Working for Clean Water
An Information Program for Advisory Groups

      Instructor Guide


This progr n e prepared by
The Pennsylvania State University
Institute of State & Regional Affairs
Middletown, P 17057
Dr. Charles A. Cole
Project Director
Dr. E. Drannon Buskirk, Jr.
Proj ect Co—Director
Prof. Lorna Chr. Stoltzfus
This guide s prepared by
E. Drannon Buskirk, Jr.,
Dennis Auker
Advisory Tamn for the Project
David Elkinton, State of West
Steve Frishman, private citizen
Michele Frame, private citizen
John Hammond, private citizen
Joan Jurancich, State of California
Richard Retherington, EPA
Region 10
Rosemary Renderson, EPA Region 6
George Hoessel, EPA Region 3
George Melee, EPA Region 5
Ray Pfortner, EPA Region 2
Paul. Pinault, EPA Region 1
Earlene Wilson, EPA Region 7
Dan Burrows, EPA Headquarters
Ben Gryctko, EPA Headquarters
Robert Hardaker, EPA Headquarters
Charles Kauffman, EPA Headquarters
Steve Maier, EPA Headquarters
EPA Project Officer
Barry H. Jordan
Office of Water Programs
Jan Russ, Tess Startoni
Ann Kirach, Janie Fuller
Student Assistanta
Fran Coetanzi, Kathy DeBatt,
Michael Lapano, Mike Moulds
Terry Swltzer
Graphics support was provided by
the Office of Public Awareness,
Environmental Protection Agency,
This information program was
financed with federal funds from
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under Cooperative Agreement
No. CT900980 01. The. information
program has bean 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 Environ-
mental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement of
recommendation for use.
This project is dedicated to the
memory of Susan A. Cole.

Public Participation
Public participation plays an increasingly important role in decision
making. This trend will continue as governments at all levels put
more emphasis on citizen involvement.
Persons participating in this presentation should:
• Learn what public participation is and why it is important
• Become familiar with the principles and techniques for
successful public participation programs
• Understand the role of advisory groups in helping develop
a successful public participation program.
Required Materials
OSet of slides and cassette tape for the audiovisual presentation,
“The Bellevue Experience: A Public Participation Puzzle.”
OSet of transparencies with overhead projector or a flip chart
with easel and/or chalkboard for guided discussion.
OSlide projector, cassette tape player, and screen.
OCopy of the handbook, “Public Participation” for each participant.
GCopies or situation exercise sheets for each participant.
OMap of the local area.

Important Notes
1. This instructor guide features several options:
a. show the slide—tape program without substantive discussion
b. discuss the important principles and considerations of
public participation in water quality planning
c. engage in situation exercises about public participation.
Any combination of the options may be used, but almost all of them
are necessary for the total picture. If all options are used,
the one—hour presentation will be insufficient.
2. Establish an atmosphere that invites participation and a
willingness to share views. This objective can be accomplished by
talking with participants prior to the presentation, and by
circulating among the participants while the presentation is being
3. The audiovisual presentation is an important element in the
discussion of public participation principles. Therefore, the
instructor needs to preview the script for the slide—tape program.
4. Prepare copies of the situation exercise sheets for all
participants. The instructor may use the situation exercise
sheets provided in the Appendix of this guide, or may develop other
sheets that are more pertinent to the local situation.
5. Situation exercises are types of simulations in which partici-
pants can relate to real—life situations, or can practice newly
acqtiired skills or knowledge. The exercises have two fundamental
elements: a structure and role playing. The structure includes
the rules for the simulation, the task to be performed, and special
conditions that must be observed. Participants are usually asked
to represent a group or an individual, perhaps themselves.
6. The instructor may want to have a public participation expert
on hand to relate hisfher experiences (good/bad) with cases of
local interest.

Suggested Activities
Introductory Comments . 10 minutes
Audiovisual Presentation 17 minutes
Guided Discussion 33 minutes
Closing Remarks 5 minutes
TOTAL TIME 65 minutes
Introductory Comments (10 minutes)
1. Cite an example from the local area where public
a. helped something happen
b. was a factor in a project being delayed or stopped.
The example could be any project, as long as it illustrates the
importance of public participation. (This guide is designed to
help gain understanding about the role of the advisory group
in relation to the development of a public participation program.)
2. Ask participants to relate arty local public participation
concerns about the project which should be addressed. List
these items on a chalkboard or flip chart.
3. Discuss how public participation can deal with issues
such as those raised by the participants through involvement
in planning. Public participation improves decision making
• Incorooratlon of community values Use chart I on
Public Participa-
‘Formulation of better plans tion Contributions.
‘Assurance of reasonable costs
•Public support
‘Possible resolution of controversies leading to increased
likelihood of plan implementation.
4. tn a case study featured in the handbook, the Pennypack
Watershed Association in Pennsylvania developed enough grass-
roots support within the region to prompt the regulatory agency
to make a thorough study of their wastewater treatment idea.
Simply put, the regulatory agency responded to the public’s
5. A contrary example, where the public felt that local
government was ignoring their wishes, occured over a storm—
water nanagement controversy in Bellevue, Washington.

