Keeping public in the dark is no way to protect the Great Lakes

Commentary

By Gary Wilson

Would you provide comments to local leaders on proposed laws that impact your neighborhood without reading them?

I wouldn’t.

You’d want to know exactly what is proposed before going on record with your views and support. Remember, the devil may be in the details.

That was the resounding message at a public hearing in Chicago this week heard by U.S. and Canadian officials responsible for updating the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Speakers for the region’s environmental groups let the officials know in no uncertain terms how frustrated they are with the public process for updating this agreement.

Specifically, they want to comment on the final language before the agreement is signed by the countries. To date, they’ve only been given broad conceptual issues to digest, and the process is in the home stretch.

The agreement is important as it provides the framework on how the two countries will manage the Great Lakes. It was first signed in 1972 and last updated in 1987. Many have thought it to be teetering on the brink of irrelevance, so this update is a big deal.

U.S., Canada and the public

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Susan Hedman and Environment Canada’s Jim Vollmerschausen  co-chair the process for their respective countries and are charged with securing public input.

They began the hearing with the requisite power point and spent the first 30 minutes talking about the process and how much time and effort was going toward public input.

In fact, they spent so much time discussing the public’s role that it smacked of “thou doth protest too much.” As in, if you’re trying this hard to convince me, there must be cause for concern.

The meeting was then opened to comments. Lyman Welch, Water Quality Manager for the Alliance for the Great Lakes, didn’t hold back.

Welch told the government officials he was “sadly disappointed at not being able to see and comment on the final language before it was signed by the U. S. and Canada.”

“I’m frustrated the State Department prohibits seeing and commenting on the final agreement before the deal is signed,” Welch told me later.

Other environmental activists at the hearing expressed similar dismay.

What disconnect? 

I asked the government officials about the obvious disconnect between how they and the environmental groups see the public process.

Canada’s Vollmerschausen didn’t see it. He responded increduously that they had done a good job with outreach implying that either there wasn’t or shouldn’t be a disconnect.

The EPA’s Hedman was measured. “There are some groups that would have wanted more of a connection,” she said.

But she then expressed disappointment that there wasn’t a larger turnout in Chicago by the public.

Perhaps it’s because public comment meetings are rarely eventful or substantive.

More often they are obligatory with officials listening not very attentively while speakers make their points in a limited time frame. This is followed by a pronouncement about how all that valuable input will be considered.

Yeah, right. Usually the die is cast in advance of any public process and there is reason to wonder if that isn’t the case here.

But this meeting was better than most.

Hedman and Vollmerschausen were engaged and generous with their time in answering questions. This is not the norm.

But what about the public not being allowed to provide input on final agreement language before it is signed?

That’s a legitimate concern.

A bureaucratic crutch

Hedman kicked the lack of opportunity for the public to comment on the final language to a State Department staffer who dispassionately in a few words said it was “policy.”

That’s a bureaucratic crutch.

Surely the officials of two friendly countries could develop a mechanism that allows for a more transparent end product. It doesn’t have to be complicated or time consuming.

The stakeholders at the table in Chicago are smart, experienced and professional — not radical idealogues.

They get the nuance and delicate nature of negotiating an international agreement. Plus they’re savvy enough to understand that they won’t get everything they want.

Why not err on the side of inclusion and give them a peek behind the curtain before the deal is signed?

We’re talking about water quality here, not nuclear missiles or Middle East borders.

The public process as it exists today will not make it easy for environmental groups to stand up for the final agreement with their constituents.

If I were Hedman and Vollmerschausen I’d take steps to get those folks on my side.

Right now they’re not.