I have had the opportunity to fly over all major rivers, tributaries, and lakes in my state both during wet-weather events and through three years of drought. It was not a surprise to see sediment‹tons and tons of it. Stream and river channels are reshaped by sediment loading. Properties that once were areas of sustainable use have been turned into barren waste created by urbanization and agricultural transported sediment.

Erosion and sediment are not new issues in the nonpoint-source arena. America has been attempting to cope with erosion since the days of the Dust Bowl. The 305(b) and 303(d) lists are full of stream segments not meeting water-quality standards because of sediment loading, not to mention the other pollutants captured by the sediment as it moves downstream.

The tragedy of this sequence of loading events is that erosion and sediment controls are not new phenomena in the world of stormwater runoff. During the Dust Bowl era, we should have learned a valuable lesson about wind and sheet erosion. In the 1970s, many states created erosion and sediment control manuals designed to address these problems. At that time, it appeared we were going to get the job done and keep sediment out of our streams and rivers. Wrong! Watershed assessments and stream walks prove that the legacy of erosion still exists today.

I personally have had the unfortunate opportunity to address our lack of erosion control. In 1984, I went to bid to drain and remove more than 2 ft. of sediment from our 250-ac. drinking-water reservoir. Cause: Construction and development are not containing the sediment on-site. Effect: One of the best bass fishing lakes in the area lost its charm and has not come back yet. Not only did the removal of the silt cost several million dollars, but the bigger challenge was what to do with the removed silt.

What have we learned? We know the same thing we did 30 years ago: Keep the sediment on-site! When will we get a handle on sediment control? It is not rocket science. We continue to think silt fence is the answer to sediment loading in our streams. All anyone has to do is visit a construction site during a rain event and observe sediment moving through the fence and into the street. Multiply this loading by 25-50 building lots under construction, and what do you have? Sediment in the stream. Inspect the sediment fore bays and the detention ponds with their retrofits, and what to you observe? Sediment transferring to the receiving waters. Review scantly vegetated work sites and ask yourself: What loads are leaving the site?

Once again we are faced with the same challenge, just called something different: TMDLs. The spots have not changed on this cat. We are still accepting the fact that we're not in control of the problem. We as professionals know that we could control it, but money and politics have our ruled good science. The stance has been that if the BMPs are in place according to the stormwater management plan, then we are covered.

What's the answer? Enforcement. Education will go a long way to start the process, but the dollar wins out every time. What if we give credit to those who demonstrate compliance in keeping the sediment on the construction site? That's a novel idea. Those who chose the alternate path have the opportunity to ante up through the enforcement process. Erosion and sediment control laws have been on the books for years with some substantial penalties for noncompliance. The political and judicial systems have chosen in many cases to not levy the fines for noncompliance. Now our taxpayers and ratepayers are paying for loading reduction of sediments, as addressed in the TMDLs. Sounds good to me! I just hope someone can explain it to my ratepayers.

I have observed very recently that federal, state, and local agencies, which have jurisdiction over this matter, allow the loopholes to continue. We as professionals at the local level know what works and what doesn't. Construction plans and stormwater management plans must be dynamic to address what is not working in the field. This is no different than a set of construction plans, which must be modified in the field as conditions change. As professionals, we must be willing to sit down with the political element and to educate the judicial system to what is needed. If we choose to turn our back, our customers will continue to shoulder the financial load.

We have seen the Dust Bowl. We have attempted to correct the problem with the Clean Water Act. Now we get the chance to spend enormous amounts of money to address TMDLs. We are still talking about it as we watch it run down our water courses. So I ask you: What do the Dust Bowl, Clean Water Act, and sediment TMDLs all have in common? Simple: Sediment is still entering into the waters of the United States. What will we call this in 2030?

Brant D. Keller, Ph.D., is executive director of the Georgia Association of Stormwater Management Agencies. He is director of public works and stormwater utilities for Griffin, GA.

SW September/October 2003