide comprehensive and coordinated erosion
and sediment control program to conserve and protect land, water, air,
and other resources of the State.
Section 2. Definitions. (a) "Land disturbing activity" means
any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind or
gravity and the movement of sediments into State waters or onto lands in
the State, including, but not limited to, tilling, clearing, grading,
excavating, transporting and filling of land, other than Federal lands,
except that the term shall not include such minor land disturbing acti-
vities as home gardens and individual home landscaping, repairs and main-
tenance work.
(b)	Erosion - Definition to be made by Task Force.
(c)	Sediment - is defined as a soil material that is moved by wind,
water, and gravity.
(d)	Soil - is referred to as soil and geological material.

(e)	"Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, association,
joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission,
board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, municipality
or other political subdivision of this State, any interstate body, or
any other legal entity.
(f)	"State waters" means any and all waters, public or private,
on the surface of the ground, which are contained within, flow through,
or border upon the State of North Dakota or any portion thereof.
(g)	"Erosion and sediment control plan" or "plan" means a plan for
the control of soil erosion and sediment resulting from a land disturb-
ing activity.
(h)	"Conservation standards" or "standards" means standards adopted
by the Committee or the districts pursuant to sections 3 and 4, respect-
ively, of this act.
Section 3. State erosion and sediment control program. (a) The
Committee shall, in cooperation with the State Health Department and
other appropriate State and Federal agencies, develop and coordinate a
comprehensive State erosion and sediment control program. To assist in
the development of such program, the Committee shall name an advisory
board of not less than seven nor more than eleven members, representing
such interests as housing, financing, industry, agriculture, recreation,
and local governments, and their planning, transportation, health, public
works, and zoning commissions or agencies.
(b) To implement this program, the Committee shall develop and
adopt by (date) guidelines for erosion and sediment control, which
guidelines may be revised from time to time as may be necessary.

Before adopting or revising guidelines the Committee shall, after giving
due notice per 4-22-02 of the North Dakota Century Code conduct public
hearings on the proposed guidelines or proposed change in existing guide-
lines. The guidelines for carrying out the program shall:
(1)	be based upon relevant physical and developmental infor-
mation concerning the watersheds and drainage basins of the State, in-
cluding, but not limited to, data relating to land use, soils, hydrology,
geology, size of land area being disturbed, proximate water bodies and
their characteristics, transportation, and public facilities and ser-
vices :
(2)	identify areas, including multijurisdictional and water-
shed areas, with critical erosion and sediment problems; and
(3)	contain conservation standards for various types of soils
and land uses, which standards shall include criteria, techniques, and
methods for the control of erosion and sediment resulting from land
disturbing activities.
(c) The program and guidelines shall be made available for public
inspection at the office of the Committee.
Section 4. District erosion and sediment control program. (a) Each
district in the State shall, within [con&ZAe.nC£ mmbeAA 4ta£e.d tkiA should
be (LOJily and tJjnzty) 	year(s) after the adoption of the State guide-
lines, develop and adopt a soil erosion and sediment control program
consistent with the State program and guidelines for erosion and sediment
control. To assist in developing its program, each district shall name
an advisory committee of not more than eleven members representing all
pertinent interests such as housing, financing, industry, agriculture,

recreation, and local governments, and their planning, transportation,
health, public works, and zoning commissions or agencies. Upon the
request of a district the Committee shall assist in the preparation of
the district's program. Upon adoption of its program, the district
shall submit the program to the Committee for review and approval. If
a district fails to submit a program to the Committee within the period
specified herein, the Committee shall, after such hearings or consulta-
tions as it deems appropriate with the various local interests in the
district, develop and adopt an appropriate program to be carried out by
the district. In areas where there is no district, the Committee shall
designate a local unit of general government such as a county, munici-
pality, town, parish, borough, or township to develop, adopt-and carry
out the erosion and sediment control program and exercise the responsi-
bilities of a district with respect thereto, as provided in this act.
(The confienence ie muAt they Live.? The convenience membe/uhip faelt the
kdvi&ofiij Committee should be mmbents ofa the local d-u>thu.ct.)
(b) To carry out its program the district shall, within 	year(s)
after the program has been approved by the Committee, establish, con-
sistent with the State program and guidelines, conservation standards
for various types of soils and land uses, which standards shall include
criteria, guidelines, techniques, and methods for the control of erosion
and sediment resulting from land disturbing activities. Such conserva-
tion standards may be revised from time to time as may be necessary.

