RE: State roles in public participation

[Steve Tarlton <steve.tarlton@state.co.us>]

I think this discussion is missing the point. I'm with Colorado, and I'm sensitive to the generalizations everybody is making here. (That was also a generalization) Each community is different, each state is different, and every EPA activity is different. How each is addressed may be (or should be) different. I know Colorado has a whole set of problems different from New Jersey. I think that it is the Community Relations person's job to figure out which set of tools will work for that specific community and problem.  

In my (humble) opinion, the key to making community involvement or public participation work is for the regulators to be involved at the community level. This means that somebody has to be plugged in to what a community is thinking, what their values are, and what their concerns are. If you wait until you have a problem, you can't do this effectively. You can't get to know them, and they can't get to know you.

This may be one reason why local industries, military bases, etc. can do a better job than regulators of accessing the community: they are there all the time. As a state government, we don't have the staff or the funding to be involved everywhere across the state (although in a perfect world we would), so we have to rely on people or organizations locally to help us understand the community's issues, values and concerns. EPA has to do the same thing, and in some cases, the state may be that organization.