Working for Clean Water
An Information Program for Advisory Groups
Public Participation
Why get involved in water quality planning?
What are the key elements in an
effective public participation program?
What are the public participation requirements
in water quality planning?
What is a public participation workplan?
What is the role of an advisory group
in the overall public participation program?
Citizen Handbook
-------
This program was prepared by
Ine Pennsylvania State University
Institute of State & Regional
Affairs
Middtetown, PA 17057
Dr. Charles A. Coie
Project Director
Dr. E. Drannon Buskirk, Jr.
Project Co-Director
Prof. Lorna Chr. Stoltzfus
Editor
This unit was prepared by
E Drannon Buskirk, Jr., Dennis
Auker, and Irving Hand
Advisory Team for the Project
David Elkinton, State of West
Virginia
Steve Frishman, private citizen
Michele Frome, private citizen
John Hammond, private citizen
Joan Jurantich, State of California
Richard Hetherington, EPA
Region 10
Rosemary Henderson. EPA
Region 6
George Hoessel, EPA Region 3
George Neiss, EPA Region 5
Ray Pfortner, EPA Region 2
Paul Pinaolt, EPA Region 1
Earlene Wilson, EPA Region 7
Dan Burrows, EPA Headquarters
Ben Gryctko, EPA Headquarters
Robert Hardaker, EPA
Headquarters
Charles Kauffinan, EPA
Headquarters
Steve Maier, EPA Headquarters
EPA Project Officer
Barry H. Jordan
Office of Water Programs
Operations
Acknowledgements
Typists:
Ann Kirsch, Jan Russ, Tess
Startom
Student Assistants:
Fran Costanzi, Kathy DeBatt,
Michael Lapano, Mike Moulds,
Terry Switzer
Illustrator:
Charles Speers
Graphics support was provided by
the Office of Public Awareness,
VS. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Photographs were provided by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
and Pennypack Watershed
Association
-------
Public Participation
Abraham Lincoln said in his Gettysburg
Address that government is "of the people,
by the people, and for the people." In the
early years of this nation, citizens had direct
access to government decision making
through opportunities such as the town
meeting. The local government would take
no major actions unless approved by persons
at the meeting. Through time, expanding
government and growing population have
markedly diminished direct citizen
involvement hi decision making. Democracy
by representation has become the major
governing mode.
An effective representative democracy is
dependent upon officials knowing and
responding to the needs and views of the
citizens. Unfortunately, in many areas a
rfMnTniiTiip.flt.ion gap exists between the
people and their public servants. In an
effort to improve the situation, public
participation is now mandated in such laws
as the Clean Water Act to reduce the gap
between citizens and government.
This handbook is not an in-depth guide
on public participation techniques. The
purpose of this handbook is to
introduce advisory group members to
some general principles about citizen
involvement, as well as to outline the
things an advisory group can do to
help make public participation
programs effective.
Public Participation in
Planning
In many cases over the years, water quality
planning has not generated a great deal of
public involvement. This fact is not
surprising, however, given the widespread
cynicism and apathy in our society with
regard to government programs. In
addition, wastewater management does not
usually excite most citizens. Unfortunately,
this lack of interest and involvement often
leads to inappropriate plans and facilities.
In many cases these planning proposals
either lack support and are ignored, or
they generate "last minute" controversy
and opposition. In the end the public pays
for the delays and mistakes not only in
terms of tax dollars, but also in terms of
undesirable environmental, economic, and
social impacts.
Fortunately, there are good examples of how
public involvement has coritributed to
workable and acceptable solutions to water
quality problems. These situations show
that steps can be taken to improve citizen
participation in water quality planning.
Public participation is not easy and does
not guarantee that the goals of a program
will be met. However, both the positive and
negative experiences with public
participation show that if citizen support is
needed to implement a proposed project, the
citizens must somehow be involved in the
project's planning.
Good planning can lead to the selection of
the most effective and efficient water quality
management alternative, but requires more
than just professional or technical
competence. It must provide for an
integration of a community's economic,
social, environmental, and political values
in decision making. Such values can only be
incorporated through a significant effort to
involve the public in all stages of the
planning process.
-------
Contribution of Public Participation Role of the Advisory Group
Public participation can contribute to
planning by providing:
Incorporation of community values
Formulation of better plans
Assurance of reasonable costs
Public acceptance and support
Resolution of controversies over the plan.
In numerous municipalities such as Wayne
County, Michigan, local knowledge
conveyed to the decision makers through
effective public involvement has made a
significant difference in the final outcome.
