Five Litter Facts
Summary of Georgia Litter Abatement Act
How to Investigate a Litter Crime Scene

Litter Enforcement Case Studies
City of Marietta, GA
Hall County, GA
Allentown, PA
Dougherty County, GA
Establishing Environmental Courts

Enforcement Officer Toolkit
Comprehensive Litter Prevention and Abatement Act of 2006
At-A-Glance Summary of GA Litter Abatement Act (306KB)
Checklist for Investigating a Litter Crime Scene (24KB)
Litter Crime Scene Investigation Form (25KB)
DNR Law Enforcement Region Map - (pdf) (jpg)
DNR Law Enforcement Region Contact Information
List of Resources and References

Five Litter Facts

Enforcement

1. Littering is a crime - anyone caught littering in Georgia can be ordered to pay a fine up to $1,000 or more for serious littering violation. Convicted litterers can also be ordered to clean up a littered area in a community.
2. Littered neighborhoods can result in property values being lowered by as much as 15% and often lead to more serious crimes.
3. Georgia's litter laws can be enforced on both public and private property.
4. Public perception is "I won't get caught" and if "I do," prosecutors and judges don't consider littering a serious crime and will not prosecute or enforce a littering citation.
5. Anything leaving a vehicle and falling on the roadside is litter - the driver of the vehicle is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Back to Top

GA Comprehensive Litter Prevention and Abatement Act of 2006

This Act brings into one place over two dozen different articles related to litter prevention and abatement. It amends Parts 2 and 3 of Article 2 of O.C.G.A. Chapter 16-7 and O.C.G.A. Sections 12-8-22, 12-8-31, 12-8-62, 12-8-92, 17-6-9, 32-6-51, and 40-6-249; enacts O.C.G.A. Sections 15-9-30.7, 15-10-2.1, 17-7-73, 36-32-10.3, and 40-6-248.1 and Part 3A of Article 2 of O.C.G.A. Chapter 16-7; and reserves O.C.G.A. Sections 21-2-3 and 32-6-21.

The Act broadens the definition of litter, creates a new definition for large quantities or particularly nasty litter, makes some littering offenses felonies, holds drivers responsible for litter leaving vehicles, expands jurisdiction of courts to provide more opportunity to have these cases tried, and strengthens punishment.

What is litter?
The definition of litter has been expanded in Georgia's new litter law. It includes any discarded
or abandoned items, specifically identifying:

• Refuse, rubbish, or other waste material;
• Dead animals that are not subject to other provisions of the Georgia code

The law defines a new category of litter referred to as "egregious litter" which is large quantities of or particularly nasty litter.

What exactly is illegal?
It is unlawful to "dump, deposit, throw, or leave or cause or permit the dumping, depositing, placing, throwing, or leaving of litter on any public or private property in the state, unless:

• The area is designated for disposal of litter by the jurisdiction and the person is authorized to use this area; or
• The litter is placed into a receptacle provide by the property owner or tenant for the disposal of litter; or
• The person is the owner or tenant or has gotten permission of the owner or tenant and is in a manner consistent with the public welfare.
  16-7-43(a)

In addition, the Act creates a new category of litter called egregious litter, which is defined as:

• Litter that exceeds 10 pounds in weight or 15 cubic feet in volume; or
• Any amount of biomedical waste, hazardous waste, or hazardous substance; or
• Any amount dumped for commercial purposes.
  16-7-51 (4)

It is unlawful to intentionally dump egregious litter (unless authorized to do so by law or permit)
on any public highway, road, street, alley, thoroughfare, or other public land, in or on any freshwater or tidal or coastal water of the state, or on any private property unless consent of the
owner has been given and there is no adverse effect on the public health.
16-7-52

There are other illegal acts related to posting posters, signs, or advertisements on public or
private property unless authorized by owner; operating a vehicle on a public road that is not
covered so as to prevent litter; erecting signs, signals, or devices on roadside or public right of
way.

