<< Back 9/25/02 Jackson mulls liability for erosion violations By Don Hendershot Who’s to pay for muddying the water? Jackson County commissioners met with the planning board during last week to discuss the issue of liability with regards to violations of the county’s sediment and erosion control ordinance. According to a memorandum prepared for commissioners, some members of the planning board feel that the grading contractor should be held liable for sediment and erosion violations. As the ordinance reads now, the person responsible for the violation is: ° The developer or other person who has or holds himself out as having financial or operational control over the land-disturbing activity; or ° The landowner or person in possession or control of the land when he has directly or indirectly allowed the land-disturbing activity or has benefited from it or has failed to comply with any provision of the ordinance. The memorandum notes that the city of Charlotte adopted an amendment to its ordinance in June that would hold grading contractors liable. The memorandum also points out that there is no consensus on the issue. Richard Ducker, attorney specializing in land use and planning for the N.C. Institute of Government, was quoted as saying: “I see no reason why the general contractor may not be held responsible and made subject to civil penalties, at least with respect to most types of soil erosion and sedimentation regulations.” But F. Mell Nevils, chief of the Division of Land Quality, wrote: “The Commission [Division of Land Quality Commission] members made a conscious decision not to hold the general contractor financially liable for violations ....” Reasons cited were that lawsuits are more difficult to defend when several entities are involved and that the landowner should be responsible for hiring qualified grading contractors. After much discussion concerning liability and licensing of contractors, commissioners requested that the planning board meet with area contractors to hear their concerns and recommendations regarding the issues and report back to the board. Chuck Norris, director of Jackson County Transit, asked commissioners to consider selling advertising space on county transit vehicles. According to Norris, 30 or so counties across the state are selling advertising on their vehicles. Norris believes the county could generate approximately $50,000 a year in revenues. Commissioners concerned about what control the county would have over who could buy advertising, requested that Norris secure copies of some of the contracts from counties selling advertising for review by county attorney Raymond Large. County Manager Ken Westmoreland reported that Jackson County’s new jail facilities should be ready for occupancy by the first of November. Westmoreland suggested the county may want to wait until after the November election to move prisoners and staff into the new jail due to staffing concerns. Incumbent sheriff Jim Cruzan lost in the primary so the new sheriff could hire new jailers when he takes office. County chairman Jay Denton said that moving prisoners was a safety issue. “I hope we wouldn’t let politics prevail over safety,” Denton said.