Use Chart 2 on 6. In viewing the slide—tape program on Bellevue, ask the
Coninunity Involve— participants each to assess how well the basic co=iunity in—
raent Principles volvement principles were followed:
• Careful planning
‘Citizen feedback
Aooropriate and timely activities.
1 4/V script- is in Audiovisual Pres ntation (17 minutes)
the Appendix in
case of equipment 1. Show the slide/tape program on public participation.
2. Ask participants to write down any questions they have
during the presentation.
Guided Discussion (33 minutes)
1. Co nent on Bellevue, WA. . .city of 69,000 people.. .City
Council that responded to a citizen’s concern.. .established an
advisory group of citizens who worked for 2˝ years.. .open
meetings.. .a Council that took the group’s advice, and passed
an ordinance to create a stormwater management agency.. . launched
a public education program for building support for the project...
BUT everything fell apart:
Let us analyze what happened, and learn about public participa-
tion in the process.
Again, use Chart 2 2. Ask the question, “Was careful planning for public partici—
on Community Invol- pation done in Bellevue?” Get brief opinions from respondents.
vement Principles.
There was no ongoing, organized citizen involvement
effort. It was on a crisis-by-crisis basis with no
overall direction. There was no monitoring of process
3. Ask another question, “Was there opportunity for feedback
through various activities?”
Indeed, there was a great deal of public participa-
tion: Citizen convnittees, petitions by opponents,
meetings and hearings, educational tours, advisory
ballots, and media galore (news articles, letters-
to-the-editor, brochures, slide presentations,
radio and TV coverage)... BUT, many people still
felt they were being ignored. Therefore, it appears
that the activities may not have been a-ppropriate
or timely enough to get the desired citizen feed-
4 back.

4. In water quality projects, workplans are used to bring
together the diverse aspects of public participation programs.
In facility and water quality management planning, U.S. EPA
regulations call for workplans in which public participation
activities are matched to the objectives and schedule ofthe
5. Ask the narticipants now to direct their attention to two
important components of a workplan: activities schedule, and
communication techniques.
6. First, categories of communication techniques are reviewed.
Then, their use in an activities schedule is covered.
7. All communication approaches are either information giving
(notification) or information receiving (consultation). Both
are necessary for an effective public participation program of
dialogue and feedback. Which of these information—giving tech-
niques are local residents most familiar with?
Explain any activities that may be new to the public, such as
fact sheets or responsiveness summaries.
8. Similarly, which of the information—receiving techniques are
local residents most familiar with for dialogue or feedback
9. These techniques are not chosen in a haphazard manner. They
must be linked closely to project objectives and key decision
points. Other considerations also must be taken into account:
Strengths and weaknesses of techniques
.Money and time requirements
.Community receptivity.
However, the main consideration is a match of techniques to
project objectives at decision points in time. How well was
this done in Bellevue?
Since there was no concerted public participation plan,
opportw2vtiea were mi-ssed. For excmrple, television and
radio were used very little. However, the newspapers
covered the controversy, and assisted opponents to the
plan by putting them in touch with each other.
Use Chart 3 on
Workplcm Components.
Use Chart 4 on Pi .thlic
Participation Tech-
nique 8.
Use Chart .5 on blic
Participation Tech-
Write on chalkboard
or flip chart:
“Techniques Objec-

10. Still, many different techniques were used in Bellevue. The
trick is timing. A public participation activities schedule
is needed to coordinate the techniques for citizen involvement.
This schedule is keyed to decision points in the planning
Use Chart 6 on 11. Both types of techniques — information giving and infor—
Planning Slements. mation receiving — are used with each planning element. In the
early stages when identifying problems and compiling data,
Write appropriate possible public participation techniques include:
techniques adjacent
to the planning ele— Information giving — fact sheets, news releases
ments as the example Information receiving — meetings, workshops
is discussed.
Different objectives come into play later in the planning process.
Instead of determining needs and problems, clarifying project
issues and tradeoffs become more important. Different public
participation techniques also may be used:
Information giving — briefings, responsiveness summaries
Information receiving — surveys, meetings
Advisory groups can be used throughout.
Were the citizen involvement activities used at Bellevue 1 timely?
Since Bellevue lacked a public participation plan,
activities were not timed for maximum effectiveness.
For exonrple, there was a seven month lag between
public inforriation about a double billing, and the
bill in the mailbox.
12. From the perspective of the citizens, public participation
aims at citizen involvement in planning. Planners also view
public participation in another light — constituency building.
This concern is crucial to the implementation of a plan.
In Bellevue, why didn’t the vast array of participation
activities contribute to building a supportive constituency?
A couple of reasons may account for the constituency
problems at Bellevue:
a. Opponents to the plan were not identified and
involved in the beginning.
b. Several commwzity leaders were involved, but
they ended up working in a vaccum created by time
constraints, public ignorance, apathy, and assz4rrp-
tions cf a base of support that really did not exist.
13. A short problen—solving exercise may be useful at this time.
If conducted, a case study for the local area would be most

