RE: Ways EPA can partner with local government?

[John.Browne, Jr. <jb4juddcreek@webtv.net>]

While it's essential that EPA 'partner' with local gov't units, it almost seems a truism. If these local functionaries are doing their jobs, they will be aware of at least the perception of any 'problems' the EPA may be called upon to address. Far too often, there are conflicts between these 'stakeholders' about who will be 'lead office' (or agency) when addressing the concerns which involve EPA; every single local (& regional) incidence that I can recall has involved a 'turf war' (or at least skirmish).

All these administrators & agencies generally have 2 things in common: a socio-economic status; & a desire to maintain the local status quo- ie they are all either 'vested interests' or spokespersons for the vested interests. 

If anything is going to change (& I sadly note the defunding of EMPACT as an omen of Change), it will require the involvement of the class of citizens (& non-citizen residents) whom the vested interests depend upon, but whose needs are only marginally addressed, if at all. (This is particularly evident in communities that depend upon labor-intensive agriculture as an 'economic engine' here in the West.)

One of the forces driving the replacement of anglo-laborers here with a latino workforce is that the latinos 'don't make waves'- politically, anyhow. (They still make pretty big waves at local grocery stores, etc however) Getting the word out to these communities, AND A RESPONSE, is a real challenge, which is exacerbated by the major employers of this work force to keep them cowed & ignorant. In many ways these are the people most affected by 'environmental anomalies' which EPA may be called upon to address. Do 'we' simply allow their employers (& their employers' support groups, ie local gov't functionaries, CofC, etc etc) speak for Them?  ^..^