Steering effectively or defectively?

I received this the other day from the Oregon DEQ Online Subscriptions hotline and it spurred some questions in my mind. The press release talks about developing a steering committee for an issue that I've touched on in the past, the groundwater pollution problem in Central Oregon (DEQ calls it the S. Deschutes/N. Klamath Groundwater Protection Project).

In short, the DEQ appears to be embarking on a Groundwater Management Area type effort and has solicited applications for membership on a steering committee for the project. In this case, membership "qualifications" consist of needing to live in or somehow represent the region of discussion and the applicant's experience.

Now that word "experience" piqued my interest and so I looked at the form that people needed to fill out to apply. Did it ask about people's educational or professional backgrounds? Hobbies? No. It asked why people were interested, if they wanted to represent an organization or not, if they had the time to commit to the committee. Maybe the nebulous question of "Why do you think you would be a good steering committee member?" gets at experience but it's certainly not obvious that that is the point of the question. After all, I could be a good steering committee member because I read the materials and stay awake during meetings (in other words, I educate myself and I participate).

Perhaps the experience question was settled to DEQ's satisfaction during the interview part of the selection process. We'll never know. It appears that DEQ is not willing to be transparent enough to put even the interview questions online. (Which begs the question of whether each applicant was even asked the same questions.)

In any case, to get back to my original point of query, experience in water, groundwater, water quality or other such related fields does not appear to be a prerequisite for participation. That is not necessarily unusual. The question that niggles in the back of my head is whether the people on this committee will be open and willing to listen to the experts that would need to be brought in on a complex issue like this. That the people on this committee have not already made up their mind about what has to happen, or not, and how things have to happen, or not.

I assume there are at least a few of the diehard opponents to the previous groundwater protection efforts who have ended up on the committee. After all, these are the folks that have committed themselves to running the marathon in their fight against the guv'mint. There were only 22 applications so the odds are excellent that the committee is stacked opinion-wise against taking action. This does not bode well for a balanced process, especially if the reasonable folks participating get out-blown by the folks experienced at being blowhards in public settings.

So is DEQ prepared to facilitate these kinds of meetings? Do they have the know-how, the experience, the huevos to really facilitate and achieve a balanced discussion in the Oregon Way to come up with a solution that protects public health and the environment? History says not. History says that DEQ will sway to the tune of the squeakiest wheel regardless of science or public good. In fact, history says that DEQ will avoid the Oregon Way altogether.

Needless, to say, given the track record, I will not hold my breath. But it is worth watching because, ultimately folks, this affects the top of the Deschutes watershed.