appropriate. Have the participants:
‘Determine which objectives are important.
Select public participation techniques that are appropriate
for the objectives.
‘Compare their advantages and disadvantages.
Discuss the factors in implementing a local program that uses
these objectives and techniques.
14. Another option is situation exercises, which can be used for
several purposes. They can be used to emphasize important points;
they can cover incidential matters; a change of pace or exchange
of ideas can be accomplished with them.
15. Situation exercises are simple to perform, and they can be (fee situation exer-
quite refreshing. Conduct the following sequence of activities; cise sheets in the
a. Assign the participants to groups of three or more
b. Pass out the situation sheets to each person.
c. Give each group a few minutes to discuss the options
and to record their ideas.
d. Ask for a show of hands on the various options.
e. Then, explore the ramifications and tradeoffs of the
various options.
Encourage personnal experiences to be given during the exchanges.
Closing Remarks (5 minutes)
1. Simunarize the key points of the discussion. Note the con-
clusions given in the citizen handbook.
2. Answer any remaining questions.

Selected Resources
Bleiker, Annemarie. Citizen Participation Handbook foi Public
Officials and Other Professionals Serving the Public . 3rd Edition.
Laramie, WY: Institute for Participatory Planning, 1978.
This manual informs the user about the basic principles
and techniques of public participation. It uses a
matrix to match participation objectives and techni-
ques. The handbook can be ordered from Institute
for Participatory Planning, University Station, Box
4068, Laramie, WY 82071.
Pogell, Suzanne H. “Government—Initiated Public Participation in
Environmental Decisions,” Environmental Comment . Washington, DC:
Urban Land Institute, April 1979. pp. 4—6.
This article discusses public participation with respect
to the key elements of an open and effective communication
system: awareness, access, information, opportunity,
and planning. Environmental Comment is a monthly pub—
lication of the Urban Land Institute, 1200 18th St., NW,
Washington, DC 20036.
Public Participation Handbook for Water Quality Management . Water
Quality Management Guidance 6—76-02. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, June 1976.
This handbook is designed to provide state and areawide
agencies with assistance in carrying Out water quality
planning and implementation. It can be obtained from
Library Services, Mail Drop 35, U.S. Environ nental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Ragan, James F., Jr. Effective Public Meet•ings : Guide 1.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Public Affairs, May 1977.
This guide discusses the best ways to use public meetings
and how to make them work. The document is available from
Library Services, Mail Drop 35, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Rastatter, Clem L., ed. Municipal Wastewater Management: Citizens
Guide to Facility Planning . FRD—6. Washington, DC: U.S. Environ-
mental 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 public participation activities pertinent
to facility planning. This publication can be obtained
from the General Services Administration (8FFS), Centralized

Mailing Lists Services, Building 41, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO
80225. Be sure to mention the publication title and FRD numbers when
A Training Workshop on Public Participation Skills and Requirements
for Project Managers in the Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants
Program . State of Maryland, Annapolis: Barry Lawson Associates,
Inc., July 17 and 18, 1979. Approximately 100 pp.
This manual is an excellent collection of materials on
considerations in conducting public participation programs.
It features situation exercise sheets, three of which are
used in the Instructor guide. The manual is available
from Barry Lawson Associates, Inc., 148 State Street,
Boston, MA 02109.
Water Quality Management Accomplishments Compendium 1 . Publication
Number EPA—440/3—77—026. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Planning Division, December 1977.
Document contains case studies of water quality management
project accomplishments. It can be obtained from Library
Services, Mail Drop 35, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Federal Register , Vol. 44, No. 34. Environmental Protection Agency —
Public Participation Programs under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act:
Final Regulations. February 16, 1979. pp. 10286—10297.
The implementing regulations, with which the instructor
should be thoroughly familiar. See local librarians
for copies.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92—500), as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95—217).
The generic legislation, with which the instructor should
be at least generally familiar.

A. Contents of charts for use by instructor in the suggested
activities. These charts may be used to make transparencies or
the contents may be copied onto chalkboards.
1. Public Participation Contributions
2. Community Involvement Principles
3. Workplan Components
4. Public Participation Techniques (Information Giving)
5. Public Participation Techniques (Information Receiving)
6. Planning Elements
B. Handouts for use by the instructor in the guided discussions.
Copies will need to be made for each participant.
1. Situation Exercise Sheets
a. Situation A: Program Effectiveness
b. Situation B: Public Participation Sham?
c. Situation C: Advisory Group Membership
d. Situation D: Program Staffing
C. Copy of the script for the slide—tape program, “The Bellevue
Experience: A Public Participation Puzzle”.

