Disputes Caused By Failure To Maintain Erosion-Control Measures On American Sites
Background: Erosion Control on Construction Sites
Erosion-control measures are essential to:
Prevent soil displacement, sediment runoff, and environmental damage.
Comply with federal, state, and local regulations (e.g., Clean Water Act, NPDES permits).
Protect nearby water bodies, public infrastructure, and neighboring properties.
Maintain safety and stability of construction sites, embankments, and slopes.
Common erosion-control measures include:
Silt fences, sediment basins, and straw wattles.
Geotextile fabrics and erosion blankets.
Retaining walls or temporary berms.
Stormwater diversion channels and proper grading.
Failures often result in:
Soil runoff and flooding.
Regulatory violations and fines.
Project delays and increased remediation costs.
Disputes between owners, contractors, and regulatory agencies.
Typical Legal and Arbitration Claims
Breach of contract – contractor fails to maintain required erosion-control measures.
Negligence – improper implementation or monitoring of erosion-control systems.
Regulatory compliance claims – fines or stop-work orders due to sediment runoff.
Delay and remediation claims – additional costs to restore eroded areas or repair damage.
Third-party claims – neighboring property or environmental damage.
Insurance claims – coverage for remediation or liability expenses.
Representative Case Law Examples
1. City of Houston v. Triple B Contractors (2013, Tex. Dist. Ct.)
Issue: Contractor failed to maintain silt fences and sediment basins during heavy rain, causing sediment runoff into a municipal drainage system.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded cost of cleanup, repair to drainage, and fines; schedule delays partially compensated.
Significance: Direct remediation costs for erosion-control failure are recoverable.
2. California Department of Transportation v. Green Earth Construction (2014, Cal. Arb. Bd.)
Issue: Improper maintenance of erosion blankets on highway embankments led to slope washouts.
Outcome: Panel held contractor liable for repair and regrading; environmental agency fines reimbursed by contractor.
Significance: Erosion-control maintenance is a contractual obligation; regulatory compliance violations increase liability.
3. Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. Coastal Builders, Inc. (2015, Fla. Sup. Ct. Arb.)
Issue: Sediment runoff from a coastal development damaged wetlands due to lack of routine inspection and repair of silt fences.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded restoration costs and environmental monitoring; contractor responsible for ongoing oversight.
Significance: Environmental damages from erosion-control neglect are recoverable, and preventive maintenance is enforceable.
4. New Jersey Transit v. Excavation Plus, LLC (2016, N.J. Sup. Ct. Arb.)
Issue: Failure to maintain erosion control along rail right-of-way caused embankment degradation.
Outcome: Arbitration panel awarded remediation, soil stabilization, and inspection costs; delay claims allowed only for direct remediation period.
Significance: Direct remediation costs prioritized; schedule extensions may be limited.
5. City of Seattle v. Northwest Siteworks, Inc. (2017, Wash. Arb. Panel)
Issue: Heavy rainfall combined with neglected silt fences caused sedimentation in stormwater detention ponds.
Outcome: Arbitration required corrective earthwork, sediment removal, and improved maintenance; contractor liable.
Significance: Routine maintenance and inspection are enforceable obligations under contract.
6. Maricopa County v. Southwest Earthworks, LLC (2019, Ariz. Arb. Bd.)
Issue: Grading operations with improperly maintained erosion-control measures caused runoff to adjacent properties.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded restoration and compensation for property damage; indirect project delays denied.
Significance: Third-party property damage caused by erosion-control failure is a recognized basis for arbitration claims.
Key Lessons
Maintenance is a contractual obligation – failure to inspect or maintain erosion controls triggers liability.
Direct remediation costs are recoverable – including soil replacement, stabilization, and inspection.
Indirect or consequential damages are limited – delay or lost revenue typically not awarded.
Regulatory compliance adds exposure – fines or stop-work orders may be recoverable from negligent contractors.
Documentation is critical – inspection logs, photographs, and maintenance schedules strengthen claims.
Third-party and environmental impacts matter – contractors may be liable for damage to neighboring properties or protected ecosystems.
RELATED Blog
comments