What are the potential penalties?
Each type of violation comes with its own potential penalty. These penalties are summarized in the Table below. In addition to the penalties listed in the Table, with regard to egregious litter, the court may order the violator to:

• Remove or render harmless any egregious litter;
• Repair or restore property damages or pay damages resulting from dumping;
• Perform public service related to the removal or illegally dumped egregious litter or restoration of an area polluted by such substance.
  16-7-53 (d)

Who can enforce?
All law enforcement agencies, officers, and officials of the state or any political subdivision or any enforcement agency, officer, or any official of any commission or authority of the state or any political subdivision can enforce compliance. Any of these entities can appoint any person to enforce the provisions of this code section who is a U.S. citizen of good moral character that has not previously been convicted of a felony. 16-7-43 (d) and 16-7-45 New provisions in the Act allow probate, magistrate, and municipal courts to hear cases punishable for its violation as a misdemeanor. 15-9-30.7, 15-10-2.1, and 36-32-10.3

What other provisions address litter coming from a vehicle?
When litter comes from a motor vehicle, it may be assumed that the operator is responsible 16-7-44 (a) If the violation is for egregious littering, then the arresting law enforcement agency may
impound the vehicle. 16-7-53.1 Vehicles should be constructed, covered, or loaded to prevent littering on public or private property. Any person violating this code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 40-6-248.1 Although not part of the Litter Act of 2006, Section 40-6-276 requires that the driver of wrecker truck towing away any vehicle from the scene of a wreck take away all parts belonging to the vehicle that he is towing, or, if they consist of small parts or broken glass, the driver shall clear
the streets of said small parts or glass, unless the driver is ordered not to do so by the investigating police officer due to circumstances at the scene of the accident.

What if no one actually sees who littered?
When litter is found that contains a name indicating that it belongs to a particular person, it may be assumed that that person has littered.
16-7-44 (b)

How does this Act impact local authority with regard to littering?
Local governments can adopt and enforce their own ordinances to regulate and control litter.
16-7-48

How to Investigate a Litter Crime Scene

Investigation Safety
Based on Information provided by Rodney Robertson, Newton County, GA Code Enforcement Coordinator

Upon arriving at a crime scene, observe the area for potential safety hazards. Failure to do so could result in exposing yourself to minor injuries, lifelong sickness, or even death.

Be prepared for the unexpected, and do not hurry the investigation.

1. Park your vehicle safely.
2. Use emergency lighting - especially during times of low light, bad visibility, or
   inclement weather.
3. Wear your safety vest, preferably one with reflective material, especially when
   working in high traffic areas, or in areas where hunters may be present.

Common hazards for an officer investigating a litter crime scene include:

• Scrapes, cuts, and abrasions;
• Insect bites;
• Falls;
• Exposure to poisonous plants.

Threats less frequently encountered but are more serious in nature are:

• Exposure to hazardous chemicals;
• Exposure to bacteria; and
• Puncture wounds from sharps or needles.

To protect yourself, have on hand the following safety equipment to be used as needed:

• Cellular phone or two-way radio - In the event you are injured and need to
  contact someone for assistance;
• Latex gloves - for protection from infectious or biohazardous waste;
• Chemical resistant gloves - should be worn over latex gloves, or at a minimum
  on the hand in which you are searching through the garbage with;
• Eye protection - to prevent eye exposure to liquids - wraparound type are
  preferable;
• Antiseptic wipes or lotion - for cleaning hands after completing the
  investigation;
• First aid kit - should be readily available in case of an accident;
• Filter mask - should be readily available to prevent the inhalation of potential
  respiratory hazardous material;
• Bug spray - worn to control and possibly prevent insect bites;
• 20-ounce bottle of water - preferably with an easy-open squirt top - to wash out
  eyes or cuts;
• Proper Clothing -
  • Long pants - preferably a type that does not contain pieces that could
    become snagged or entangled in limbs or briars;
  • Long-sleeved shirt - to protect you from cuts, scrapes, and bug bites, as well as plants that could irritate the skin;
  • Boots - preferably those with a non-slip sole. High-topped boots may also help to prevent turned ankles on uneven surfaces.