Michigan. Citizens of Wayne County voiced
their opposition to a facility plan that would
control pollution problems by enclosing
portions ofEcorse Creek in concrete culverts.
Ecorse Creek, although one of the most
polluted streams in Michigan, is an open
free-flowing stream near Detroit. A majority
of the citizens felt that the costs of the plan,
including the capital investment and the loss
of the stream were too great. The public
organized and demanded the study of
additional alternatives. The plan, finally
adopted after a long and sometimes
frustrating planning process, saved
approximately 40 million dollars and
allowed the community to retain the creek in
its natural condition.
The people of Wayne County showed that
citizen concern and initiative can make a big
difference.
The advisory group is one
type of public participation.
The advisory group, itself one type of public
participation, should provide information
and recommendations which will help the
agency run a successful public participation
program. The advisory group should make
sure that the agency develops public
involvement early in the planning process,
and maintains its program in an atmosphere
of openness.
What is openness in public participation?
Openness is achieved when:
The purpose of the program is known
» The public is informed as to what the
agency can and cannot do, and what it
should be doing
Prior to reaching decisions, information
and ideas are fully discussed
o Decisions and reasons for the decisions
are understood.
The public is made aware of the ground rules
in advance, especially about who is expected
to make decisions and on what basis. The
purpose and the content of the participation
program are clearly laid out, including the
schedule of events. The public is made aware
of the nature of the upcoming decisions, and
is encouraged to discuss them. Also,
decisions are made that are responsive to
citizen concerns and ideas.
The advisory group has a role in
assisting the agency in developing a
public participation program, and in
monitoring the effectiveness of the
program.
To function successfully, it is essential that
the advisory group understand the purpose
of the agency, the legal requirements, and
the basic considerations involved in
choosing techniques which implement the
program.
Understanding Agency Purpose
Understanding the purpose of the agency is
a straightforward process. Representatives
of the agency and members of the advisory
group should sit down together. The
agency's mission, its legal basis, and its
perception of the role of the advisory group
should be openly discussed. Included should
-------
be a discussion of the purpose of a particular
project and what is to be accomplished. The
specific objectives of a project will determine
the schedule and elements of the public
participation program.
establishing specific requirements. The
regulations for wastewater treatment
facility planning and for water quality
management planning are of particular
interest to advisory groups.
ILegal Kequiirememts
The Clean Water Act of 1977 in Section 101
states:
Public participation in the development, revision, and
enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent
limitation., plan or program established by the
Administrator or any State under this Act shall be
provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the
Administrator and the States. The Administrator, in
cooperation with the States, shall develop and publish
regulations specifying minimum guidelines for public
participation in such processes.
This mandate not only applies to facility
planning (Section 201), but also to the Water
Quality Management Program (Sections 208
and 106), the Clean Lakes Program (Section
314), and the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (Section 402).
The term "the public" in a general sense
means all of the people. However, there are
usually a number of segments of the public
which can be identified for specific projects
or programs. Water quality advisory
committees are required to have
membership from four broad categories:
private citizens, members of public interest
groups such as environmental and civic
organizations, public officials such as elected
representatives and civil servants, and
representatives of organizations with
substantial economic interests such as
developers. These four categories can also be
used as a guide for the overall public
participation program to ensure that a
cross section of the public is represented or
directly involved.
As mandated by the Clean Water Act, the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has issued regulations to
further define the public's role in water
quality planning. These regulations set
standards for several EPA programs. These
general regulations deal with: agency
responsibilities, informational materials,
time schedules, legal requirements, public
hearings, public meetings, advisory groups,
and the forms of consultation with the
public. Individual program regulations
implement these general standards by
Facility planning regulations call for either
basic or full-scale public participation
programs. Facility development in the
Construction Grants Program proceed
through three stages: Step One (planning),
Step Two (design), and Step Three
(construction). All projects at the Step One
stage must meet basic minimum
requirements for public involvement. To
meet the public participation requirements
a grantee must develop a public information
program designed to bring about public
involvement in the earliest stage of the
decision making. The agency must also have
a program for consulting the public
throughout the facilities planning process,
including the selection of the professional
engineer. It must include an outline of the
public participation program in the plan of
study submitted with a Step One grant. A
more extensive public participation work
plan must be submitted at a later date. The
work plan and a fact sheet about the project
must be distributed to interested groups and
individuals. The agency must consult with
the public when current and future
situations are being assessed, and when plan
alternatives are being evaluated. It must
hold a public meeting when alternatives are
largely developed, but before a plan is
selected. It also must hold a public hearing
to discuss the recommended alternatives
prior to the adoption of a facility plan.
