Why erosion control fails--slippage at every step

Summary

Poor results are the outcome of slippage at every step of the erosion control process, starting with...

Poor erosion control plans, which depend on not very effective BMPs, applied by reluctant contractors, who are seldom inspected by overly permissive inspectors, and so on.

Update 6/7/11: I used to think, as many citizens believe, that construction site problems are due to negligent contractors.  But this is an oversimplification.  If the symphony sounds sour-- is it the fault of the Conductor or the musicians?  Well, it's both... but I'd give most blame to the Conductor.

Same with construction.  City Engineering (or DNR is some cases) is like the Conductor.  They formulate the erosion control plans, and tell the contractors how and when to carry them out.  The contractor just follows their orders.  So the City (or DNR) is really responsible for the failures we see.  Yes, sometimes a contractor drops the ball--but the City's responsibility is to make sure they don't.

The list

Below, I've listed the most “systemic” problems higher on list, with local problems lower on list.

1. Private enterprise is poorly suited to managing a “commons” (our lakes). There are no economic incentives for improving the lakes.

2. Erosion control is an art rather than a science. Every construction site and storm is unique.

3. Construction sites are constantly & rapidly changing; erosion control is a moving target.

4. Erosion control at the watershed level is a complex task, which must involve the community and requires strong leadership.

5. Bureaucracies focus on rules rather than outcome (which is clean lakes); complex tasks must focus on outcomes.

6. Culture of engineers--likes certainty, doesn’t like to engage community. Weather not certain.

7. Construction sites are very cramped, so solutions are difficult (unless storm water is exported to other treatment locations nearby)

8. Everyone (public, officials, contractors) is focused on short-term goals and outcomes

9. People (public, contractors, officials) seldom see the invisible damage caused by erosion

10. Apathetic public doesn’t understand the issues or causes of lake problems

11. Ideological clash between “grey infrastructure” and “green infrastructure” concepts

12. Bureaucracy set in ways, & not representing diverse views (Engineering Dept. and Board of Public Works). See the Stormwater Management initiative.

13. Alders have power if they work with Engineering, but little power individually to oppose.

14. Resistance to change; traditions of City Engineering--they respond mainly to complaints about drainage, want to “work with” contractors

15. Budgetary constraints--too few inspectors; too little budget for robust erosion control.  "Penny-wise but pound foolish" approach.

16. To compete for contracts, contractors underbid on erosion control items. The City permits this.

17. Contractors need better understanding of erosion control basics

18. Low priority given to erosion control plans (they get much less attention than the project plan)

19. Watershed approach to storm water is “not my job, ” say City engineers.  How do we make it their job?

20. Poor communication between agencies (a fragmented view of watershed; conflicting goals)

21. Hoping for good weather, rather than planning for storms

22. Byzantine division of responsibilities enable passing the buck

23. Some BMPs (like tire washing) are dismissed out of hand; reluctance to adopt new ones.

24. Wording of regulations is flawed: “Streets will be swept daily OR as ordered by the City.”

25. Lack of leadership at highest levels concerning the issues and goals for City

26. Contractors and city would rather pay the fines or fill the gullies than prevent them

27. Conflicting motivations (or departments) in City. Save time, save money, or save the lakes?

28. Engineers have to “work with” contractors, and so can’t be enforcers, who relate differently

29. Unwritten Department policy that only smaller storms (2 inches of rain) will be planned for

30. Current enforcement is too “cozy,” with self-inspections, few fines, and warnings of inspections. More reliance on “deterrence” is needed.

#     #     #

That list is a mouthful. 

We need to start by acknowledging that this is a difficult problem.  It's difficult for contractors too, because of intense competition, and because their sites are chaotic and constantly changing.  Good book on difficult problems.

This list is the result of about two months of my reading, inspecting sites, and listening to others.  Thanks to Jon Standridge for contributing #16.