Use the following safety procedures when investigating a litter/illegal dump crime scene:

1. Any material that bears a hazardous chemical label, or container that looks
   like it may contain chemicals, should be investigated with extreme caution. Never smell or taste the item to identify it. Try to identify the contents by copying information from the label, then suspending the investigation until a determination can be made regarding toxicity.
2. Any waste that contains red bags should be approached with extreme caution. Typically biomedical waste is disposed of in red bags or containers labeled as biohazard.
3. If you encounter a situation that you do not have expertise to handle, contact your fire department, HAZMAT or the GA Environmental Protection Division.
4. If an accident occurs, suspend your investigation and call for assistance, if
   needed.
5. Avoid touching the evidence after post-investigation cleanup.
6. Decontaminate your shoes before stepping indoors.

Investigational Tips
Based on presentation developed by RFC Robert Peacock, Georgia DNR

Collecting Evidence

1. Preserve the crime scene;
2. Take many pictures;
3. Estimate the waste quantity - weights and volumes, as well as waste types;
4. Look for anything that you can tie back to an individual or company (such as address labels, delivery or sales receipts, medicine bottles, etc.);
5. Note proximity to streams, wetlands, or other environmentally sensitive areas;
6. Try to obtain the coordinates of the site using GPS or GIS technology;
7. Take your time.

Other Investigation Tips

1. Develop and maintain a good rapport with other law enforcement agencies - they may be able to help you, and may arrive first or have additional resources/authority.
2. The general public may be your best source of general information - but not always the most reliable - so follow up on every complaint.
3. Consider using your local Conservation Ranger;
4. Focus your time on the problem areas - you may have to sit and wait;
5. Consider using aircraft - it allows you to see sites you may not be able to see from the roads - what you find in a few hours may keep you busy for months;
6. Work with your court system to ensure that environmental crimes are prosecuted.

Implementing Community Policing
Marietta, Georgia

Background
In 2000 the City of Marietta began implementing a community policing program. A Commander from the Police Department is responsible for each of the City's five zones, which is served by a Zone Management Team. The Police Department subscribes to the "Broken Window Philosophy" - having observed a strong link between neighborhoods that "look bad" (with litter, graffiti, broken windows, etc.) they believe that it is imperative to resolve these types of neighborhood issues as quickly as possible, before others exacerbate the problem. Also, Commander David Lee notes that the police are not only there to "catch criminals," but also to ensure that residents have a good quality of life. While writing a ticket for a litter infraction may seem like a relatively dull task for a police officer, Commander Lee notes that the philosophy of the Department is that residents have a right to a litter-free (as well as graffiti-free) environment, and thus it is still an important infraction to pursue. The philosophy of the department supports officers' writing tickets for such "quality of life" issues.

Nuts and Bolts of Zone Management Teams
Zone Management Teams are generally comprised of: a Police Commander, one Police Lieutenant, two Police Sergeants, three uniform patrol officers (one from each shift), three additional officers (e.g., one from traffic unit, one from criminal intervention unit, and one from community outreach), City Code enforcement officers, and others, such as members of the Board of Lights and Water, depending on specific issues faced in that zone.

Commander Lee notes that while Keep Marietta Beautiful is not an "official member" of one or more Zone Management Team, KMB helps all zones tremendously by providing anti-litter information, volunteers, t-shirts, and other supplies for community clean-ups, and anti-graffiti outreach and education.

Zone Management Teams meet at public town hall meetings on a quarterly basis, discussing issues and potential solutions. On an ongoing basis, citizens and officers fill out Community Zone Action Forms (which are available on the City's web site) to inform the Commander of a quality-of-life issue that is taking place in their zone. The Commander for each zone is responsible for following up on each Zone Action Form. This provides each Commander with accountability for his or her specific zone.

Benefits of Community Policing
Community policing allows officers to develop relationships with individuals and to understand specific issues facing their zone. Furthermore, the philosophy of the Department supports officers in their quest to enhance citizens' quality of life. By establishing relationships with youngsters, particularly in some of the more distressed zones, the officers have noticed that youngsters are developing pride in their neighborhood, and putting pressure on others to keep the community clean. Commander Lee notes that since this program's inception in 2000, the crime rate has declined by 40 percent.