Responsiveness summaries which document
citizen comments and agency responses to
activities such as plan evaluations, public
meetings, and public hearings also must be
done. Finally, the agency must include an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the public
participation program in the facility plan
submitted for final approval.
All projects must meet basic public
participation program requirements. A more
intensive public involvement effort is
justified for complex or significant projects
such as those that need advanced waste
treatment or require an environmental
impact statement. In these situations, EPA
-------
regulations call for a full-scale program with
additional participation elements and
responsibilities.
The grantee must hire or designate a public
participation coordinator who is responsible
for carrying out the public participation
work plan. The grantee must hold a public
meeting early in the facility planning
process at the time when current and future
situations are being identified (instead of
waiting until the alternatives are largely
developed). The grantee also is expected to
establish an advisory group shortly after
acceptance of the Step One grant award, and
to provide technical training for advisory
group members and local officials. The EPA
estimates that approximately 30 percent of
Step One projects will trigger a full-scale
program.
Water Quality Management
The Water Quality Management (WQM)
program was originally set up to develop
comprehensive plans for state and regional
water quality management, one goal of
which was to provide an umbrella under
which local facility planning is carried out.
However, since this initial phase of WQM is
mostly complete (most initial WQM plans
have been approved by EPA), the focus of the
program has changed. Over the years it has
become apparent that inadequate attention
has been given to the study of nonpoint
source pollution problems and solutions.
Therefore, the WQM program now addresses
specific nonpoint source pollution problems
in areas such as agricultural runoff, urban
stormwater runoff, and groundwater
contamination. The concerns of WQM
advisory groups are also reflecting this
change in emphasis.
Some similarities exist between the facility
planning and WQM program requirements
for public participation. These include
general provisions for information,
consultation, public participation work
programs, responsiveness summaries, and
balanced advisory group membership. In
addition, WQM regulations set public
participation requirements which relate
more specifically to WQM grantees.
All WQM grantees are required to establish
and maintain a citizen advisory group, an
important part of public participation in
WQM planning activities. WQM advisory
groups advise on goals and priorities; review
and comment on grant applications and
work programs; assist with public
participation; consult with the agency
throughout the planning process; submit
comments; raise issues; and monitor WQM
activities.
Additional public involvement actions are
also required. Early in each stage of the
WQM process (which includes the
development or revision of WQM plans,
state strategies, annual work programs, and
State/EPA Agreements) each agency must
notify the public about the proposed goals
and scope of proposed actions and must
schedule opportunities for consultation with
the public and the advisory group. Each
agency must also establish a continuing
program of providing information including,
where appropriate, fact sheets explaining
proposed actions in layman's terms. More
specifically, WQM agencies are required to
hold a public hearing on draft WQM plans or
plan revisions and a public meeting on draft
annual work programs. Responsiveness
summaries documenting citizen comments
and agency response must be prepared after
each meeting or hearing.
All public participation activities, including
those of the advisory group, should be
integrated into WQM planning activities
and reflected in the work program for each
activity. In addition, a separate public
participation work program must be
prepared and be made available to the
public. Work program requirements are
discussed in detail later in this handbook.
More Than a Set of Requirements
In considering the public participation needs
for a project, there is room for flexibility and
creativity. Each project is different, and
every community has resources it can draw
upon in carrying out a public involvement
program. The advisory group is one of these
resources.
When developing a community involvement
program, the following general principles
should be kept in mind:
o A good program entails careful planning,
even before the project formally begins
© As decisions are made, citizens must get
feedback on how their concerns and views
have influenced these decisions
o Participation activities must be keyed to
important decision points in the project.
-------
Program Implementation
Regulations of the EPA require that
"... agencies shall conduct a continuing
program for public information and
participation in the development and
implementation" of water quality plans and
programs. This continuing program has two
main elements: information giving
(notification) and information receiving
(consultation). They are the essence of
effective citizen involvement and both are
necessary for dialogue between parties.
All public participation techniques are
either information giving or information
receiving. For example, fact sheets,
newsletters, and seminars basically convey
information from the planning agency to the
public. Other approaches such as public
meetings, surveys, and advisory groups
facilitate information flow in the other
direction.
Choice of Appropriate Techniques
Public participation activities are not done
for their own sake, or merely to meet the
letter of the law. They must serve some
purpose in the project. Choosing appropriate
techniques depends upon the objectives of
the stage in the planning process. These
objectives include tasks such as clarifying
project issues, identifying problems, and
developing solutions. The overall purpose of
public participation activities is to improve
and support decision making. This can only
happen if public participation techniques
are linked closely to key decision points and
project objectives.
