RE: State roles in public participation

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

Anne, 

The programs I am talking about include mandated federal requirements for a certain level of public participation. Flexibility exists above the required level, but not below. 

I'm not unsympathetic to lack of resources a state might have. But,if the state had not promised to meet these requirements, the program would not be delegated.  

I should also note that at least for Title V air pollution permits, delegation depends on the state showing there are adequate fees to pay for the program, which includes public participation.

I think a big part of the problem is that states typically underfund programs, so there is not enough staff to do all the work that is necessary. Public participation gets shorted because it's the easiest thing to jettison. But if U.S. EPA allows that, when will there ever be an incentive for legislatures to provide adequate funding. 

Let me expand on the example I gave in my previous post. 

A public interest group was given the responsibility by Ohio EPA of organizing environmental groups for a public process. I wrote and requested notice of meetings, but did not receive them. The director of the group defended this by saying the state cannot afford to mail to "every Sierra Club member."  

Now aside from the fact that this is not what I had requested, the state was obliged under the rules governing this process to mail to every person who requested information. If every Sierra Club person wrote in, they should all get a notice. Unfortunately, the state was not held accountable for failure to notify me (they did not deny that they knew I wanted notice).    But, they sensed correctly that U.S. EPA would not intervene. So, the state avoided doing a good public process by making a claim that it could not afford a stamp. 

Flexibility sounds good, but the bad actors spoil it for everyone.