In September 1992, the Division of Soil and Water Conservation presented to the Soil and Water Conservation Board the results of a three-year evaluation of the 171 erosion and sediment control programs operated by counties, cities or towns. Based on the report's conclusion that 40 of the 171 programs obtained on "adequate" score, the 1992 Session of the General Assembly passed House Joint Resolution 178. The resolution established a joint subcommittee to examine the necessity of improvement in erosion and sediment control programs statewide, including, but not limited to, finding ways that the Soil and Water Conservation Board can assist local governing bodies in developing, enforcing and improving existing erosion and sediment control programs.

The joint subcommittee found that although many of the local erosion and sediment control programs are effectively operated, a number of weaknesses exist, both in the implementation of some local programs and in the Commonwealth's Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Some of these weaknesses are amenable to legislative solutions. The findings and specific recommendations of the joint subcommittee, which are set forth in Section V of this report, include:

1. The Board of Soil and Water Conservation should be able to revoke its approval of a local erosion and sediment control program if the local program is not administered in accordance with minimum statewide effectiveness standards. If a locality's program approval is revoked, the soil and water conservation district becomes responsible for developing and implementing a program; if it does not, the Board would prepare and implement a program.

2. A greater emphasis should be placed on providing assistance to localities operating Erosion and Sediment control programs.

3. State projects should comply with the requirements of a local Erosion and Sediment control program if such requirements are more stringent than those of the state's program.

4. Greater emphasis should be placed on assuring that localities update their Erosion and Sediment control programs to reflect changes in state law and regulations.

5. Personnel administering Erosion and Sediment control programs and persons preparing Erosion and Sediment control plans should be required to have certifications of competence from the Board.

6. If a locality does not respond to complaints of program violations within ample time periods and after notice, the Department or the Board should be empowered to bring enforcement actions.

7. The procedure by which localities may issue stop work orders against program violators should be streamlined and strengthened.

8. Greater civil penalties should be allowed to deter owners from commencing land-disturbing activities' without obtaining approved plans or permits.

9. The limitation preventing civil penalties from being assessed against program violators more often than once in a ten-day period should be removed.

10. The existing $1,000 cap on the fee localities may charge applicants for plan approval should be eliminated.

11. The exemption for the construction of certain single-family residences should be removed, and the exemption for projects disturbing an area of less than 10,000 square feet should be reduced to 5,000 square feet.

12. Owners of property damaged by violations of an Erosion and Sediment program should be able to obtain injunctive relief and maintain civil suits for damages.

13. Builders of single-family residences should be able to use agreements in lieu of a plan as an alternative to complying with the plan preparation and review procedure.