Public participation techniques can help
meet program objectives to varying degrees.
However, some may be counter-productive if
they are used at the wrong time. The
situation is similar to a mechanic using a
hammer for a task done better with a
wrench. As an example, consider the
practice of using only public hearings in the
public participation process. Public hearings
are designed to receive formal testimony
which will meet legal requirements. They
normally occur shortly before final decisions
are made. There is little two-way interaction
between the agency holding the hearing,
and those who participate. Thus, formal
public hearings should not be used if the
objective is to have give-and-take
discussions with citizens. An effective public
participation program is likely to require
several techniques.
The general rule is that no one technique
works best all of the time. Advisory
groups should make sure that the
planning agency doesn't fall victim to
limited or over-used techniques.
Choosing appropriate techniques depends
upon the objectives at various stages in the
planning process, and other considerations.
Although WQM and facility planning have
their unique aspects, they have similar
planning elements. They include:
0 Identifying problems
0 Establishing goals and objectives
0 Compiling data
0 Developing and evaluating alternatives
Q Selecting a plan
0 Implementing and revising a plan.
Both types of public participation techniques
information giving and information
receiving are used with each planning
element, but emphasis may vary because of
changing objectives. For example, the initial
stages involve identifying real needs and
problems, and collecting data on existing
and future situations. Information-giving
approaches such as fact sheets and news
releases can interest the community about
the project, and start to establish on-going
support.
Other techniques are also available.
Consultation activities can be used to
communicate the opinions and values of the
public to the planners. In fact, these
information-receiving activities are
required prior to the selection of
alternatives. Advisory groups, meetings,
and workshops are possible consultation
activities.
Wisconsin. Several public participation
techniques were used in facility planning in
Milwaukee. Faced with a 1.5 billion dollar
project, the city initiated a large-scale public
information program to make the citizens
aware of the wastewater problem and
potential solutions. The program involves
the extensive use of local newspapers,
speaker bureaus, and workshops designed
to give people experience in the facility
planning process.
-------
Later in the planning process, alternatives
are developed and evaluated. At this stage,
instead of determining needs and problems,
clarifying project issues and tradeoffs
becomes more important. Information-
giving techniques such as briefings,
seminars, and responsiveness summaries
may prove useful. Consultation or informa-
tion-receiving techniques such as public
meetings, surveys, workshops, and
advisory groups can be quite helpful at this
planning stage. However, each of these
techniques is not suitable for every
objective. Therefore, a combination of
techniques may be necessary to meet all the
objectives.
The problem remains in selecting the best
technique at the right time. Objectives, of
course, furnish some guidance, but other
factors must also be considered. Aspects
such as the specific strengths and
weaknesses of individual techniques, their
requirements in money and time resources,
personnel who will have to administer the
techniques, and the likely receptivity of the
community to certain techniques are
other important considerations.
Resources and Community Attitudes
Financial resources, staff resources,
administrative abilities, and attitudes all
play an extremely important role in
establishing an effective public participation
program.
Public Participation Techniques
Notification
(Information Giving)
Consultation
(Information Receiving)
Newsletters
News Releases
Fact Sheets
Brochures
Briefings
Seminars
Radio or TV Announcements
Responsiveness Summaries
Telephone Hotlines
Summaries of Reports
Advisory Groups
Public Meetings
Public Hearings
Task Forces
Surveys
Workshops
Interviews
Review Groups
Refersndums
Phone-in Radio Programs
All public participation programs cost
money. If good public involvement is truly
desired, adequate funds must be allocated.
Of course, available financial resources are
seldom plentiful. If funds are scarce it is
even more important that the advisory
group help the grantee select the techniques
for the program that are most cost effective.
Local knowledge can help the agency
determine the least costly way of getting the
public involved. Local resources and existing
communication networks should be used
wherever possible. It is possible to have an
effective public participation program
without imposing heavy financial burdens
on the community.
Staff resources, including availability
and technical competence, influence the
success of programs. The advisory
group should urge the planning agency
periodically to assess the public
participation program by doing the
following:
Determine whether public
participation needs are being met
Assess the effectiveness of the
techniques being used
Ask whether all legal requirements
are being met
Determine whether work tasks are
being accomplished in an orderly and
effective manner
* Assess the ability to keep track of
management and budgeting for the
techniques being used
Determine if there is sufficient
supervision of technical staff.
The advisory group should be
continuously informed of developments
in the public participation program. In
order to play an effective role, the
advisory group can designate an
individual or subcommittee to work
closely with the agency public
participation staff.
