EFFECTS OF ILLEGAL DUMPING AT BRIDGE SITES INSIDE
VERSUS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS
Steven S. Brown, Department of Earth Science, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL
36688. E-mail: ssb802@jaguar1.usouthal.edu
As you travel throughout the Dog River Watershed it is very apparent that illegal
dumping is a major problem. There many different types of places that illegal dumping occurs,
but the main one is at bridge sites. This is because bridge sites are easily manageable to anyone.
This project is split up into two main focuses. First, is a follow up study from Whitney Mazyck’s
a former student report two years ago on comparing dumping at bridge sites in areas of the
watershed that lie within the city limits and those that lie outside city limits. The follow up I did
on the report showed that illegal dumping at bride sites still occurs now like it did back then and
the same type trash is being dumped at each of the locations. The report also shows that illegal
dumping is still much more common in rural areas now as opposed to urban areas and reason
why this is the case. The focal point of the second part of my report is research into ways to
prevent illegal dumping. I looked into methods on how others city throughout the United States
worked to fight against illegal dumping. Many of their tactics were very successful such as
putting cameras at hotspots, raising the penalty for offenders, and marketing against illegal
dumping.
Keyword: illegal dumping, bridge sites, prevention
Introduction:
According to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System “Illegal dumping is
the disposal of waste in an unpermitted area, such as a back area of a yard, along stream bank, or
at some other off-road area” (epa.gov 2009). “The U.S. is the world leader in solid waste,
producing 236 million tons of garbage in 2003. This is an increase of 148 million tons since
1960. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the average human has doubled his
production of garbage since 1960, producing 4.5 pounds per day (Kimberly 2005). With these
staggering numbers it is no surprise that illegal dumping is a serious problem. While this is a
problem across the U.S as whole, its effects are extremely prevalent here in the Dog River
Watershed.
1 While driving throughout the watershed it is apparent that there is illegal dumping
occurring all across the Mobile area. However, according to visual evidence this dumping is far
more severe of a problem at bridge sites. My research consisted of two main focuses. The first
area was concentrated on a follow up study from Whitney Mazyck‘s report from 2008.Her focus
was comparing dumping at bridge sites in areas of the watershed that lie within the city limits
and those that lie outside city limits.
I wanted to see if illegal dumping continues to be worse in rural areas outside city limits
compared to urban areas inside the city limits now in 2010 as it did in 2008. Also, in the follow
up study I wanted to see if the same types of garbage are being dumped now at bridge sites as
there were in 2008 or if this has began to change.
The focal point of the second part of my report was to research into ways to prevent
illegal dumping. There are many different ways to help with the prevention of illegal dumping at
bridge sites throughout the Dog River Watershed. I looked into methods on how other cities
throughout the United States worked to fight against illegal dumping. Some of the tactics were
simple and cheap. Other tactics took more extensive amounts of both time and money, but they
all were successful with helping to prevent illegal dumping.
One particular journal stated “Last year Chicago surpassed New York, which picked up
151,686 tons of illegal trash” (Sherer Moskowitz 1995). This was a huge number for over ten
years ago and has definitely risen a significant amount since then. These cities vary in location
from New York to Oakland. Along with finding these tactics, I also tried to come up with a few
ideas that might help prevent people from dumping other items other than trash at bridge sites.
Many other cities throughout the United States experience illegal dumping just like we do here in
2 the Dog River Watershed, but many are also fed up with it and taking action! In Victorian Texas
the Advocates says “Dumping in the county has been a problem for a long time. We are pleased
to see that our local and state officials are getting serious about the problem” (Victoria 2010).
Research question:
Is illegal dumping still worse throughout the Dog River Watershed outside of city limits
in Mobile County compared to inside the city limits now like it was in 2008? What are ways to
help prevent illegal dumping?
Methods:
Since I was doing a follow up study on the areas where illegal dumping could possibly
still exist inside and outside the county limits, I had to first go and locate the documents showing
the areas that she visited to write her report on. After locating the map, I discovered that ten
different bridge sites were selected for research in her report. Of the ten sites chosen for research,
five lie in the city limits with the other five outside of the city limits. Each location was
randomly selected throughout the county.
I went to each of the ten sites individually to closely review and compare each site that
had been chosen in 2008 to the sites now. First, I went to the bridge sites outside the city limits.
While at each site I took many pictures of the area to show if illegal dumping was still prominent
there. Also, at each location I documented the different types of trash that was present including
categories such as tires, electronic, and other.
