The Mountaineer

In a unanimous vote Monday, county commissioners voted to continue a local erosion control program, but to attempt to work out areas of differences regarding liability issues to the county that can result from enforcing state law.

The program has been under the microscope since Waynesville attorney Jeff Norris won a lawsuit on behalf of his clients, Ron and Brian Cameron and their spouses, challenging the county’s authority under the local erosion control ordinance. The lawsuit ended up costing taxpayers $360,000 and led commissioners to question continuing the program in light of the accompanying liability that became apparent after the legal case.

For the past two months, citizens have weighed in on the pros and cons of having a local ordinance and staff to oversee state erosion laws. Some advocated allowing the state to assume all the costs and regulatory authority as many other counties do. Others wanted the commissioners to fire the erosion control staff they accused of heavy-handed tactics.

But most of the comments commissioners received both at the meetings and from county residents who contacted them, asked that the program be continued.

Comissioner Skeeter Curtis made the motion to continue the program.

“We need to show confidence in this group and in this board for what they do,” Curtis said in reference to the erosion control staff and board which reviews violations and sets any fines levied. “We need to work with state from here on out. I don’t foresee this happening anywhere in the future because we’ve all learned a lot from it.”

Commissioner Mark Swanger said the erosion control officials needed to do what they could to get on the agenda for the November N.C. Sediment Control Board and seek a rule change so the state could provide legal assistance to those with local programs on tough cases.

Commission Chairman Kirk Kirkpatrick said it would be fine to ask, but noted information provided by a state department official during a recent work session indicated it wasn’t likely the state would provide help selectively.

“I think the state will say ‘if you want it, you have the liability. If not, we’ll take it back over and we’ll provide the service we provide all across the state,’ which is much less than we have. So do you keep the program and accept the liability or not? I’m certainly in support of asking them to take that on, but I’m afraid that’s the response they will give us.”

Commissioner Bill Upton defended Marc Pruett, the county’s erosion control director who he remembered as a former student.

“I see no change in Marc’s character,” he said. “He cares about people. That’s the kind of people we want working for erosion control. I’ve seen Marc work over and over with people. I appreciate that. I  know your heart. I appreciate that and I appreciate you as a person.”

Commissioner Kevin Ensley said he supports the program, and noted the local staff and how they are doing their job isn’t the issue. The sticking point is that taxpayers can’t pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees to support the state law.

“It is good to know how good our employee are there to educate landowners to do it right. In that regard, we’re doing all we’re supposed to do. It’s just that litigation is too extreme to expect counties to have these programs and litigate.”

At the beginning of the meeting, Elizabeth Norris chastised the commissioners for past comments blaming the judge for not doing her job correctly. She said the question that needs to be considered is not whether to have a county administered erosion control program, but having the program administered fairly and with great oversight to protect both the environment and the Constitutional rights of individuals.

She said commissioners, the county attorney, county manager and erosion control board chairman never attempted to inspect or verify the violations for which the Camerons were cited until shortly before the trial started. Furthermore, she claimed, the property was always in compliance with state forest guidelines and was designated forestry land until a “secret board meeting” altered that designation.

“Arbitrarily taking a substantive right without telling the Camerons was quite deceitful,” she said, later adding, “Oversee and manage wisely your responsibilities. Verify, questions and choose not to rely only on one source.”

In voting to retain a local program, commissioners took the advice of numerous groups, including the Haywood Waterways Association, the county’s soil and water conservation district leaders, a number of builders and even state officials who told county leaders they would not get the level of service to which they were accustomed if the program reverted to the state. Enforcing erosion control laws regionally would slow down permits and lead to larger state fines because there were be fewer inspections, thus fewer chances to correct problems. Furthermore, state control would provide a more distant agency with which to wage complaints, both about soil damage to adjoining properties and to wage appeals about violation notices and fines.

“We learned something as a board about what we can expect from the state and what we can’t,” Curtis said. “When this was going on, they told us one thing and it never came about. We can’t continue to pick up litigation cost for something like this, but all these years, this is the first time it happened. We need to communicate better.”