A Separate System for Ordinance Violations
Hall County, Georgia

Background
In the early 1990's, environmental concerns became the incentive for Hall County residents and County staff to identify ways in which local laws could be used more effectively in order to protect the environment. The County is home of Lake Lanier, which is critical to the citizens' quality of life, and a strong economic contributor, not to mention a source of water for the City of Atlanta. A sate-wide local government code enforcement group was formed by the State Environmental Protection Division to analyze the best way Counties and Cities could more effectively use their ordinances to protect the environment. The group arranged a trip to Memphis, TN in the early 1990's, where they were very impressed with how Judge Potter's environmental court worked there. By 1996 County officials had decided that Memphis's system should be adopted
in Hall County.

Benefits of a Separate System
The County thus began hearing and prosecuting County ordinance violations in a separate, parallel judicial system in the late 1990's. Anne Bishop was hired as an Assistant County Attorney, prosecuting strictly ordinance violations. A separate magistrate court judge was assigned to hear county ordinance violations exclusively - Judge Gene Roberts being the first such judge. Having a prosecutor focus on these cases not only ensures that they receive timely attention, as opposed to being lost in a sea of other "more serious" violations, but also provides the magistrate judge and the prosecutor with a broad array of information pertaining to offenders, such as the history of repeat offenders, excuses provided by violators, etc. Focusing on such cases has provided both the Assistant County Attorney and the Judge with the ability to understand what sentences are likely to be effective, and creative sentencing has ensued.

Creative Sentencing
Judge Roberts often found it beneficial to impose the maximum sentence, with the stipulation that they would review the case in 30 or 60 days, and apply a credit for some of the fine if the offender had cleaned up the property by that point in time. Ms. Bishop finds it beneficial to tell the offender up-front that their sentence will be reduced the more quickly they remediate the site, thus providing the defendant with a strong incentive to clean the litter or illegal dump site, and as soon as possible.

Violations of County
ordinances carry, by law, a maximum sentence of $1,000 fine, 60 days in jail, and/or six months' probation. In the case of particularly egregious violations, the County can charge the offender with several violations, thus stiffening the sentencing, and therefore the deterrence, or put its strong nuisance ordinance into effect, ordering the cleaning (or demolition) of a site at the expense of the property owner.

Results
Although the County has not achieved 100 percent compliance, they have definitely seen increased success in convincing violators to clean up illegal dump sites. In addition, there has been a decrease in littering cases, and there are fewer repeat offenders since the more effective use of citations for littering and dumping cases has sent a message into the community that the ordinances are being enforced.

Streamlining Sanitation with SWEEP
Allentown, Pennsylvania

Background
The City of Allentown, Pennsylvania, had been experiencing an increasing litter problem in its downtown commercial and government districts in the early 2000's. In fact, a 2003 citizen survey indicated that increased litter (tied with crime) was the "single most important issue that should be addressed by the city government." The City's Mayor formed a Task Force to look into potential solutions to the problem. The Task Force suggested that the City adopt Philadelphia's successful SWEEP program. The City improved many downtown cleanup programs, launched a "Don't Trash Allentown" education and outreach campaign, and improved litter enforcement. In 2005 the City began a pilot program called SWEEP. SWEEP (Solid Waste Education and Enforcement Program) aims to reduce litter and trash problems in the City of Allentown through improved enforcement and compliance with the City's revised trash, litter and recycling ordinances, as well as through education.

SWEEP Specifics
Previously, police officers in Allentown focused on issuing citations for littering and illegal dumping, and the health bureau for trash storage and set-out violations. Therefore, one site could involve several departments, with no one department or program having comprehensive authority. Similarly, the police department dealt with various types of crime, thus illegal dumping and littering issues did not always receive top priority within the Department. Furthermore, citations involved the judges in the process, which was often time-consuming and resulted in little or no punishment for littering offenders.

