RE: State roles in public participation

[Greg Aitken <aitken.greg@deq.state.or.us>]

>From my perspective working with a state environmental agency (Oregon DEQ), I'm struggling to find how EPA's draft PIP will have an impact on how we do our work in this state.  Other than the usual "cultural" barriers to taking public participation seriously within our agency, our severe budgetary constraints make it too easy for us to avoid adequate public participation in our work.  

Our funding is so heavily dependent on us being able to show achievement of short-term goals (like increasing the number of environmental permits we approve) that there is little incentive to consider the long-term ethical and practical benefits (like recognizing how good public involvement helps communities help themselves to solve environmental problems).

I agree with a previous comment suggesting that state managers probably have more to gain (and lose) with good (or bad) public participation than EPA managers.  We are also typically more closely connected and more accessible to communities than our federal counterparts.  Accordingly, EPA's PIP would be much more significant and useful if it clearly provided compelling incentives for states to take it seriously.