-------
Community attitudes, although less
tangible than financial resources or staff
abilities, are no less important. In this
context what is perceived, even if erroneous,
is as important as what is real. For example,
a Delphi survey is a powerful technique for
reaching consensus. However, because the
technique involves a panel of experts, it may
not be supported by community residents
who may resent the presence of experts and
their inputs.
Advisory groups can help the j
agencies stay attained to what area
residents feel about elements of the
public participation! program.
These matters such as choice of techniques,
implementation resources, and community
attitudes are best dealt with together
through the public participation workplan.
Puitslic Partticipaltiom Workplam
The EPA public participation regulations
establish a mechanism through which the
planning agency can deliberately plan
ahead, and choose public participation
techniques to match the schedule and
objectives of the project. This mechanism
is a public participation workplan. The
workplan is required in both facility
planning and water quality management
programs. Advisory groups are to be
consulted in the development of the
workplan. The workplan must contain
the following information:
o A proposed schedule for public
participation activities to impact major
decisions, including consultation points
where responsiveness summaries are
required
o An identification of consultation and
notification techniques to be used
o The segments of the public targeted for
involvement
o Staff contacts and budget resources to be
devoted to public participation
o The coordination of facility and WQM
public participation.
The workplan is intended to serve as a
public information document on the project.
Because the workplan links public
participation activities to specific decisions
and schedules, citizens are able to use the
workplan to gain a better understanding of
what to expect from a project. The workplan
should build public participation activities
into the project. In developing a workplan,
therefore, the grantee must match objectives
at various stages of the process with
appropriate techniques. The knowledge and
experience of the advisory group members
should be used to assure that the public
participation program outlined in the
workplan makes sense for the community.
Vermont. In the town of St. George it was
necessary to involve residents of a trailer park
in waste water facility planning, even though
they would not be connected to the new
sewage collection system. This involvement
was necessary because the citizens made up
a substantial portion of the voting public,
and at some later time the homes of these
persons may be connected to the new sewage
system. However, since the project would
not directly affect the homes of these
citizens, it was unlikely that public
participation techniques such as public
hearings and public meetings would be
effective. Therefore, other techniques were
chosen. The project workplan for St. George
calls for the distribution of informational
flyers, survey questionnaires, and personal
follow-up visits by members of the advisory
group.
The workplan must be of sufficient scope and
detail to serve as a basis for judging the
adequacy of proposed public participation
activities. It also must be a working guide
for carrying out the activities. For example,
rather than simply mentioning that
"consultation" will take place at a specific
point, the workplan should indicate: the
kinds of techniques that will be used for
informing the public and consulting with the
public, the purpose and target audience of
each activity, publicity methods,
descriptions of products such as fact sheets,
approximate completion dates, and plan or
project objectives.
-------
Questions for evaluating a public
participation program and workplan
include:
Do the proposed activities meet the
regulatory requirements?
Is there a good balance between
information-giving (notification) techniques
and information-receiving (consultation)
techniques?
Do the techniques match project and
operational objectives?
* Will the proposed public participation
techniques reach all of the target publics?
Does the program relate to key decision
points in the planning process?
Are sufficient financial and
administrative resources allocated to
accomplish the public participation
objectives?
Does the workplan provide for adequate
feedback to the public about its information
and opinions?
Water quality planning agencies have
flexibility in developing the workplan
contents, and the detail necessary for
managing effective public participation. For
example, although the regulations do not
require it, many WQM agencies will
continue to require separate workplans for
each problem-solving project involving 208
grants. The key is adaptability. Planners
must adjust workplans to fit changing
situations. All that is required is that
agencies and their advisory groups remain
sensitive to the needs of public participation,
and strive towards common-sense public
participation programs.
Main Points
Through citizen involvement, public
participation aims at improving water
quality plans by reducing costs and avoiding
undesirable economic, environmental, and
social impacts. Public participation is not a
guarantee of resolving conflicts. The goal of
public participation is to improve decision
making, and to develop solutions that people
can live with.
There are three general principles for
community involvement: (1) a good public
participation program entails careful
planning, even before a project formally
begins; (2) participation activities must be
keyed to important decision points in the
project; (3) as decisions are made, citizens
must get feedback on how their actions and
opinions have influenced the decisions.
Public participation techniques basically
accomplish one of two functions: information
giving (notification) or information
receiving (consultation). Their use depends
upon the objectives associated with different
stages in the planning process, and other
considerations such as resource
requirements and probable community
receptivity.
The advisory group, itself one type of public
participation, should provide information
and recommendations which will help a
planning agency run a successful public
participation program. For 201 facility
plans, all full-scale public participation
programs have advisory groups. Some basic
programs also use informal advisory groups.