The SWEEP program provides a comprehensive tool for one department to cover all offenses for which a ticket could be written. The program began with the passage of the ordinance revisions in March 2005. The revisions allowed for the issuance of tickets (vs. citations) for certain City Code violations, and tightened the City's solid waste, littering, and recycling ordinance language, such that it was more clear, and strengthened the responsibility of property owners to keep their properties clean. The City is in the process of hiring their fifth SWEEP officer. These officers can issue tickets for all littertype offenses, allowing police officers and health bureau sanitarians to focus on their other duties (though they can still issue tickets too). The tickets are "pre-citation" tickets, and therefore do not involve a judge, unless the tickets are unpaid, or there are egregious violations.

SWEEP Successes
By mid-2006 1,136 SWEEP tickets have been issued for 1,391 violations. SWEEP officers have written 93 percent of these tickets. The City has received $53,757 in ticket revenue since the June 2005 start-up of the program, and the SWEEP program has saved the District Magisterial Judges from hearing over 2,000 cases per year. Ann Saurman, Program Manger, stresses the importance of meeting with or sending information to judges to stress the importance of illegal dumping and littering issues.

Tough Love for Litterers
Dougherty County, Georgia

Introduction
In rural Dougherty County, Georgia, illegal dumping and littering is a serious problem. Judy Bowles, Executive Director of Keep Albany-Dougherty Beautiful, makes education and outreach about littering a top priority. Each year she conducts a six-week education blitz, using television and newspaper public service announcements, to educate citizens about littering and illegal dumping. Much to Judy's dismay, simply providing education and outreach and posting "Thank you for Not Littering" signs does not dissuade all citizens. So for the past six or so years, Ms. Bowles has fought back with a "tough love" strategy of her own.

Alerting the Press
When an illegal dump site is discovered by law enforcement officers, and the culprit is discovered, code enforcement disseminates that information to Ms. Bowles as soon as possible. In turn, she quickly calls the local newspaper and two television stations and meets them at the dump site to stage a not-so-glamorous media moment. She announces, on air, standing amidst the pile of litter, the apparent offender's name, the potential court date, and potential fines. This approach is a win-win for the community - the media is provided with an interesting story, additional education regarding littering is provided (free of charge), and future offenders are deterred via humiliation and embarrassment. Another issue that has been plaguing Dougherty County is yard sale signs that people are eager to put up, but never remove. The County posted small signs on public posts, indicating that it is illegal to put up yard sale signs, and the crime is punishable by a fine of $365 per sign. One woman, however, placed her yard sale sign squarely under the warning. For this offense, Ms. Bowles invited the media to the offenders' home for an on-the-spot interview. Ms. Bowles indicates that, in the six to seven years she has been taking this approach (with 20 or so media spots), the media has never once failed to show
up.

A Jaunt for Judges
Ms. Bowles had been disappointed in the past with judges' sentencing for littering crimes. She found that judges often gave unsuitably small sentences - mere "slaps on the wrist" - for a crime that negatively impacts the whole community. She sensed that judges and others simply weren't aware of the severity of the problem, or could even visualize what an illegal dump site was. Thus, Ms. Bowles involved the media again, on a bus tour she arranged for judges, City department heads, and the City manager, to see four illegal dump sites. This created an opportunity to educate the attendees and to show them firsthand how these issues impacts the community. It also provided them with an immediate, public forum to state their resolve to stop such crimes. The result, according to Ms. Bowles, was markedly stiffer sentencing for litterers and illegal dumpers.

Establishing Environmental Courts

Need for Environmental Courts
Traditionally, local governments have addressed environmentally destructive behavior, such as littering, graffiti, and illegal dumping, using code enforcement and penaltysystems of the same courts that address more-dangerous criminal infractions. This system left judges and prosecutors with little familiarity concerning environmental cases and inadequate time to devote to such infractions. The bottom line - environmental cases have been viewed as insignificant by many, resulting in little enforcement, thus little incentive for the public to obey environmental codes. Enforcement officers, similarly, were often left with low morale, as their efforts seemed to be unsupported by the judicial system. In certain communities, environmental courts have been created as a moreeffective alternative.