Public Participation
Community values
Better plans
Reasonable costs
Public acceptance
Controversy resolution

Community Involvement
Principle s
Careful planning
Citizen feedback
Appropriate and timely activities

Workplan Components
Activities schedule
Communication techniques
Targeted public
Coordination with agencies

Public Participation Techniques
Information Giving
Newsletters Briefings
News releases Seminars
Fact sheets Reports
Brochures Responsiveness
Announcements summaries

Public Participation Techniques
Information Receiving
Advisory groups Surveys
Task forces Workshops
Review groups Interviews
Public meetings Referendums
Public hearings Phone-in programs

Planning Elements
Identifying problems
Establishing goals and objectives
Compiling data
Developing alternative s
Selecting plan
Implementing and revising plan

You attend a public meeting in a community where some citizens have voiced com-
plaints that the consultant has not conducted an effective public participation
program. At the meeting, you b gin to understand why they have been concerned:
there is only a small turnout; the citizens who speak seem uninformed and con-
fused; a slide presentation prepared by the consultant has r ft even you not
knowing exactly what the recommended alternative involves; and the consultant
seems unable to respond to questions directly, leaving issues “to be clarified
later.” During a short break you:
________ (a) ask the consultant to schedule another meeting and have an
elected official or a responsible local group plan and con-
duct it, with costs covered out of the Step One public par-
ticipation budget;
________ (b) decide to intervene at the meeting and take the floor yourself;
_________ Cc) decide to talk with the consultant afterwards about meeting
with you and a public participation expert from EPA or the
state to discuss ways to conduct a better program;
________ (d) other: ___________________________________________________________
Exercise developed by Barry Lawson Associates. Inc.

Your review of a facility plan shows that only 20 people attended the required
public hearing in a community with a population of over 10,000 people. You are
not too concerned by this until the sole “anti” from the hearing comes to your
office armed with the new regulations and claims that the small turnout is proof
that the public participation program was a sham. You escape unscathed, but
then must determine for yourself how good the program was. A full scale public
participation program was supposed to have been conducted. You decide to
(choose as many as necessary):
(a) contact the consultant and discuss what was done in detail;
________ (b) survey plans of other co=unities of similar population size
to see if a 20—person public hearing is really unusual under
the new regulations;
________ (c) find Out who attended the meeting, contact them, and try to
learn how well they represented the populace;
________ (d) have a meeting with the Advisory Group to discuss the public
participation program; -
(e) get in touch with the authorized representative for the
_________ (f) get help from the public participation people in EPA or the
________ (g) see if the legal requirements were met;
________ (h) other: ________________________________________________________
Exercise develoned by Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.

You have a meeting scheduled for tomorrow morning with a consultant who wants to
discuss advisory group membership in a Step One community wfth a full scale public
partictpation program. To prepare for the meeting, you decide to draw up a list
of the criteria you would use if you had to select the advisory group. The top
three items on your list are:
When the consultant arrives for the meeting, you discover that the main problem
is that the authorized representative for the community wants to limit the size
of the advisory group to only three members. The consultant is not sure that this
will meet the spirit of the public participation regulations. Your reaction is:
________ (a) that a small advisory group might be more efficient and you’re
willing to give it a try;
(b) that an advisory group with only three members can’t possibly
represent the community, and there will have to be at least five
(c) that the consultant should compare the three members who have
been nominated with the community’s characteristics to see how
representative they are;
________ (d) that the best thing to do is call EPA’s public participation
people and find out if there is any policy on this question;
(e) other: _____________________________________________________
Exercise developed by Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.

The president of an engineering consulting firm comes to you an asks your
advice about the best way to handle public participation staffing. Your response
is that:
(a) it is best to have the engineer for the project do the public
participation, since that way you can be sure that the public
input has a direct channel into the planning work;
________ (b) the firm should hire a public participation specialist, since
it is unrealistic to expect most engineers to be well—versed
in public participation skills;
(c) public participation should be done by a specialist, but a
public participation consultant should be used rather than hiring
a staff person;
(d) in each Step One community, the firm should sub—contract with
a local individual or organization to conduct the entire public
participation program;
(e) the firm should retain overall responsibility for public par—
ticipation, but sub—contract for specific tasks (for example,
hire a local organization to conduct a public meeting);
________ (f) the firm should encourage communities to write separate con-
tracts for the engineering work and the public participation,
and leave it up to the community to decide how to staff and
manage the public participation program;
________ (g) other: ____________________________________________
Exercise developed by Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.

