Reality check

[Nathan Cooley <nathan.cooley@pca.state.mn.us>]

Some thoughts at the edge of this discussion:

There are over 300,000,000 members in EPA's "public".  The vast majority cannot effectively interpret the meaning of an EPA decision or effectively communicate to EPA.  EPA should not spend scarce resources trying to reach or educate hundreds of millions of individuals.

Overall, EPA has done well in a role of making information available, responding to concerns, and creating effective environmental protection programs--while inviting stakeholders to participate (leading the horses to water).  EPA should spend resources maintaining a legitimate public image as a benevolent environmental steward.

Who participates?  A very small fraction of the public with financial or "value" interests will monitor and put resources into influencing EPA decisions (highly paid lobbyists may wield too much influence in the balance with less affluent constituents).

However, the vast majority of the "public" finds EPA decisions livable.  Participating in EPA decisions is not their priority.  Those who cannot read, write or comprehend can (including children, indigents, frail, illiterates, etc.) must rely on those caretakers or representatives who can.  This is okay--it is not perfect but it has worked to some acceptable level.

EPA needs to find a representative sample of that public for any proposal that will so strongly oppose the action as to say, "over my dead body".  This public may be so adversely affected by a pending EPA decision that they will do anything to stop EPA.  With this public at the table, the decision becomes one of balancing legitimate needs.  These strong opposers are the only ones who are motivated enough to get involved and work out compromises.  As long as EPA has a legitimate role to do what it proposes, and is ethical, few entities will stand in the way.  EPA must focus on those who will.

Please forgive any insensitivity--my intent is to advance the discussion.