Highlights of Environmental Courts
Growing in popularity, particularly in Southern states, environmental courts hear strictly violations that impact safety, sanitation, and quality-of-life issues such as:

• Littering;
• Illegal dumping;
• Neglected properties;
• Abandoned vehicles; and
• Graffiti.

Environmental courts often have a dedicated judge and prosecutor (as exists in Hall County, Georgia). This allows them to develop expertise regarding such crimes, the factors that lead to them, and the enforcement tools that lead to compliance.

Continuity is often helpful in adjudicating significant and often complicated cases. Environmental courts generally focus on developing compliance, rather than penalties. They may also involve issuing tickets, rather than citations (such as in Allentown, PA), so that judges are not involved except in the case of egregious and repeat violations. Environmental court systems often include a community policing attitude. Judge Potter of Memphis, for example, frequently visited infraction sites, giving residents an opportunity to see their government in action. He is currently working to create the nation's first community-based environmental court, where the court would sit in different areas of Memphis to hear cases that originate in those areas, with immediate input from the surrounding neighborhoods. The City of Marietta, Georgia, has divided the City into zones, such that each Commander can develop expertise regarding the issues in the zone, as well as relationships with leaders and citizens-at-large - holding town hall meetings within each zone on a quarterly basis.

Benefits of Environmental Courts
Memphis and Shelby County, TN developed the nation's third environmental court system in 1983, having been inspired by Judge Jester's environmental court in Indianapolis, Indiana. Judge Larry Potter of Memphis's Municipal Court began hearing environmental cases on Friday afternoons. Thus the Court did not involve new resources - it simply organized them differently. The benefits of Memphis's environmental court became apparent in little time and include the following:

1. The judge specializes in environmental laws and regulations, focusing on the seriousness of an offense in its proper context;
2. Inspectors no longer have to wait in court while other "non-environmental" cases are heard - thus their productivity (and morale) are improved;
3. The judge's decisions give the code enforcement agencies the ability to fashion their cases in an appropriate manner, since the court developed its own set of binding precedents;
4. Cases are heard in a more expeditious manner - thus compliance efforts can be made more quickly - thereby spurring a renewed spirit of cooperation among civic and political leaders and citizens; and
5. Police officers writing citations for environmental violations are supported fully by department officials.

The above benefits, combined, result in a system that has more-immediate consequences for environmental infractions (and more-immediate benefits for their remediation). In sum, environmental courts:

• Improve compliance;
• Reduce ordinance violations; and
• Improve relationships among law enforcement, court clerks and judges, and code inspectors; and
• Raise public awareness about environmental ordinances.

Steps for Establishing Environmental Courts
To set up an environmental court in your city:

 1. Determine whether the enforcement of quality-of-life ordinances could help clean up the community.

2. Gather the facts - for example:

• Which local agencies enforce does that are of interest to an environmental court? (Examples - building, fire, safety, public health, housing, solid waste, and environmental codes)
• Is there currently inadequate enforcement of violations?
• How many cases are heard annually and how many could be prosecuted by an environmental court?
• Do enforcement agencies take violations seriously?
• Would it be feasible to establish a court specifically designated for environmental matters - staffed by a non-rotating judge or a specialized docket of the general jurisdiction court?
• Are penalties/fines stiff enough to deter violators?
• Do judges and prosecutors supportive of the enforcement of such codes?

3. Involve people

• Develop a list of contacts at all agencies, departments, civic organizations and court that would be involved in the court's formation. Include the mayor, council members, presiding judge, administrative clerk of the court, city or county attorney, county board, and other influential community leaders.
• Hold an informational meeting to explain the concept and gain consensus on the need for the court. Consider showing KAB's environmental court video.
• Identify where the nearest environmental court is, and send a representative from the group to observe the court in action. (KAB has a list of affiliate communities with environmental courts).