In addition to what types of trash I found I labeled each as to how bad the dumping
appeared to be. The categories I put the amount of trash at each location were: none, light,
3 moderate, and severe. Sites categorized as none consisted of sites with no visual trash at all.
Next, light amounts of trash consisted of some paper, bags or cans. Then, bridge sites with
multiple amounts of the same types of trash were categorized as moderating. Lastly, sites with
heavy amounts of garbage overflowing were categorized as severe. With this information I
created a table, that I could compare the types of trash that are being dumped now to types that
were being dumped in 2008. After visiting the locations that she did her report on, I chose an
additional bridge site in the city limits and one outside the city limits. I did this to see if other
locations coincided to the previous ones.
On the following page there is a map that I created to better show the Dog River
Watershed and to show each of the bridge sites that I visited for this follow up study (Fig.1). I
chose the letter U and the number in which I visited in order each of the urban site inside the city
limits. For example U1 was the first site I visited inside the city limits. For the sites outside city
limits I used the letter R for rural areas. For the additional areas that I visited I chose the letter A
to represent the sites inside and outside the city
4 Figure 1 Map of Bridge Sites in the Dog River Watershed
5 Results:
The results from the bridge sites inside the city limits were quiet surprising (Table 1). The
first location I went to was U 1, not only did it not show signs of illegal dumping, but there was
not any trash at all. This was the only location I visited throughout the area, in either the city
limits or outside the city limits, that no trash at all was present. The next three locations I visited
U 2, U 3, and U 4 all showed no signs of illegal dumping and were only categorized as light
trash. The trash varied from plastic bags, paper, and a few cans. All of the trash seemed to have
been thrown from a vehicle or blown from nearby parking lots.
Table 1 Results from Bridge Sites:
Sites
Trash/ Amount
Electronics
Tires
Other
Illegal Dumping
U1
N
N
N
N
None
U2
Y, Light
N
N
N
None
U3
Y, Light
N
N
N
None
U4
Y, Light
N
N
N
None
U5
Y, Moderate
N
N
Glass
None
R1
Y, Severe
Y
Y
Carpet, Oil Bottles
Yes Severe
R2
Y, Moderate
Y
Y
N
Yes
R3
Y, Moderate
N
N
Bicycle
Yes
R4
Y, Moderate
N
N
N
Yes
R5
Y, Severe
Y
Y
Glass
Yes Severe
A1
Y, Light
N
N
N
None
A2
Y, Moderate
N
N
Glass
Yes
6 The last location I visited for the follow up study inside the city limits was U 5. This site
showed signs of more trash than any of the other urban sites that I had previously visited. The
different types included plastic bags, broken beer bottles, cans and fast food garbage. Even
though there was more trash present at this site I would still not classify it as dumping. Overall
the amount of trash at each of the locations in the city limits either has not gotten worse or had
even gotten better compared to 2008.
The results from outside the city limits were even worse than expected. The first place I
visited was R 1 (See Fig.1). This is where Todd Acres road meets Rabbit Creek. I knew from the
previous study that this was a bad dumping area, but the amount of dumping there is worse than
imagined. The types of garbage there ranges from tires, oil bottles, carpet, full trash bags,
electronics, house hold products and many more. On the following page Figures 2 and 3 show
how this site hasn’t changed at all from 2008 to now.
From this site, I went just a few miles away to R 2. Because this location is located so
close to R1 I thought that it too would have severe dumping. However, the amount of trash at
this location turned out to be less than expected. There was still some trash that consisted of a
few electronics, and two tires. Although trash amounts were less than first expected, illegal
dumping is still apparently a problem at this location.
7 Figure 2-Todd Acres Drive @ Rabbit Creek 2008
Figure 3- Todd Acres Drive @ Rabbit Creek 2010
8 The next two bridge sites I visited, R 3 and R 4, seemed to be in roughly the same
condition as previously in 2008. At these locations there were moderate amounts of trash and
glass. At R 3 there actually was even a bicycle dumped under the bridge. Lastly, I visited R 5
which is located where Halls Mill Creek crosses Demetropolis Rd. This last bridge site was in
similar condition to R 1. It was immediately obvious severe dumping has also been occurring
here. This site hasn’t apparently changed since 2008, because it was also categorized as severe
dumping at that time. The different types of trash here were large amounts of household supplies,
cans, broken glass, tires, electronics, and many more.
What makes it even worse about this site is that it is cleaned up every September as a
satellite site for the Coastal Cleanup. Dog River Clearwater Revival has been cleaning this site
for the past seven years and within a couple of months after having it cleaned it severely trashed
again. One of the reasons that this location and R1 are so much worse than any site inside or
outside city limits, could be because people see how much garbage is already at these locations.