Before adopting or revising conservation standards, the district shall,
after giving due notice, conduct a public hearing on the proposed con-
servation standards or proposed changes in existing standards.
(c) The program and conservation standards shall be made available
for public inspection at the principal office of the district.
Section 5. Prohibited land disturbing activities.
(a)	Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, no per-
son may engage in any land disturbing activity until he has submitted
to the district a plan for erosion and sediment control for such land
disturbing activity and such plan has been reviewed and approved by the
district, except that (1) when proposed land disturbing activities are
to be performed on State lands or by or on behalf of a State agency,
plans for erosion and sediment control shall be submitted tp the Com-
mittee instead of the district for review and approval, and (2) where
land disturbing activities involve lands in more than one district,
plans for erosion and sediment control may, as an alternative tp sub-
mission to. each district concerned, be submitted to the Committee for
review and approval.
(b)	Upon submission of an erosion and sediment control plan to
a district or to the Committee:
(1) the district shall review plans submitted to it and shall
approve any such plan if it determines that the plan meets the conserva-
tion .standards of the district, and if the person responsible for carry-
ing out the plan certifies that he will properly perform the erosion and
sediment control measures included in the plan and will conform to the
provisions of this act;

(The con^eAence ^elX a tone, iwtoAvaJt should, be &oX up
hejid faoh. appfLOV-ing oh. fi&jacting planA.]
(2) the Committee shall review plans submitted to it and shall
approve any such plan if it determines that the plan is adequate in con-
sideration of the Committee's guidelines and the conservation standards
of the district, or districts, involved, and if the person responsible
for carrying out the plan certifies that he will properly perform the
conservation measures included in the plan and will conform to the pro-
visions of this act.
(c)	When a plan submitted for approval under this section if found,
upon review by a district or the Committee, to be inadequate, the district
or the Committee, as the case may be, may require such modifications,
terms, and conditions as will permit approval of the plan.
(d)	An approved plan may be changed by the district which has ap-
proved the plan or by the Committee when it has approved the plan, where:
[The confieA&ncz itm above needed claA^-iccvtion.)
(1)	inspection has revealed the inadequacy of the plan to ac-
complish the erosion and sediment control objectives of the plan, and
appropriate modications to correct the deficiencies of the plan are
agreed to by the plan approving authority and the person responsible for
carrying out the plan; or
(2)	the person responsible for carrying out the approved plan
finds that because of changed circumstances or for other reasons the
approved plan cannot be effectively carried out, and proposed amendments
to the plan, consistent with the requirements of this act, are agreed to
by the plan approving authority and the person responsible for carrying
out the plan.

(e) Any person owning, occupying, or operating private agricul-
tural and forest lands who has a current farm or ranch conservation'
plan approved by the district and is implementing and maintaining such
plan with respect to normal agricultural and forestry activities, or
any person whose normal agricultural and forestry practices are in con-
formance with the conservation standards established pursuant to this
act, shall not be deemed to be engaged in prohibited land disturbing
activity. If there is not available to any such owner, operator, or
occupier adequate technical assistance or adequate cost share for the
installation of erosion and sediment control measures required in an
approved farm or ranch plan, or for measures to conform agricultural
and forestry practices to conservation standards established pursuant
to this act, any such owner, occupier, or operator who shall fail to
install erosion and sediment control measures required in an approved
farm or ranch conservation plan, or to conform his agricultural and
forestry practices to such conservation standards, shall not be deemed
to be engaged in prohibited land disturbing activity subject to penal-
ties under the act.
(The confieAence fieZt the extna wnkJLoad on 4upeA-
viAonts became AubAtanttaX., you may need to pnovtde. compen-
iajtion Ion the AupeAv
plan approved by the district, or by the Committee where appropriate,
and his certification that such plan will be followed. These require-
ments are in addition to all other provisions of law relating to the
issuance of such permits and are not intended to otherwise affect the
requirements for such permits.
Section 7. Monitoring, reports, and inspections. (a) Land dis-
turbing activities where permit is issued. With respect to approved
plans for erosion and sediment control in connection with land disturb-
ing activities which involve the issuance of a grading, building, or
other permit, the permit issuing authority shall provide for periodic
inspections of the land disturbing activity to insure compliance with
the approved plan, and to determine whether the measures required in
the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sediment resulting
from the land disturbing activities. Notice of such right of inspec-
tion shall be included in the permit. If the permit issuing authority
determines that the permittee has failed to comply with the plan, the
authority shall immediately serve upon the permittee by registered
mail to the address specified by the permittee in his permit application
a notice to comply. Such notice shall set forth the measures needed
to come into compliance with such plan and shall specify the time within
which such measures shall be completed. If the permittee fails to com-
ply within the time specified, he shall be deemed to be in violation
of this act and upon conviction shall be subject to the penalties pro-
vided by the act.
(The.,£ AuggeAted wording be put in hznz. to
provide. additional conAultcution on. help fiAom the. dci&Uct
ok committe.£ i-i thzy me.d (UAiAtancz. )

