[CPEO-BIF] comments on Draft 2000 Final Public Involvement Policy

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

Here are my comments on US EPA's Draft 2000 Final Public Involvement
Policy. I apologize, in advance, for the double-posting. - LS

Thank you for the opportunity to comments on EPA's "Draft 2000 Public
Involvement Policy." I appreciate the agency's growing recognition of
both the importance and value of public participation in the
implementation of environmental protection programs.

I have a brief, simple comment about communications technology, followed
by a more detailed review of the relationship between EPA and the states.

COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY. The increasing use of the World Wide Web to
disseminate information should be specifically addressed. Though the Web
is an important communications tool, the use of which should be
expanded, EPA should not use the Web to shift printing costs to readers.
More important, EPA web sites should be tested so that people who use
modems, as opposed to high-speed Internet connections, or who use
software and hardware that is not the most recent version, should still
have reasonable access to information. Extraneous graphics that slow
downloading should be avoided. Web sites should not demand the
installation of new browser software, some of which demands new hardware.

FEDERALISM. At a time when states are pressing for more regulatory
authority, EPA should go beyond encouraging states, tribes, and local
governments to adopt public involvement policies. It should make both
delegation of authority and the provision of federal assistance
contingent on the existence and implementation of public involvement
policies, to the extent that statute allows.

That is, in general EPA is authorized to delegate authority to state,
tribal and local programs when those agencies demonstrate both the will
and capacity to implement those programs effectively. Often that
qualification is recognized through a formal agreement with EPA. Public
involvement, including particular emphasis on involving environmental
justice communities, should be a requirement in such agreements.

Furthermore, the existence of a formal policy does not ensure public
involvement in practice. When EPA first awarded Brownfields Assessment
Pilots, for example, many recipients promised public involvement,
actually naming community group partners in proposals, but they failed
to follow through. EPA began to check such promises, even contacting
listed community partners.

This should be a general practice. EPA, to the extent that resources
allow, should ensure that state, tribal, and local public involvement
policies are carried out as advertised.

Finally, if any state, tribal, or local environmental or public health
agency adopts and implements an agency-wide public involvement and
environmental justice policy, then that should be seen as a major step
toward satisfying the requirements for delegation or assistance for
specific programs managed by that agency.

-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/968-1126
lsiegel@cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To read CPEO's archived Brownfields messages visit
http://www.cpeo.org/lists/brownfields

If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd
like to subscribe, please send a message to
cpeo-brownfields-subscribe@igc.topica.com 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less. 
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01