Environmental Conservation Policy Federal Vs. Research Paper

Getting the Facts Straight

After a meeting the public need to know that they have been 'listened to'. A good idea is to schedule enough meetings to a. Present the case you are making (such as Puget Sound is in dire trouble), b. Distribute this knowledge to the public, c. Ask for input from the public. It is important to have people whose sole job at the meeting is to jot down- capture -- the publics comments on data.

Give this captured knowledge to the 'experts'. Compile this knowledge into a series of easily understandable - logical - chunks. Plan a series of presentations back to the public after a short break - say three months to six months. Repeat as necessary. Members of the public may not attend all meetings.

Give a final meeting to the public that explains all the options. Note how the public reacts to each of the 'facts' that are explained. Drafting the Proposed Law

Draft the proposed law. Give the public a presentation of the law - perhaps letting them get a copy of the law in advance.Publication on a web site may be a good idea, with optional mailed out copies (not everyone has an email account or knows how to use it.) Repeat.

Summary

Taking a hot button issue and making a law that prohibits it is almost an impossibly long task. It is easy to get frustrated (by the time it takes) but the longer it takes the better the law is by dint of the fact that the law takes into consideration more points-of-view, not just the points-of-view of a panel of experts.

Bibliography

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa / http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/?

http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/cases/

5 http://pugetsound.org/programs/policy/issues/actagenda

6 ?

http://www.twitter.com

9 http://www.charretteinstitute.org/

10 http://www.naturalstep.org/.....