4. Define the Court and system, planning systematically - for example:

• What jurisdictions will be involved?
• Do ordinances need to be revised to strengthen enforcement, penalties, or change jurisdictions?
• Set the Court's guidelines.
• Develop the Court's method for formal organization and steps for filing all documentation.
• Determine budgetary considerations - are additional personnel needed? At what cost?
• Write legislation and ordinances, as needed and seek passage by the governing body of the jurisdiction served by the Court.
• Determine guidelines for sanctions (e.g. fines, community service, jail time).
• Establish a system for channeling cases to the environmental court.
• Identify a judge to try the cases.
• Provide training for everyone involved with the new court (including Court reporter, clerk and attorneys).

5. Keep everyone involved informed

• Hold periodic meetings of the organizing group to gather and distribute information about the Court's activities.
• Encourage the Court to conduct training sessions for agency inspectors on how to prepare stronger cases for prosecution.
• Provide the Court judge with information about KAB and the American Bar Association's network of environmental court judges.

6. Keep the public informed:

• Involve the media; hold a press conference to announce the Court's formation; let the public know that your community takes environmental code infractions seriously.
• Conduct a public awareness program to educate citizens about the Court. Emphasize its major function is to change attitudes about waste handling and environmental or health concerns versus levying fines or penalties.

7. Track results - how much has compliance improved? Monitor the number of cases filed, the time between filing and action, cases dismissed due to compliance, and attitude and behavior changes.

Establishing an environmental court system can be an effective enforcement strategy that can improve prosecution

Georgia DNR Wildlife Resources Division Law Enforcement Section Contact Information By Region

Region 1 Calhoun PO Box 786 Calhoun, GA 30703 (770) 769-9680	Region 2 Gainesville 2150 Dawsonville Hwy Gainesville, GA 30501 (770) 535-5499
Region 3 Thomson 142 Bob Kirk Road Thomson, GA 30824 (706) 595-4211	Region 4 Macon 2618 Shurling Drive Macon, GA 31211 (478) 751-6415
Region 5 Albany 2024 Newton Road Albany, GA 31701 (229) 430-4252	Region 6 Metter 360 Cedar Street Metter, GA 30439 (912) 685-2145
Region 7 Brunswick Suite 201, One Conservation Way Brunswick, GA 31520 (912) 264-7237

 
Resources and References

Community Contacts
Allentown, Pennsylvania
The City of Allentown implemented SWEEP - Solid Waste Education and Enforcement Program, which streamlined enforcement for littering and other code violations. The SWEEP program allows SWEEP officers to issue "pre-citation" tickets, which do not involve a judge. SWEEP officers also have more comprehensive authority over littering and illegal dumping issues - many of which previously "fell between the cracks" when multiple departments were involved. Judges may become involved in the case of egregious or repeat offenses.

Contact:
Ms. Betsy Levin
Manager
Allentown Bureau of Recycling and Solid Waste
Levin@allentowncity.org
610-437-8729

Dougherty County, Georgia
Dougherty County, Georgia has been successful in using media coverage to embarrass litterers. The Executive Director of Keep Albany-Dougherty Beautiful calls the media once code officers have investigated an illegal dump site or litter pile and discovered who the apparent offender is. The media go to the site, where the individual's name is announced, and aired on television. This has proven to be an effective disincentive for littering. The media also provided coverage of a bus tour of illegal dumps that was arranged for judges and other municipal officials. This was an excellent public forum for judges and officials to publicly state their concern for the issue, and support for anti-litter enforcement.

Contact:
Ms. Judy Bowles
Executive Director, Keep Albany-Dougherty Beautiful
http://www.albany.ga.us/kadb/kadb_index.htm

Hall County, Georgia
Hall County, Georgia established a separate court system - judge and prosecutor, to try code violations. This program, modeled after Memphis, TN's Environmental Court, allows the magistrate judge and the prosecutor to focus on code violations, recognize repeat offenders and their modus operandi, as well as develop creative and effective sentencing strategies - which was difficult to do when trying other types of crimes, which tended to take precedence over code violations.

