 |
     |
© 1997, 1998 Streamline Publications
Eroded soil has become a large enough
problem to attract the attention of the Environmental Protection Agency which
considers the wind or water-borne soil a pollutant. The economics of the situation are as
shocking as they are straightforward. Studies have shown that it costs some thirty-five
times as much to fix an erosion problem as it does to prevent it. And that
is just the cost of fixing it. Never mind possible penalties that the government
might impose. The EPA has a case when you consider
how erosion can affect the folks downstream. The loss of viable top soil equals
a loss of vegetation. Without vegetation the loss of more top soil and
underlying soils goes on unabated. The soil itself ends up as silt that plugs
storm drains and natural drainage systems, leading to flooding, loss of wildlife
habitat and poor water quality. The problem extends to loss of crop
production and the air purification and the cooling effect of a well vegetated
environment. At still another level, liability crops
up in urban settings when mud from an eroding hillside washes across sidewalks
and streets creating slip and fall hazards. Liability is easily traced to a
particular property. The only question a court is likely to decide, other than
the amount of the judgment, is whether the property owner, the landscape
architect, the landscape maintainer or the original construction company will
have to find the money for the plaintiff. It could be all of them. The best answer is to prevent the
problem, especially when you consider the enormous cost of fixing it. Check with
Albright for erosion-control
answers that make sense for your clients.
Seeding | LEAF-let Newsletter | Bioregions | Catalog & Orders | Albright Info