All water quality management programs
have advisory groups.
As mandated by the Clean Water Act, the
EPA has established public participation
regulations dealing with agency
responsibilities, time schedules, information
materials, public meetings and hearings,
advisory groups, and other forms of citizen
involvement. Project workplans are the
mechanism for bringing together the diverse
aspects of public participation programs.
Advisory groups can help develop
workplans, and assist in assuring
common-sense public participation
programs.
Public meetings are a type of public participation.
-------
Case Study
Many Forms of Public Participation
Pennypack Creek, Pennsylvania
This case study involves three municipalities near
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Pennypack Creek, which is a
tributary of the Delaware River, runs through a green belt,
which is the only undeveloped area left adjacent to
Philadelphia.
In the early 1970's, the least populous of the municipalities,
Bryn Athyn, applied for a grant to build a spray irrigation
treatment system. About the same time, two neighboring
townships (Abington and Lower Moreland) applied for
funding to extend an existing sewer interceptor line along
the Pennypack, and transport wastewater to a Philadelphia
treatment plant. The regulatory agency indicated it would
not fund two separate systems in the same service area. The
three communities would have to agree on one system.
Bryn Athyn was adamant on having the other
municipalities join its spray irrigation system. Bryn Athyn
and the Pennypack Watershed Association, a private
conservation group, thought the interceptor plan was
undesirable for several reasons:
Exportation of water from the central watershed
Onsite systems and small package plants that were
recharging the Pennypack Creek watershed would be
phased out
Lower Moreland treatment plant, which is a principal
source of pollution, would become the sole source of flow into
the headwaters of the creek.
Differing opinions among the three municipalities led the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources to
study spray irrigation and other alternatives. The studies
supported the desirability of spray irrigation, but Bryn
Athyn had to get the two townships to agree, or substantiate
why the state should force the two townships to join the
system.
Public Participation Activities
The Pennypack Watershed Association and Bryn Athyn
undertook many public participation efforts in order to
increase public understanding:
Established a citizen advisory group for responsible
sewage planning
Prepared information leaflets about project facts
Solicited signatures of local citizens on petitions
Developed a mailing list and mailed pertinent
educational information
Identified who would be affected directly by the project
and contacted them
Held small public meetings in neighborhoods to discuss
the facts
Brought the wastewater issue into the elections for the
Lower Moreland Township Board of Commissioners
Held a public hearing at which proponents of spray
irrigation turned out in large numbers to support the
project.
Following a public hearing, the state recommended a grant
for the spray irrigation system. However, the Townships of
Lower Moreland and Abington still favor the interceptor,
and have appealed the state's decision in the courts.
Significance
The Pennypack Watershed Association in conjunction with
Bryn Athyn used an extensive public participation process.
It consisted of many techniques to help them win grassroots
support for the alternative.
-------
Lessons to Learn
In order for the Pennypack Watershed Association and Bryn
Athyn to develop a treatment facility which they thought
would be most beneficial to the community, it was necessary
to develop public understanding of the issues. Three
objectives had to be met:
1. Communicating project information to the general public
2. Identifying and informing potentially-affected parties
3. Providing opportunities for the issues to be discussed.
Five different public participation techniques were used to
meet these objectives:
Citizen advisory group gave visibility to the effort, and
brought citizens directly into the planning process
An information program educated the public about the
technology and the real issues
Personal contacts provided interaction with many citizens
Neighborhood public meetings helped to inform and
involve other citizens
A well-attended public hearing culminated the effort, and
provided a formal opportunity for comment on the project.
The Pennypack Watershed Association and Bryn Athyn,
thus, were successful in developing public support for the
project by using a combination of public participation
techniques. It is very unlikely that they would have been as
successful if only one or two techniques had been used.
-------
Case Study
Water Hotline
Bartow, Florida
The Central Florida Regional Planning Council has
responsibilities as a water quality management (WQM)
agency. In an effort to involve the public in the WQM
program, this agency installed a telephone alert system
called "Waterline." Citizens in a three-county area could
bring cases of discharge violations, and health or safety
hazards in surface waters to the attention of the WQM staff.
The Waterline was a direct telephone line manned by an
answering service all the time. Calls received on the
Waterline were returned by the staff within twenty-four
hours (weekends excepted). Based upon these calls a
thorough examination of problems was conducted.
Out-of-town callers could call collect.
The Waterline received about ten calls per week. One case
concerned a shopping mall next to Lake Parker in the city of
Lakeland. An anonymous Waterline call reported that the
mall maintenance company was dumping parking lot
sweepings on the lakeshore. The WQM staff reported the
situation to the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulations (FDER). It took two visits from FDER officials,
and the threat of court action to force the company to clean
up the dumping pile.
