RE: Costs and Benefits

[Eileen Ringnalda <eileen.ringnalda@searbrown.com>]

Chris wrote:
"In short, I think that if "public participation" is to be a goal, (i) EPA has to write its regulations in such a way that local committees have some flexibility in choosing local policies; and (ii) EPA has to give local committees a significant amount of say in the selection of those local policies. Just holding "open houses" or "advisory roundtables" isn't going to do the trick in most cases. Some kind of consensus-building process is going to be needed."

I agree that assistance is best given at the local level -- or at the very least in coordination with local resources from a national organization (such as EPA).  I like the idea of flexibility built into policy-making/regulations and the need for local consensus (inluding local groups selecting what regulations are relevant).

Consensus begins with local presence and/or a feeling of being heard and understood.  Citizens regularly rely on national assistance, but it has little meaning until it is brought to the local level.

Eileen