(b) Other land disturbing activities except agricultural and for-
estry operations. With respect to approved plans for erosion and sedi-
ment control in connection with all other land disturbing activities
except agricultural and forestry operations, the district, or the
Committee in connection with plans approved by it, may require of the
person responsible for carrying out the plan such monitoring and reports,
and may make such on-site inspections after notice to the resident owner,
occupier, or operator, as are deemed necessary to determine whether the
soil erosion and sediment control measures required by the approved plan
are being properly performed, and whether such measures are effective
in controlling soil erosion and sediment resulting from the land dis-
turbing activity. Such resident owner, occupier, or operator shall be
given an opportunity to accompany the inspectors. If it is determined
that there is failure to comply with the approved plan, the district,
or the Committee where appropriate, shall serve upon the person who is
responsible for carrying out the approved plan a notice to comply,
setting forth.the measures needed to be taken and specifying the time
in which such measures shall be completed. Such notice shall be by
registered mail to the person responsible for carrying out the plan
at the address specified by him in his certification at the time of
obtaining his approved plan. Upon failure of such person to comply
within the specified period, he will be deemed to be in violation of
the act and upon conviction shall be subject to the penalties provided
by the act.
{It uxm i>u.QQ2Jittd by the. confannnnc.Q. that cJLzoji dt&ini-
&Loyu> oj) AgnXcuZtuAal and Foku&iij opeAcu&ionA be added in <4ec-
tion 1 4o thaX no mi^und&utand-ing ojUaqj, In thi* Azction.)

(c) Agricultural and forestry operations. With respect to agri-
cultural and forestry operations, the district shall have authority to
make on-site inspections to determine if the approved farm or ranch con-
servation plan is being followed, or, where there is no such plan, to
determine if the agricultural and forestry practices are being carried
out in conformance with conservation standards established pursuant to
this act. On-site inspections may be made after notice to the resident
owner, operator, or occupier of the land involved, and such person shall
be given an opportunity to accompany the inspector. If such inspections
reveal that an owner, operator, or occupier of agricultural or forestry
lands is not complying with the approved farm or ranch conservation plan
or is not carrying out his agricultural and forestry practices in con-
formance with conservation standards established pursuant to this act,
such owner, operator, or occupier shall be notified by registered mail
addressed to him at his usual abode or customary place of business of
the measures needed for compliance. Such notice shall specify the time
within which such measures shall be completed by the resident owner,
occupier, or operator of the land involved. Upon failure to comply with
such notice, the owner, occupier, or operator will be deemed in viola-
tion of this act and upon conviction shall be subject to the penalties
provided by the act.
Section 8. Cooperation with Federal agencies. The districts and
the Committee and permit issuing authority are authorized to cooperate
and enter into agreements with any Federal agency in connection with
plans for erosion and sediment control with respect to land disturbing
activities on lands which are under the jurisdiction of such Federal

Section 9. Financial and other assistance. The Committee and the
districts and where appropriate the permit issuing authority are authorized
to receive from Federal, State, or other public or private sources finan-
cial, technical, or other assistance for use in accomplishing the pur-
poses of this act-
Section 10. Appeals. Decisions of the districts, the Committee, and
the permit issuing authorities under the provisions of this act shall be
subject to review by the 	court, provided an appeal is filed
within 30 days from the date of any such decision.
(The. confidence fielt the moid "dec^oi-lon-i" mu&£ be cleaAly
defined -in Station 2. )
Section 11. Penalties, injunctions and other legal actions.
(a)	A violation under sections 5 or 7 of this act shall be deemed a
misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subject to a fine not to exceed
five hundred dollars or one year's imprisonment for each and every vio-
lation. Each day the violation continues shall constitute a separate
(b)	The appropriate permit issuing authority, the district, the
Committee, or any aggrieved person who suffers damage or is likely to
suffer damage because of a violation may apply to the 	court
for injunctive relief to enjoin a violation or threatened violation
under sections 5 or 7 of this act.
(c)	The States attorney shall, upon request of a district or the
permit issuing authority, take legal action to enforce the provisions
of this act. The State attorney general shall, upon request of the
Committee, take appropriate legal action on behalf of the Committee to
enforce the provisions of this act.

Section 12. Appropriation. (Provision should be made for an
appropriation out of funds in the State treasury to finance the acti-
vities authorized by this act.)
Section 13. Separability. If any provision of this act is held
to be unconstitutional or invalid, such unconstitutionality or invalidity
shall not affect the remaining provisions of this act.
Section 14. Effective Date. (Insert effective date of act.)