Significance
The Waterline had two areas of significance. One was the
impact of calls from individuals. The dumping case
generated city officials' interest in the WQM program for
the first time. The response to this technique showed
Lakeland officials that the water quality management
program could help to solve local problems.
In general, the Waterline gave citizens a direct line of
communication to the WQM staff. It also gave the staff a
sense of public priorities and issues, and helped to identify
new problem areas. The Waterline could be maintained
indefinitely at small expense.
The Central Florida Regional Planning Council, by using
the Waterline, met five important public participation
needs. These needs included:
Increased public awareness
Identified problems
Increased agency responsiveness
Communicated information
Achieved at relatively low cost.
The Waterline technique helped to make the agency directly
responsive to public concerns. Problems were identified by
making it easy for those familiar with water problems to
communicate their concerns to the appropriate agency.
Information was communicated by establishing a direct
person-to-person, two-way information flow between the
public and the water quality management agency. The cost
of manning the phones was low compared to the costs of
techniques such as public hearings and surveys.
The Waterline technique worked well at achieving certain
objectives. However, it would not be as useful in meeting
other objectives, such as clarification of issues or search for
consensus.
11
-------
Public Participation Techniques
Benefits
Drawbacks
Advisory Groups
An advisory group consists of a group of
citizens who give advice to an agency
developing a plan.
Transfers information to community
and facilitates feedback
Formulates solutions
Clarifies goals, objectives, and issues
Increases access to representatives of
varied interests
Time-consuming participation
Some group members may dominate
Group may feel like a rubber stamp
Group may have difficulty
establishing credibility
Group can become relied upon as sole
public participation technique
Public Information Programs
Public information programs are
carried out on a continuing basis. Press
releases, mailings, advertisements,
displays, radio and television
presentations, films, and legal notices
are involved.
Communicates basic information
Reaches a large number of citizens
One-way communication
Can appear as "public relations"
propaganda
Does not by itself constitute a public
involvement program
Open Information Meetings
Open information meetings present
technical or programmatic elements to
a general audience before or during the
life of a project. Audiovisual
presentations, briefings, and seminars
are types of information meetings.
Conveys information with
opportunity for immediate public
comment
Identifies problems and recommends
courses of action
Presents opportunity to answer
citizen questions
Limitations on time which can be
spent discussing issues
Domination of some participants
Often needs experienced and skilled
staff to run effective meetings
Difficulty in conveying technical
information at a meeting
Public Hearings
Public hearings include a formal
agency presentation, citizen
presentation, and an official record of
the proceedings. Public hearings are
required in most governmental
decision making.
Provides forum for citizens to gain
information or challenge decisions
Gives opportunity for formal,
"official" comments
One-way communication
Vocal minorities may dominate
Technique may appear as a token
effort
12
-------
Benefits
Task Forces
The task force aids in solving specific
problems. It is usually linked to a large
ongoing participatory body such as an
advisory group.
Focuses attention on specific issues
Can develop recommendations in
short time
Promotes group interaction among
different interests
Drawbacks
May not represent the public
adequately
Sometimes requires a lot of staff
time
Surveys
Surveys can range from personal
interviews to telephone and mail
questionnaires.
Provides direct contact with public
Reaches a larger number of people
than are usually involved in projects
Can promote interest in a project
Usually does not give opportunity for
in-depth discussion
Personal and telephone interviews
use up a lot of staff time
Unless carefully planned, surveys
usually do not generate a significant
response
Citizen Training
Training is normally provided through
short courses, workshops, and gaming
simulations.
Gives citizens a better
understanding of technical issues
Better equips citizens to advise on
projects
Enhances perspectives on project
objectives, decisions, and constraints
Reaches only a relatively few
citizens
Difficult to plan and run an effective
technical training program for citizens
May take on the appearance of "busy
work"
13
-------
Selected Resources
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Citizen Participation in the
American Federal System. Washington, DC, to be published in Winter 1980.
This document addresses the importance of public participation and why it will
increase in importance in the future. Single copies may be ordered free of charge
from the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, DC
20570. The document may be ordered in quantity at cost from the Superintendent
of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
"Grants for Water Quality Planning, Management, and Implementation." Federal Register,
Vol. 44, No. 101, Part E, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 23,
1979, pp. 30016-30042.
This document contains the rules and regulations for public participation in the
Water Quality Management Program. Copies of the Federal Register are available
through libraries. Contact your local reference librarian.