Audiovisual Script
Slide Description Narrative
1. Black slide
2. Pic: Puzzle piece——citizen CITIZEN: With all of those people as
angry as they were, I was afraid there
was going to be a vigilante mob or
something such as that. You know it
wasn’t the money, it was finally, I
guess, how can government get away with
doing this and not telling anybody about
3. Pic: Puzzle piece——elected ELECTED OFFICIAL: We honestly ar’d truly
official thought that we indeed had informed the
public. We had certainly made every
honest attempt to involve the public,
to tell them about this new concept.
4. Words: THE BELLEVUE EXPERIENCE! NARRATOR: Citizens who felt left out
A Public Participation of a decision—making process ignited
Puzzle the biggest controversy Betlevue,
Washington, has ever experienced. The
city is still reverberating from their
5. Pic: Puzzle NARRATOR continuing: Today’s complex
problems demand ingenuity n fitting the
citizen voice into the planning process.
Bellevue’s leaders are still analyzing
the way they put it together. Looking
for missing pieces.
6. Pic: Joan Way and son by stream CITIZEN: I was a total unknown to them,
r.ever having participated in government
in any way.
NARRATOR: Our story begins in 1969 with
Joan Way who lives on Kelsey Creek (that’s
one of Bellevue’s network of streams), and
it continues today.
7. Pic: Salmon NARRATOR, continuing: Throughout, the
government and citizens experienced and
learned from many forms of public partici-
pation; voting, planning, advising,
monitoring and opposing.
8. Plc: Turbulent water CITIZEN: Ny interest was prompted simply
by high, rushing water, wondering where
it was coming from, what was causing it.

9. Plc: Diagram——runoff CITIZEN, continuing: The thing that
many people do not, realize is that
nature provides a drainage system.
Water goes down hills to the lowest
point where there is a stream. Now
the question is, is a municipality as
it urbanizes going to retain nature’s
drainage system or in some way modify
it, or completely put it under ground?
10. Pic: Geese in stream NARRATOR: Bellevue was using open
streams as its storm drainage system.
It never had time to develop the
usual underground pipe method because
it grew so rapidly.
11. Pic: Aerial view of city, NARRATOR, continuing: It had expanded
bit. Rainier in back— from a classic bedroom suburb of Seattle
ground into the fourth largest city in Washington
with a population of nearly 70,000 mostly
affluent, educated professionals.
12. Pic: Toy boat CITIZEN: I decided to try to protect
this stream and to try to form a water-
shed preservation group.
13. Pic: Bellevue City Council CITIZEN, continuing: So I went one night
to the City Council, and I said something
should be done to retain the streams.
NARRATOR: The City Council’s response was
to appoint her and six others to a’ Citizens
Advisory Committee on Stream Resources.
14. Pic: Newspaper clipping of NARRATOR, continuing: After three and a
streams committee half years of study and planning in open
meetings, the committee proposed a com-
prehensive systen of storm and surface
water management which preserved the open
stream system.
15. Pic Chart——utility’s function NARRATOR, continuing: They recommended
the formation of a utility to carry out
the program and a service charge method
of funding based on the amount of impervious
surface on each piece of property. An
innovative solution to an urban problem
as old as cement and blacktopped land.
16. Pic: Nancy Rising, City Council CITY COUNCIL MEMBER: Once you had looked
at the problem, once you had seen what
the various alternatives were, there was
just really only one solution to dealing
with it and that was a utility.

17. Plc: Rising and L. Joe Miller, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, continuing: it
City Manager seems to us to be a tremendously
progressive thing.
CITY MANAGER: Unconventional.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER: Yes, we’re saying
wait a minut e, let’s work with nature,
and besldes.that not only do we have
some aesthetic benefits but we save
money. Can’t beat that!
18. Plc: Utility window NARRATOR: The City Council signed the
ordinance creating the Storm and Surface
Water Utility, confident that the public
would be proud of the model plan too.
After all, it was in response to citizen
concerns and it was developed by citizens.
19. Pic: Hector Cyre, Utility Manager UTILITY MANAGER: But to say that they
fit the characteristic of the city is
probably not accurate. Yet those were
the people City Council was hearing from,
the City Manager was hearing from, the
Director of Public Works was hearing
20. Pic: Susan Hall, public NARRATOR: Susan Hall, a public partici—
participation consultant, pation consultant who did a study of the
Hall & Associates Bellevue experience, sees a missing
CONSULTANT: In a microcosm it was a perfect
citizen involvement effort. But what they
forgot was the general public out there
really didn’t know what they were doing
and didn’t know what was going on.
21. Pic: Drainage utility goals CITY COUNCIL MEMBER: So we passed this
and it wasn’t to go into effect until
about June. In the meantime we sent out
flyers in the Utility envelopes. We
foolishly thought that those had been
read and we foolishly thought that that
would inform people.
22. Pic: Utility fact sheets CITIZEN: They had plenty of publicity.
It just wasn’t presented in such a way
that would have caught the eye or the
interest even of the average person
living around here.
23. Plc: Utility building NARRATOR: The new Utility needed the
initial rate charge to get it off the
ground. So when data processing failed
to get the first bills out in June, the
Utility decided to combine that June
billing with the second billing.

