Unlawful Dumping

  1. Law
  2. Georgia Code
  3. Crimes and Offenses
  4. Damage to and Intrusion Upon Property
  5. Criminal Trespass and Damage to Property
  6. Waste Control
  7. Unlawful Dumping

Checkout our iOS App for a better way to browser and research.

It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally dump egregious litter unless authorized to do so by law or by a duly issued permit:

  1. In or on any public highway, road, street, alley, or thoroughfare, including any portion of the right of way thereof, or on any other public lands except in containers or areas lawfully provided for such dumping;
  2. In or on any fresh-water lake, river, canal, or stream or tidal or coastal water of the state; or
  3. In or on any private property, unless prior consent of the owner has been given and unless such dumping will not adversely affect the public health and is not in violation of any other state law, rule, or regulation.

(Code 1981, §16-7-52, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 496, § 2; Ga. L. 2006, p. 275, § 2-2/HB 1320.)

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1993, the subsection (a) designation was deleted, since this Code section does not have a subsection (b), and, in paragraph (1), "right of way" was substituted for "right-of-way".

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2006, p. 275, § 1-1/HB 1320, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Comprehensive Litter Prevention and Abatement Act of 2006.'"

Ga. L. 2006, p. 275, § 5-1/HB 1320, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the Act shall become effective April 21, 2006, for purposes of adopting local ordinances to become effective on or after July 1, 2006.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Legal description of property on which waste is dumped not necessary.

- Because defendant was charged with unlawful dumping under O.C.G.A. § 16-7-52(3), it was not necessary to prove the legal description of the property on which waste was dumped to obtain a conviction, even though the legal description was alleged in the indictment, because this allegation was mere surplusage, and venue was proved. Crouse v. State, 271 Ga. App. 820, 611 S.E.2d 113 (2005).

Cited in Wiley v. State, 256 Ga. App. 786, 570 S.E.2d 28 (2002); Warren v. State, 289 Ga. App. 481, 657 S.E.2d 533 (2008).


Download our app to see the most-to-date content.