"Public Participation in Programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the
Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act, Final Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1,
Part 25." Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 34, Part V. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, February 16, 1979. pp. 10286-10297.
The implementing regulations which address the legal responsibilities of the
funded agency and the advisory group in relation to public participation. Your local
reference librarian will be able to tell you how to obtain copies of the Federal
Register.
Rastatter, Clem L., ed. Municipal Wastewater Management: Citizen's Guide to Facility
Planning. FRD-6. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Program Operations, January 1979. 263 pp.
A publication prepared by the Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC, which
provides a selected and extended discussion of activities pertinent to the
responsibilities and work of advisory groups. It includes discussion on public
participation. This publication can be obtained by writing to General Services
Administration (8FFS), Centralized Mailing Lists Services, Building 41, Denver
Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Be sure to mention the FRD number and the
title of the publication.
14
-------
Rastatter, Clem L., ed. Municipal Wastewater Management: Public Involvement Activities
Guide. FRD-7. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Program Operations, January 1979. 125 pp.
This document was developed for a training program on citizen involvement in
wastewater facilities planning. It consists of several parts: facility planning, and
public involvement. The latter part consists of public participation requirements
under the Clean Water Act, EPA regulations, public participation program
elements, public participation tools, implementation issues, and the rewards of
public involvement in facilities planning. This publication is available from the
General Services Administration (8FFS), Centralized Mailing Lists Services,
Building 41, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Include the FED number
and the title of the publication.
"State and Local Assistance, Grants for Construction of Treatment Works, Title 40, Chapter
1, Part 35". Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 23, Part VI, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, February 16, 1979. pp. 10300-10304.
This document presents the rules and regulations for public involvement in the
Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program. Your local reference
librarian will be able to tell you how to obtain copies of the Federal Register.
15
-------
Glossary
Best Management Practice optional
approach or technique for preventing or
controlling pollution.
Consultation an exchange of views between
governmental agencies and interested or affected
persons or organizations; involves
communication techniques such as advisory
groups and public hearings.
Delphi Survey panel of experts
independently moving towards consensus
through responses to rounds of questions.
Nonpoint Source Pollutant pollutants such
as sediment which have no readily discernable or
discrete origin.
Notification information flow from the
governmental agencies to interested or affected
parties; involves communication techniques such
as fact sheets, newsletters, and seminars.
Public Participation involvement of citizens
in decision making.
Responsiveness Summary document
prepared by a planning agency indicating briefly
to the public how decision makers have dealt
with the actions, comments, and opinions of the
public.
201 Plan local plan for wastewater treatment
facilities under the Construction Grants
Program of the EPA; the number refers to a
section of the Clean Water Act.
208 Plan regional or state plan for water
quality management; the number refers to a
section of the Clean Water Act.
16
-------
U.S. Envi'unrnentai Pfoteciion Agency
Region 5, Lifrrsry {Pi_-i2J)
'/ West Jicksor, Bou'evard. 12th Ftooi
if.!cagc\ it 6C604-3590
Working for Clean Water is a
program designed to help advisory
groups improve decision making in
water quality planning. It aims at
helping people focus on essential
issues and questions by providing
trained instructors and materials
suitable for persons with
non-technical backgrounds. These
materials include a citizen
handbook on important principles
and considerations about topics in
water quality planning, an
audiovisual presentation, and an
instructor guide for elaborating
points, providing additional
information, and engaging in
problem-solving exercises.
This program consists of 18
informational units on various
aspects of water quality planning:
* Role of Advisory Groups
Public Participation
Nonpoint Source Pollution:
Agriculture, Forestry, and Mining
Urban Stormwater Runoff
Groundwater Contamination
Facility Planning in the
Construction Grants Program
Municipal Wastewater Processes:
Overview
Municipal Wastewater Processes:
Details
Small Systems
Innovative and Alternative
Technologies
Industrial Pretreatment
Land Treatment
Water Conservation and Reuse
Multiple Use
Environmental Assessment
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Wastewater Facilities Operation
and Management
Financial Management
The units are not designed to
make technical experts out of
citizens and local officials. Each
unit contains essential facts, key
questions, advice on how to deal
with the issues, and
clearly-written technical
background?. In short, each unit
provides the information that
citizen advisors need to better
fulfill their role.
This program is available through
public participation coordinators at
the regional offices of the United
States Environmental Protection
Agency. D
This information program was
financed with federal funds from
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under Cooperative
Agreement No. CT90U980 01. The
information program has been
reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved
for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does the
mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute
endorsement of recommendation
for use. D
This project is dedicated to the
memorv of Susan A. Cole.
------- |