24. Pic: Utility bill NARRATOR, continuing: tn September,
therefore, a bill for four months
instead of the usual two hit
Bellevue mailboxes. Most were for
less than eight dollars.
VOICE MONTAGE: He walked through the
door with this crazy bill in his hand
and said, “Look at what they’re sticking
us with now.”
25. Ric: Angry citizen VOICE MONTAGE, continuing: The whole
block just sort of——it just seened to
stun ‘en. They’re going to tax us for
the winds that blow next.
26. Pic Storm drain cover VOICE MONTAGE, continuing: I got phone
calls in the middle of the night. I got
called every name under the sun. I even
got some phone calls from people who were
mad because their bills hadn’t come.
27. Pic: Chart——communication VOICE MONTAGE, continuing: There was a
breakdown total breakdown in communication between
City Hall and the people living out in
the community. Inflation was just out
of bounds. And all of a sudden this
nitwit city decides that they’re going
to take some more from ‘em. Oh no, we
had no idea that we could possibly screw
it up so badly.
28. Pic: News clipping——protest NARRATOR: Bellevue had a citizens’
revolution headed by a quickly organized
group of opponents known as VOTE — Victory
Over Tax Excess. They had an issue
directly concerning the public, visibility
in the media and a definite goal: stopping
that Utility.
29. Pic: Petition NARRATOR, continuing: Two months after
the first Utility bills went out, VOTE
presented referendum petitions with
8,500 signatures, enough to put the City
council on edge.
30. Pic: Betty Chandler, VOTE VOTE LEADER: The more commotion we
organizer stirred and the more signatures we
got, the more room was given us in
the paper.

31. Pic: L. Hayden Thompson, VOTE NARRATOR: Another leader of the
organizer opposition is L. Hayden Thompson.
VOTE LEADER: To this date everybody
wants to talk about the damn storm
water problem and they think that
that’s the Lssue. The merits of
storm water coincidentally happen to
get wrapped up in a very politically
naive and incredible decision—making
process on the part of city government.
32. Pic: Polluted stream VOTE LEADER, continuing: Saying we have
a problem, we don’t have the money to
pay for it. We know the people will
never approve of it. So we’re going to
figure out a way to do it anyway.
33. Pic: City council meeting VOTE LEADER: It’s an abdication, I say,
a violation of the mandate they received
as city officials to represent their
constituency. That’s the whole point
right there. And this was a visible
thing on the local level, which to vent
your overall frustration with the whole
damn process of government and it was
34. Plc; News clipping——Task NARRATOR: More than 8,000 signatures
Force couldn’t be ignored by the City Council.
People will still argue about what should
have been done, but at the time pressure
seemed intense. The Council put the
Utility on hold, stopped billing and
appointed a thirteen—member Task Force
to reevaluate the entire storm drainage
problem. Equal numbers of supporters
and critics were on that Task Force,
assuring a broader range of input from
the public.
35. Pic: Way and son leaving stream UTILITY MANAGER; As far as citizen
involvement is concerned you always
try and find the people who are going
to be supportive because they’re going
to go out and they’re going to help lead
the program along.
36. Pic: Chandler shaking finger UTILITY MANAGER, continuing: And at the
same time you try to find those who are
most likely to be opposed to it, find
out what their greatest concerns are and
answer those concerns before you get to a
decision-making stage.

37. Pic: Chandler at meeting UTILITY MANAGER, continuing: That way
you ve got the person who is probably
likely to be your greatest opponent
standing up and saying, well, I don’t
necessarily ] but I’ve been
involved in it and I can live with it.
38. Pic: Chandler’s hands CITIZEN: I was accused of having sold
all of the people who signed the petition
down the drain. I was accused of being
bought by the city.
NARRATOR: Betty Chandler was one of those
opponents who reluctantly joined the Task
39. Plc: Chandler CHANDLER: In all that time of course I
was gaining more and more information and
talking with the people down at the drainage
utility office and at that point we had
become friends although we were still on
opposite sides of the fence.
40. Plc: Chandler and Cyre NARRATOR: Prompted by understanding through
education, or trust generated through f ace—
to—face contact with city officials, or
something else, Betty Chandler changed her
41. Plc: Task Force meeting NARRATOR, continuing: In six months of
compromise, the Task Force came to the
same conclusion as the original Streams
Committee——that a Utility Is the best
solution for Bellevue. The unanimous
report called for a public advisory
42. Plc: Advisory ballot NARRATOR, continuing: Rather than asking,
do you want a Utility, the ballot asked,
how do you want to pay for it, through
the general fund or through a utility
service charge?
43. Plc: Thompson NARRATOR, continuing: And the public felt
left out of the decision—making process.
CITIZEN: The decision as to what they’re
gonna do has already been made. Now it’s
subject to some modification, maybe hold
off on it for a while, but sooner or later
it’s coming.