Then people start thinking that since the area is already so bad it couldn’t hurt anything for them
to also dump their trash there also. I wanted to visit an additional site both inside and outside the
city limits to see if they compared to the previous locations that she chose for the report in 2008.
The first location I picked was A 1 it is located inside the city limits where Halls Mill Rd crosses
Moore Creek (See Fig. 1). This bridge site was like the previous ones that I followed up on in
that there was a light amount of trash and no illegal dumping. The second additional location I
visited was A 2 being outside the city limits. Here there were a mild amount of trash and some
glass. This site seemed to be like R 3 and R 4 with light to moderate dumping.
9 The second focal point of my research was to find ways to help prevent illegal dumping.
This point was developed once I realized dumping seems to not have gotten any better in the last
two years. I started researching tactics other cities have done to help fight against illegal
dumping. As previously stated, other cities have had very positive results in cleaning up illegal
dumping.
In 1992, Oakland, a city with an awful dumping problem, started a campaign called "We
Mean Clean." This program not only enacted monetary fines, but made offenders clean up
dumped trash as community service sentences. Oakland fenced in 56 "hot spots" and put up
cameras. Within a few weekends, the city made 28 arrests. "We went after the guys, and the
judges were adamant about the seriousness of the crime," says Gary Doyle, a public works
officer who says illegal dumping is now under control (Scherer, Moskowitz 1995).
According to the Victorian Advocate, cities in Texas worked against it by “spending
$750,000 in marketing against illegal dumping” (Victorian 2010). The city of Indianapolis
Department of Public Works Customer Service Section “employs two environmental officers
who conduct investigations into illegal dumpsites” (indygov.org 2009). The site also says the
officers issue fines for successful investigations in which someone can be proven guilty of illegal
dumping. All of these cities have put time and money into their actions against illegal dumping,
and they have produced astounding results.
10 Discussion/Conclusion:
The central idea behind this report was to see if there is still a growing problem outside of
city limits in Mobile with illegal dumping at bridge sites. It is apparent that over the past two
years not much has been done about this problem. This dumping is and will continue to have a
detrimental effect on the environment, water quality in the area, and most importantly the
public’s health if something is not done to help solve this issue.
Some of the reasons people continue to dump are because there is no sanitation services
outside of city limits in Mobile County. This is because taxes do not pay for the service, and so
people cannot afford to dispose of their trash properly. Because of this, people find whatever
ways they can to throw away their trash even if that means illegally dumping it.
If Mobile County could come up with some type of plan for sanitation services I believe
it would greatly help with illegal dumping throughout the Dog River Watershed. Even if this
proposal was to raise taxes a few cents, the residents I spoke to said they would gladly pay the
extra in taxes for the service.
Also, tires were a big issue at several of the bridge sites. According to King County
Public Health, “tires are one of the worst possible things that can be dumped in the environment”
(kingcounty.gov). The main reason people dump tires is because they do not know where you
can take them to properly dispose of them. Many tire companies will take your used tires if you
bring them to the tire dealer’s location. I have also found two places that will recycle tires;
Mobile Tire Recyclers (251- 452-8715) and Gulf Waste Services (251- 456-0105).
11 Hopefully in near future decision maker’s will realize just how big of a problem illegal
dumping is at bridge sites and will take action against it. I believe one way to make this a better
report would be to research more in detail the ways other cities paid for the cost of the tactic they
used to help prevent illegal dumping.
References Cited
Department of Public Works City of Indianapolis. 2009. Illegal Dumping:
http://www.indygov.org/eGov/City/DPW/Residential/Dumping/Pages/home.aspx
(accessed on March 9, 2010)
Environmental Protection Agency. 2009 Illegal Dumping Control
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm (accessed on February 25,
2010)
Global Development Research Center. 2000 An Introduction to Urban Watershed:
http://www.gdrc.org/uem/water/watershed/introduction.html (accessed on February 25,
2010)
Public Health Seattle and King County. 2010. Illegal Dumping:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/ehs/toxic/dumping.aspx ( accessed on
March 11, 2010
Rea, Kimberly 2005. Parks and Recreation. Trash Nation. 40 (9) :116‐121
Scherer, Ron Moskowitz, Eric. 1995. Illegal dumping: Not only in New York. 87 (176):10
Victoria Advocate 2010. Illegal dumping may disappear in county. 2/26 EDITORIAL.
12