DJC Envronmental Outlook  

  Outlook Index  
  Surveys
  DJC.com
  Next >
  Back <
   

Giving citizens a voice in region's tough decisions

As elected officials and state agencies determine
how the region will grow, what are the most effective
and useful ways to involve citizens in the decision-making process?
Examining projects at Hanford and on state Route 520 sheds light
on how public input can aid large projects.

By AMY J. GROTEFENDT
and PATRICIA J. SERIE

EnviroIssues

The Puget Sound region continues to experience tremendous growth and prosperity. Some decisions seem to be easier to make due to increased resources at hand, but many difficult decisions remain regarding how our region grows in the future. How much growth do we want to accommodate? How can we sustain our current standard of living? And how much do we try to clean up our past mistakes?

Meanwhile, public outrage over taxation and government spending has put constraints on how we meet public needs in the region.

Citizens' two-cents

Puget Sound, especially the Seattle area, is known for its public processes. This can become frustrating to many of those who want to participate in the public process. It also can turn them away, so that a select few become the representatives for the entire city’s population.

We need to make sure our citizens have a voice in what the region looks like. However, we need to consider the most effective and useful ways to involve the citizens in the decision-making process.

For some projects, a citizen’s advisory committee is critical to the success of the project. For others, it is necessary to involve key stakeholders in a series of contacts to help provide input on a decision. And for still others, decisions are best left to elected officials or agency staff to make and move forward into implementation.

The projects described below highlight those that have required extensive citizen involvement in the decision-making process. While agreement by a large group of stakeholders was critical to the success of the projects, not all projects require this extensive effort. Major policy decisions about how we clean up groundwater and soil contamination, how we increase the statewide recycling rate, and how we move people across Lake Washington, were at stake. Examining the differing types of projects and how stakeholders were involved in these decisions can help determine the best way to involve stakeholders in other similar decisions.

Hanford site cleanup

The Hanford Site is a 560-square mile area in Southeastern Washington, used by the federal government to make plutonium for the nation’s atomic arsenal. This process, which lasted from the 1940s to the 1980s, led to the area being one of the most contaminated sites in the world.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is currently in charge of a cleanup of Hanford -- a project now entering its third decade. At the beginning of the cleanup, much of what was being done at the site remained classified. Citizens were provided little or no information, either about past practices or plans for how the site would be cleaned up.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, due to pressure from outside groups, the federal government agreed to open its doors to outside scrutiny. As a result, site-specific advisory boards were created at Hanford, as well as other DOE cleanup sites around the country. The Hanford Advisory Board (HAB) was formed in 1994, as part of a site-wide agreement between the DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington State Department of Ecology. The “Tri-Party Agreement” outlined how cleanup would be conducted on site and to what level citizens would be involved in that process.

The HAB is made up of 32 regional representatives of local and state government, business interests, labor unions, environmental and public interest groups, and tribal governments; and provides consensus recommendations on major policy issues relating to cleanup of the site. Consensus is reached only after an issue has been discussed in one of the HAB’s five committees, which spend daylong meetings understanding and discussing specific topics. Committee members then draft pieces of advice that are presented to the full group for agreement.

What distinguishes the HAB from other stakeholder groups is that it is a long-term process. Rather than forming stakeholder groups or holding a public meeting every time a specific issue needs public input, the agencies overseeing cleanup of Hanford elected to form a standing committee. The magnitude of the project is such that the agencies need a knowledgeable, existing group to which they can pose questions about how the site should be cleaned up as issues arise.

Public input is solicited from a broader audience through the publication of information materials and public meetings, in addition to the HAB’s input. However, the HAB offers input from a set of regional voices on an ongoing basis.

Recycling panle

Another example is the statewide Recycling Assessment Panel. In 1998, the state’s recycling rate was declining. Markets for recycled materials were dwindling and the attention of the state’s citizens seemed to focus on the latest environmental crisis – salmon. The Department of Ecology saw the need to bring together the major players in the recycling industry to examine of the areas where recycling could be improved and the rate increased. The group’s focus was to provide recommendations to government agencies responsible for implementing recycling programs or to the legislature if new laws and regulations were required.

Over a short four-month period, the group identified the key issues that seemed to be affecting the declining recycling rate, learned about ongoing recycling programs in the state and the factors affecting their performance, identified key areas where the recycling rate could be improved, and agreed on recommendations for improvement. This concentrated effort by stakeholders provided direction to Ecology, the state Legislature, local governments, and private industry on the areas to which their attention should be focused.

State Route 520

Traffic congestion is another major issue affecting the Puget Sound Region. It seems to be getting worse every day, with more people moving to the region and adding to the already high traffic volume. The state Route 520 corridor is one of the most congested areas in the region, linking Seattle to the growing high-tech center of the Eastside -- and Eastside residents to the University of Washington and downtown Seattle.

Over the last 30 years, several efforts have been made to try to improve mobility through the SR 520 corridor. Public opposition caused this effort to fail. However, in 1997, the Washington State Department of Transportation decided to try again to form a regional consensus on how to address problems in the corridor.

It was clear that public hearings and newsletters were not going to garner enough input and consensus from the region on how to move forward. What was needed was to bring together key opinion leaders from the multitude of interests, which had either opposed or supported change in the SR 520 corridor, to agree on a path forward.

Thus, a 47-member study committee, made up of representatives of local government agencies, elected officials, neighborhoods and communities, industry and growth management and transportation interest groups, was asked to try to reach consensus on a set of reasonable and feasible alternatives for improving mobility across Lake Washington.

Through a 15-month process of agreeing on the problem, identifying alternatives and evaluation criteria, reviewing technical information and discussing the issues among the opposing interests on the group, study committee members were able to learn from each other and move toward identifying potential solutions. It became clear a multi-modal approach (buses, high-capacity transit, general purpose lanes and high occupancy vehicle lanes) would be required.

In what some called a historic moment, 44 of the 47 members signed on to a set of recommendations to move forward into study that is more detailed and evaluation. The formal environmental review process is now under way.

Cookie cutters won't shape good policy

Clearly, these projects were significant enough to warrant forming a stakeholder group that could truly focus on the decision-making process. The agencies responsible for making and implementing decisions were able to identify areas of public consensus and obtain the support needed to move forward. These efforts require substantial investments of time and resources. Are they warranted and justified? In all these cases cited, we believe the answer is yes. Such direct stakeholder roles help move public and private initiatives forward, reducing obstacles and barriers.

Are stakeholder groups another of those “silver bullets?” Not always. It is essential that project proponents and public-sector decision-makers carefully examine how stakeholders should be involved in order to move a project forward. How controversial a decision is it? How many people will it impact? What will be the short- and long-term effect from bringing together diverse interests in dialogue and consensus? No cookie-cutter approach will wash; each project demands an approach tailored to its objectives, participants, timeline, and a level of importance.

Enduring decisions call for using the right approaches to achieving agreement on the options and the ultimate choices. Broad, deep stakeholder involvement and support can make implementation of tough decisions easier.



Top | Back | Environmental Outlook | DJC.com

Copyright ©1995-2000 Seattle Daily Journal and djc.com.
Comments? Questions? Contact us.