44. Plc: Open public participation CONSULTANT: It’s very important that
process ILL public feels that they were involved
in the alternative selection stage——when
your’re narrowing down the alternatives
and deciding which actions are really
feasible. I’d say one of the most
important goals of a public participation
program is to make sure that everyone
feels it was an honest, open process.
45. Pic: Advisory ballot——general NARRATOR: The general fund option won by
fund checked a snail margin. That was not the result
that would have allowed the Utility to
proceed as planned. Even after the outcry
after the double billing the city had not
been able to nake clear to a majority of
citizens what was so clear to itself.
46. Pic: Group eating CITIZENS: “I am living here but I don’t
know anything about storm business or
anything else.’ “I really can’t answer
it because I really don’t know if it’s
needed.” “I’m not even aware of what
you’re talking about.”
47. Plc: Puzzle piece——relevant CONSULTANT: It’s very important that the
problem public believe there’s a real problem;
and that problem has to be meaningful
to the public. They have to know that
they have a stake in solving the problem.
48. Pic: David Suffia, reporter REPORTER: In terms of selling the project,
public relations, the City just hasn’t
done it. Most bureaucrats now think like
bureaucrats, and they can’t conceive that
there’s an easy way to explain something.
49. Plc: Empty press chairs REPORTER, continuing: It’s relatively
easy to get good press and it’s relatively
easy to avoid bad press.
50. Pic: Gity Council NARRATOR: In spite of the advisory vote
to the contrary, the City Council did
not change the Utility’s method of
funding. Instead, it appointed another
committee to review the entire question
once more.
CDNSULTANT: It seemed that City Council
was not listening.
51. Pic: Committee looking at NARRATOR: This committee came to the
charts sane conclusion as the first two——a
utility is necessary. Again, an advisory
ballot was held on essentially the same
issue--—how to pay for storm drainage.

52. Plc: City Council meeting REPORTER: It was a very gutsy thing to
do in terms of the majority of the Council
in that they knew that if they put this
back on the ballot and reimposed a fee,
there were going to be screams.
PLANNER: There is always going to be
53. Plc: Citizen talking to PLANNER, continuing: I think citizen
staffperson involvement Is very, very important to
guide the planning process. But not
only are you paid as a professional by
citizens, but then elected officials
are elected by citizens to make
decisions and at some point you have
to make a decision.
54. Pic: Newspaper stand NARRATOR: Before this ballot, a public
education campaign was carried out which
brought the issue to the public more
clearly than in the previous seven years,
through tours of the streams, news articles,
letters—to—the editor.
55. Plc: Brochure being delivered CITIZEN: I personally went around and
delivered little brochures to a number
of homes.
56. Pic: Brochure NARRATOR: Slide presentations, radio
and television coverage. This Is Close-
Up from KBES. Today begins the first
of a series of close—ups in which we
will tour some of the problems in
Bellevue with water runoff.
57. Pic: Cyre giving speech UTILITY MANGER: In speaking before
groups who may have asked what is this
impervious surface thing, I sort of use
the corollary——if you want to find out
the effect of impervious surface on
runoff, ask any baldheaded man who has
walked in a rainstorm.
58. Pie: Advisory ballot——utility NARRATOR: The service charge option
charge checked won a decisive victory. That was in
the Fall of 1976.
CITIZENS: It’s gotta be paid for,
there’s no question about it.
59. Plc: Boy looking at stream CITIZENS, continuing: And if we don’t
do something about the way they’re
building and stuff, all the streams
are gonna be gone. And I think that’s
really important.

