State roles in public participation

[Glenn Landers <glenn.landers@sierraclub.org>]

I haven't had a chance to read all today's messages so my apologies if this has already been covered.

A large part of my experience is based on federal programs run by the state. I think for many citizens these programs have more relevance than those public participation processes run directly by the U.S. EPA. But, my experience is that state and local agencies often don't take public participation requirements seriously. 

In my view, the public is doing a big favor to the agency when they devote their limited time and resources to an involvement process. Bad experiences, even small barriers, can inhibit participation. These routinely occur on the state or local level with delegated federal programs. 

>From my own experience, let me give an example or two. 

Title V air pollution permits require a notice and comment period. The notice should list a contact person who can provide additional information about the permit. Here in Ohio, the notice directs you to the public information office, where they don't even know what a Title V permit is. They direct you to the regional office, where there may be someone who can answer a question. But, often with the bigger facilities, you are directed back to the air pollution control office at headquarters. At one time(this changed two years ago), the person you finally got on the phone would say that they could only respond to written questions and the answers would only come after the comment period closed. (I once could not get an answer to the question: what do they make there?). These type of barriers send a strong message to the public. 

Another example of a problem with state implementation occurs when the state cherry-picks groups for a stakeholder process. I've seen Ohio delegate to a group the repsonsibility for "organizing" of environmental participants in a stakeholder process. The result was that the group invited similarly disposed organizations to be on the steering committee and closed out groups they thought too strident. Ohio EPA's position was that it was not their problem. Complaints to U.S. EPA had no effect, though it was a federally mandated process.

Identifying the interested public is important, but if the state or local government has already burned the bridge, you'll have a hard time getting them to show up. 

My suggestion then would be the U.S. EPA start strictly enforcing public participation requirements delegated to other authorities and reject permits, rules, and plans submitted without adequate participation. I don't think the public can really take a participation policy seriously if, once it is delegated to the state, it gets ignored.