Although chronically under-funded by Congress, the Clean Lakes and nonpoint source programs have grown steadily in competence, capability, influence and stature. Activities undertaken through Section 314 and 319 programs have laid the groundwork for a national approach to water pollution prevention and remediation focused on watershed assessment, identification of problem areas and adoption of BMPs to address those problems.
The overall task facing the NPS and Clean Lakes programs -cleaning up the nation's surface waters and keeping them clean - is enormous. But the step-by-step, watershed-by-watershed approach proceeds merrily along, like the bumblebee who is too heavy for its small wings but flies anyway. Clearly, the momentum is building for more success in the future as long as the resources - federal and state funding, volunteer enthusiasm and public interest and support - hold out. It is apparent that the latter are in plentiful supply; hopefully the former will grow in coming years to at least match them.
The limited financial resources available at the present time, though, demand that 314 and 319 programs get "the most bang for the buck." Since many aspects of nonpoint source pollutant elimination ultimately involve informing and educating the public for the purpose of modifying personal behaviors and commercial activities, it is essential that a conscious, planned public information and education process accompany NPS and Clean Lakes assessment and remediation projects.
That may sound formidable, and even threatening, to public agency staff and consultants who are more comfortable plying their projects and trade quietly behind structures replete with institutional public information procedures and personnel. Indeed, most of the public information and education thus far has been accomplished through carefully composed brochures, pamphlets, slide shows and videotapes aimed at targeted audiences. Reaching the masses of people who need to be informed on water quality issues, however, must involve preaching to the sinners as well as the choir.
Therefore, telling the local NPS story to the press is important. And despite the normal fear of reporters and cameras, it need not be an unpleasant experience. Using the mass media - radio, television and newspapers - is a powerful and very inexpensive way to get the NPS message to the high number of people who need to be exposed to it. Familiarity with the basic principles of communication - and the needs of the media - is all that is required to understand how this vital public information and education service can be employed to help up the nation's waters.
1) They want a story. It can be anything - "Agency Concerned About Siltation In Rolling River" "Group Seeks Funds To Clean Up Goose Lake" "Citizens Urge Study Of Livestock Impact On Bear Creek" A good story can be developed from nearly anything related to NPS work. Feature stories on volunteer monitoring activities are an excellent example. Just because no major event (i.e., grant award, enforcement action, hospitalization, death) has occurred doesn't mean that a story is unwarranted. A quick scan of any newspaper will reveal that most "news" actually consists of a message that someone wants to distribute. The NPS message is no less important than why Oprah likes her new stromboli diet better than her old lasagna diet. The story can be anything, but it has to be something. Focus it. The story is the most important thing to consider: it will dictate what kind of coverage is devoted to your message. A dozen or more stories can be developed from nearly any project that lasts 12 months. Weekly updates or even weekly columns present an excellent format for continuing coverage.
2) They want a local angle. Don't send them a general press release from the national or state office and expect them to localize it. That's your job. Did the state office of water quality send out a yawner on soil erosion? Dig up some facts and figures for your area and mesh it into the release. Take them out to film some badly eroded river or creek banks. Call the water plant and get the manager to talk to a reporter about the effect of solids on treatment costs. Have a few fishermen on standby who can talk about spawning bed siltation problems.
3) They want you to do most of the work. Face it: reporters are trained in retelling a story. You've got the story, they've got the expertise and the means to retell it. Don't expect them to sift through two-inch thick documents on impaired uses of surface waters and come up with a blockbuster that confirms everything that you've been saying for the past five years. Compile the information for them. For best results, consider writing up the story yourself! It's not too difficult, and you'll be making sure that the story says what you want it to say. Tell them (or better yet show them) where to take pictures or videotape. Give them the names and phone numbers of people to interview. Make it easy for them, so easy they can't resist running your story - and so easy that they'll call you when the news is slow (summertime) and they need a story.
A widescale effort to utilize the mass media in 314 and 319 projects will mark a considerable transition from the current approach, which usually involves media coverage based on a significant (and usually public) event. This type of coverage is usually about a point source, and is generally negative: fish kills, oil spills, etc. What's lost in event-based coverage is the significant contribution of nonpoint sources to water quality degradation, and the positive message that solutions exist: the public education function is not fulfilled. The limited NPS news that has been covered in the local and mass media seems to lack the local angle, probably due to its origin as a regional or national press release.
Obviously, institutional barriers to open communications need to be addressed. Of interest in this regard is EPA's brochure (OPA-87-020) entitled "Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication." Rule Number One:
Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner . . . the goal of risk communication should be to produce an informed public that is involved, interested, reasonable, thoughtful, solution-oriented, and collaborative: it should not be to diffuse public concerns or replace action.
A final note: use common sense. Cows standing in a creek can be photographed from the public right-of-way, so there's no need to trespass. And avoid naming names. Identify problem areas by watershed, not by landowner. The only exception is a story on an enforcement action, which has vast deterrent potential and should be tastefully - but definitely - publicized.
Communicating to produce a desired action (or reaction) requires a working knowledge and understanding of the basic four-year old. Thus, communicating to produce action involves:
Expanding local news coverage of NPS and Clean Lakes project activity will serve the vital function of informing and educating the public on the extent of the problem, and build interest and support for the remedial actions that will be ultimately required.
[For further information, contact: Barry Tonning, Gateway District Health
Department, P.O. Box 555, Water Street, Owingsville, KY 40360]
Editor's Note: Special thanks to Elaine Bloom and Hal Wise of EPA News-Notes
for forwading this excellent article to us.