60. Pie: Rodney D. Stroope, Manager, NARRATOR: Other municipalities and
Water Quality Planning Div. water quality agencies have kept an
(METRO) eye on Bellevpe’s storm drainage
PLANNER: One of the prinary reasons
that METRO was interested in documen-
ting the case study is, for one, Bellevue
is a success story in that they came
against a problem and while at any one
time there were people going in different
directions, wondering why in the world
they were even in this program at all,
they didn’t back down from basically
what they set out to do.
61. Pic: Man watching committee PLANNER, continuing: And it is a success
in that it was followed through for the
time that it’s going to take anything.
So many people expect a piece of legis-
lation to be up and running in two years
and if it’s not they feel disappointed
and often times the impetus is dropped.
But Bellevue stayed with it.
62. Pic: Stream construction PLANNER, continuing: Bellevue went all
the way in terms of addressing the
problem. They didn’t just stop short
with solving a flooding problem. They
actually went out and set up an inspection
program. -
53. Pic: Water quality analysis PLANNER, continuing: Set up a regulatory
program, went all the way. That’s why
it’s important.
64. Pic: Citizens studying plan CITY COUNCIL MEMBER: I frankly think we
did a lot of things right.
NARRATOR: The city officials gained skills
in involving many segments of the pub hc
The entire storm drainage question was
opened to intense public scrutiny. L,tizens
spent years studying the issues and drnCtLng
65. Pie: Thompson NARRATOR, continuing: Opponents effect ively
organized, made their views known . .
66. Pic: Citizens in meeting NARRATOR, continuing: . . . and voters
participated in countless meetings,
hearings, and votes.

67. Pic: Rising and citizen talking CITY COUNCIL MEMBER: We certainly tried,
we were certainly sincere.
NARRATOR: Each citizen involvement
situation is so different, that learning
to put the puzzle together doesn’t
guarantee the st iape of the pieces
won’t change the next time. But there
are some basic components that can get
the process off to a good start.
68. Pic: Puzzle piece——awareness CONSULTANT: Awareness is important, both
the government and the public need to
accept the value of long—range planning
for far—sighted solutions.
69. Pic: Puzzle piece——organized CONSULTANT, continuing: The major
public participation deficiency in Bellevue’s experience
program is that it did not have an ongoing,
organized citizen involvement effort.
Instead it was on a crisis by crisis
basis, with no overall direction or
responsibility for carrying it out.
70. Pic: Puzzle piece government CONSULTANT, continuing: It’s important
commitment to have government commitment to the
planning process. Citizens must feel
that the elected officials value what
the citizens are telling them and that
they take it seriously. Citizens also
need feedback on how their ideas are
being used.
71. Pic: Puzzle piece——constit uency CONSULTANT, continuing: Constituency
building building is something that you have to
consciously go after in a straight
forward way.
NARRATOR: Civic and business leaders,
organizations and all segments of the
community need to be brought into the
process either through direct involvenient
or public information campaigns.
72. Pic: Diagram——public participation NARRATOR, continuing: Combining their
process ideas with those of elected officials
and planners usually results in a quality
plan, acceptable to most people before
.73. Pic: Streams commission NARRATOR, continuing: Constituency building
meeting also brings about a continuing base of
support. For instance, Betty Chandler is
still involved as a nember of the Citizens’
Advisory Commission which monitors the
Utility and all aspects of storm water
management in the city of Bellevue.
30 (MEETING: “Hector says he’s not in the
position to rule.” . . . “Right, I under-
stand, yeah.”)

74. Pie: Drainage Master Plait NARRATOR, continuing: The story continues
today with a small group of the opposition
planning to challenge the Utility In court.
And when the Utility resumed billing in the
Summer of 1977, angry citizens complained.
But it was nothing compared to the earlier
eruption whlch effectively derailed a model
plan for years and became the worst crisis
of confidence in Bellevue’s history.
75. Pie: City Hall NARRATOR, continuing: While it was a real
ugly kind of a thing, I think that a whole
lot of good came out of it.
76. Plc: City Hall door open NARRATOR, continuing: An entirely different
climate prevails down at City Hall.
77. Pie: City Council meeting NARRATOR: continuing: And the people, I
think, found Out that our system that
started a long, long time ago, really
did work.
78. Plc: Credits: Developed by (MUSIC)
Hall & Associates
79. Credits: Produced by Coburn NARRATOR: You can’t run a government
& Keith for EPA talking to yourself, you have to run a
government talking to other people.
80. Black slide (MUSIC STOPS)
produced for
Hall & Associates
Julie Argue Coburn
& Nancy Keith, Seattle
a aova o rr pazNr OFFICE, 1980 J4I-OI /117

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 in-
structor guide for elaborating points, providing additional infor-
mation, and engaging in problem—solving exercises.
This program consists of 18 iaformationai. units on various
aspects of water quality planning:
Role of Advisory Groups Innovative and Alternative
Public Participation
Industrial Pretreatment
• Nonpoint Source Pollution:
Agriculture, Forestry, and • Land Treatment
Water Conservation and
Urban Stornuater Runoff Reuse
• Groundwater Contamination Multiple Use
• Facility Planning in the Environmental Assessment
Construction Grants Program
Cost—Effectiveness Analysis
Municipal Wastewater
Processes: Overview . Wastewater Facilities
Operation and Maintenance
• Municipal Wastevater
Processes: Details Financial Management
Small Systems
The units are not designed to make technical experts out of citizens
and local officials. Each unit contains essential facts, key ques-
tions, advice on how to deal with the issues, and clearly—written
technical backgrounds. 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