Contacts:
Judge Gene Roberts
Hall County, Georgia
770-718-5143

Ms. Anne Bishop
Assistant County Attorney for Code
Enforcement
abishop@hallcounty.org
 
Marietta, Georgia
The City of Marietta implemented a community policing program in 2000. The City is divided into five "zones," and a Police Commander is responsible for each zone. Zone Management Teams solve issues that are relevant to each zone, and meet in a town hall meeting each quarter. Commanders have accountability for their zone. This strategy allows for relationship-building and getting to really understand the issues facing a neighborhood.

Contact:
Commander David Lee, Marietta, Georgia Police Department
dlee@mariettaga.gov

Memphis/Shelby County, TN
Memphis and Shelby County, TN have developed a well-know, progressive environmental courtsystem, headed by Judge Potter.

Shelby County Environmental Court
901-545-3456
Potter-L@co.selby.tn.us
Rhodes-P@co.shelbyb.tn.us
www.envirocourt.co.shelby.tn.us

Other Resources

Auntie Litter
http://www.auntielitter.org/
National non-profit organization that is dedicated to providing environmental education to the general public, particularly children. This site also features a "Teacher Talk" section.

Don't Mess with Texas
http://www.dontmesswithtexas.org/index.php
This Texas anti-litter campaign sponsored by the Texas Department of Transportation is perhaps the most widely known anti-litter slogan in the nation. Resources and programs include education and outreach materials, adoption programs, cleanup programs, and contests.

Keep America Beautiful
www.kab.org
Resources Include:

• Links to Great American Cleanups;
• Toolbox for Community Change;
• Litter Index - Description of methodology for measuring progress;
• Graffiti Hurts® - Anti-graffiti program information;
• Take Action - How to start a cleanup program in your community;
• Clean Sweep USA - Education and outreach information;
• Waste in Place - Elementary education curriculum;
• Waste in the Workplace - Education and outreach materials for workplaces;
• Cigarette Litter Prevention - Information to remediate and educate about cigarette butt littering;
• Close the Loop - A video about the benefits of purchasing recycled content products, produced in cooperation with the U.S. EPA;
• And more.

Litter It Costs You
www.litteritcostsyou.org
This web site is still under development, but will contain education and outreach materials for residents, including a story and game for children, and educational contents. In addition, there will be information for local governments and communities, including a toolkit, and information about litter indexes, litter/solid waste surveys, press kits, and links to other resources. There will also be a section for businesses (e.g., adoption and sponsorship programs) and for media including current press releases, media experts, and campaign information.

National Center for Environmental Decision-Making Research, Decision Maker's Guide to Controlling Litter and Illegal Dumping.
http://www.ncedr.org/guides/litter/default.html
Includes:

• Case studies;
• Check lists;
• Model laws;
• Links to additional resources; and
• Media/press releases.

Ockels, John H., Ph.D. Presentation materials developed for Texoma Council of Governments on behalf of Keep Texas Beautiful.

Peacock, Robert, GA DNR. Environmental Crimes (Presentation, August 2006).
478-751-6415
dnr326@bellsouth.net

Pennsylvania Cleanways
http://www.pacleanways.org/
A non-profit organization that helps people who are ready to take action against illegal dumping and littering in their communities. Their core programs revolve around cleanups, adoptions and education. Programs and resources include:

• Newsletters (for adults and children);
• Results of litter survey studies;
• Adoption programs;
• Cleanup programs;
• Publications; and
• "Tools for Change" - A guide for implementing programs in your community.

Pennsylvania Resources Council
http://www.prc.org/
www.litterbug.org
A state and national leader in waste reduction and recycling, the remainder of PRC's work focuses on litter and visual blight prevention, watershed awareness, and composting. The strength of PRC's programs is derived from its continuing efforts to bring people, businesses, and government together to prevent and solve environmental problems. Programs include anti-litter programs and outreach, as well as antibillboard/anti-blight programs and resources. A model community anti-litter law is also available on the litterbug.org web site.

Robertson, Rodney, Newton County Georgia Code Enforcement Coordinator,
Environmental Enforcement Field Safety Procedures.
U.S. EPA Region 5, Illegal Dumping Prevention Guidebook (EPA905-B-97-001), March 1998.
http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/illegal_dumping/downloads/il-dmpng.pdfEPA