PU Responds to Pa DEP

Our PU of 10/17/98 said we would print any response by any DEP staffer on the problem of overloaded sewage treatment plants in the Neshaminy watershed. Well, we got no takers on that (so far, but hope springs eternal), but a DEP staff person responded to our PU of 10/22/98 that pointed out that while the PA Fish and Boat Commission extended the public comment period on one of their proposals, DEP refused to do so on their proposed changes on the water quality regulations and the toxics policy.

The DEP staffer is none other than David Hess, who is likely familiar to most PU readers. Mr. Hess's response follows, section-by-section, with a rebuttal by PU.

Mr. Hess wrote:  Joe, now please tell these nice people the entire story.

The discussion on the proposed water quality   regulation changes started 10 months ago in notices,  reports, public meetings of the Water Resources  Advisory Committee and were available in draft printed   form and on the Internet.

(PU)
Who sits on the "Water Resources Advisory Committee," and where are their meetings? How much did the regulations as proposed change from the "draft" form? From what we can tell, the Committee is stacked towards industry and discharger representatives, with only one conservation group representative and one citizens group representative. The meetings are sparsely attended (by citizens, at any rate), probably because they are held on weekdays in Harrisburg.

(D. Hess)
The proposed changes in the current form have been  available in printed and electronic form since June  when the EQB formally proposed them. You also forgot   to mention the EQB scheduled 3 public hearings on the  proposal, with special afternoon and evening sessions  so the public could come an offer their comments   whether they had a day job or not.

(PU)
How are people supposed to offer comments when they have no opportunity to get explanations or clarifications on the proposed regulation? Your "streamlining" under the Roll Back Initiative took up almost 60 pages in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. While industry lobbyists might know what is meant by the changes, how is the average citizen to learn? DEP offers public hearings, but no question and answer session, or information meetings. Those would have to be held early in the process to be effective. The public hearings (where testimony is not supposed to not carry any more weight than written comments; we have no doubt that oral testimony by citizens is as disregarded by DEP as written) were all held with just a few days left in the comment period. They were clearly not designed to convey any information from DEP to the public.

(D. Hess)
You also forgot to mention that when the Fish & Boat  Commission proposed their rule back in August, they  scheduled no hearings or meetings like the EQB did on   the water quality regulation. The Commission was  looking at hearings as an additional step where the  EQB incorporated public involvement right from the start. (That's not to be critical of the Commission,  each agency makes judgments about public involvement  that is appropriate to each rule or program.)

(PU)
Your committee meetings are not sufficient. And at least the PFBC learned from their shortcomings and make an effort to inform the public about their proposal. Their regulation was also much less complex than DEP's.

(D. Hess)
The point is that public participation is now  ingrained in the entire process DEP uses to develop  rules. It isn't like the old days when people didn't  know what was going on. We send out free weekly  updates, have information on the Internet and include  people in the process.

(PU)
You made no effort to explain to the public these extensive and complicated changes. You had the input you wanted, because these changes were based in the Roll Back Initiative, an effort where polluters are given the opportunity to rewrite the rules by which they are supposed to comply.

(D.Hess)
You can't use the excuse anymore that you didn't know  what was going on, because it was everywhere. In  spite of delivering information free to people's  doors, I actually had someone tell me they didn't have  time to read our free weekly Update newsletter or to  chase onto the website for information.

(PU)
Your definition of "everywhere" and "information" is 60 pages of complex regulations in the Pennsylvania Bulletin (never on anyone's list of best sellers) and the Internet (believe it or not, there are many people without Web access) without any attempt to explain to the public what they mean.

(D.Hess)
My question is, when you issue repeated invitations  for people to be involved, deliver it to their door  and they still come back saying they didn't focus on   it until now, I'd say we've done everything we can,  but apparently this horse won't drink.

(PU)
The horse won't drink because it knows that industry is writing the rules for DEP. Apparently all you think you need to do is create a "level playing field" where both high-priced industry lobbyists and the public are both welcome at some afternoon weekday meeting in Harrisburg of some obscure "advisory" committee. If the lobbyists are the only ones who show up, well, it's not your fault. And why bother to schedule some question and answer periods at the beginning of the comment period, after all, the proposals are on the Internet and print out to only a few hundred pages. Besides, anyone who is interested would be following all along. It doesn't matter that there is a big difference between paid industry lobbyists and citizens expending their personal time and effort. You did all you could. If the public couldn't analyze the changes (note that a person could read and analyze only about one page a day and still have a few days left to comment!), then they just aren't interested in clean water. Best leave it to industry lobbyists and their pals at DEP.

(D. Hess)
Try to get the story right Joe.
-- David Hess

(PU)
The story here is the brazen writing of regulations and policy by polluters for polluters with no attempt to explain the changes to the public. It's an old story.

<<<<END>>>>

return