Nonpoint Source Outreach Tools

I seem to be on a cumulative effects rant this week.  Too many hours on the computer, too few steps by my body, each little tailpipe on the road, or as a previous post pointed out, too many bodies pooping.  But this is not so much a rant as a point to tools to use while you rant in a politically correct manner.  Public funds at work for you, so take advantage!  Rant away!

Nonpoint Source Outreach Toolbox Upgrade Released


EPA has released a significant upgrade to its Nonpoint Source Outreach
Toolbox today. This new version is available online at www.epa.gov/nps/toolbox/.


This version includes two important new features, along with other improvements:

1. A robust new search feature to help you find the most applicable TV, radio or print materials in the Toolbox's product catalog to meet your specific nonpoint source/stormwater outreach needs (available directly at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npstbx/index.cfm)  
2. Significant new content of outreach material—TV, radio and print ads on various nonpoint source and stormwater topics of concern.
   

The Nonpoint Source (NPS) Outreach Toolbox is intended for use by state and local agencies and other organizations interested in educating the public on nonpoint source pollution or stormwater runoff. The Toolbox contains a variety of resources to help develop an effective and targeted outreach campaign.

Pamplona has Nothing on this Bull Run

Here's a nice piece on one of my favorite watersheds:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/bull_run_watershed_journey_to.html

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.

Reverse auctions for stormwater mitigation

Here's a study out of Cincinnati, Ohio where they did a reverse auction to ask people how much they had to be paid to take a rain barrel or rain garden on their property to reduce stormwater runoff in a small watershed. It is a good description of how to do this kind of thing to get people to adopt a new technology/approach, but the report stops short of providing monitoring results (in other words, do these things actually have a measurable effect on runoff in the watershed).

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r08129/600r08129.htm

Oregon DEQ Subverts the Process and Wastes True Believers in Greywater

Sad news from Rainbow Todd Jarvis about the DEQ's graywater advisory committee:

http://rainbowwatercoalition.blogspot.com/2010/05/wasting-true-believers-in-greywater.html

with commentary from AquaDoc, Michael Campana

I am happy to report that Todd Jarvis appears to be safe and sound despite his recent experiences with DEQ - he didn't drink the Kool-Aid.

Help Oregon Develop an Integrated Water Resources Strategy

Just a reminder that OWRD's Spring 2010 open houses are coming up!

Four state agencies have been given responsibility for developing an integrated water resources strategy for Oregon by 2012, with 5‐year updates thereafter. This spring, these agencies, along with commissioners and local partners, will host a series of evening open houses throughout Oregon
communities, serving three purposes:

 
1. To ensure that participants receive information about the statewide strategy, the project timeline, and the many opportunities to participate.

2. To gather input from community members, in terms of water resource challenges, opportunities, and recommended actions.

3. To highlight successful, local examples of water resource solutions currently underway in Oregon communities.

Various stations will allow participants to engage in individual conversations and facilitated discussions, listen to presentations, and to ask questions about current issues and local projects. A “kid’s center” will allow younger attendees to participate in water‐related activities.

More info at:

http://www1.wrd.state.or.us/pdfs/2_12_10_Briefer.pdf

Public involvement and progress

We've all seen the effects of citizen involvement, uninvolvement and devolvement in various public settings.  Here is a report from the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation on the 2008 conference on  dialogue and deliberation.  (link:  http://www.thataway.org/?p=2387)  It seems to contain a lot of optimism about how we can bridge communication gaps through traditional approaches of increasing public education by way of getting the word out there early and often...

I like to believe that there's optimism for how public discourse moves forward, but I have to wonder, given the intense inculcation of cultural beliefs and biases that various populations receive from the cradle forward, whether trying to impose a veneer of civility at as late a stage as public participation in public policy making will actually change how groups interact.  If we can't maintain civil discourse on something that many more people agree is needed in some form or another (health care reform and I refer to the spate of racially charged epithets strewn about recently) then how can we possible hope to progress on issues where there is no baseline agreement?