If people driving by don’t honk and wave and wave to this woman, they probably just don’t have any idea what she’s trying to tell them. According to recent research:

Just over half of consumers (54%) claim any familiarity at all with the term ’sustainability,’ and most of these consumers cannot define it appropriately upon probing.

– Source: Hartman Group, 2007

Lemme tell you what she’s up to and you can suggest something else for her to put on her sign next time.  The Gulf Restoration Network organized a crawfish boil and protest to call attention to how Lowes and other retailers grind up precious cypress trees along the Gulf Coast and make mulch out of them. These cypress trees, none too abundant, help hold the coast together when hurricanes hit. Can you see why this smiling lady is actually really angry at Lowes?

What could she write that gets her point across a little more clearly for passers-by?

Personal story time. This cypress mulch has given me a whole new reason to hate Lowes, a company which I already deeply detested. I hired their contracting services to replace my leaky old sink a while back (to ensure there will be enough clean water for wildlife and future generations, of course!). The experience was so awful that I made this video:

Click here to see all the nasty comments their staff have left on my video. That’s pretty much the attitude I got when I was a customer, too. Hence the video.

Good luck, Gulf Restoration Network. You’re up against a heartless corporation if their ever was one.

Farmers are an important but challenging audience for nature protection and pollution control people. Making up just 2% of the U.S. population, they have outsized influence on waters across the country and far out into the Gulf of Mexico. And nobody knows how to sweet talk a farmer into participating responsible conservation efforts better than Lena Beth Carmichael, coordinator for the Pond Creek Watershed Project in Athens, TN.

Lena Beth knows that putting people at ease is key to getting their cooperation. She applies her deft touch with farmers along Pond Creek and with audiences for her presentation “Top 9 Forms of Communication with a Farmer.”

Eric: You tell a number of funny stories in your presentation. For the benefit of Water Words readers who haven’t seen it, what are your big laugh lines?

Lena Beth: “First I admit that I’m a redneck farmer, myself… then I add I was married to their king for over 20 years.

I also have some funny photos of trees growing up through the bed of a pick up truck and say that “Change comes slowly”

I have a picture of a barn, and ”King Jesus Is Coming Soon” is painted on it. I tell people that when he gets here, he’s going to be really disappointed with how they took care of his place.

Eric: A lot of conservation professionals have a hard time understanding where farmers are coming from. What’s your secret for building trust?

Lena Beth:  I only live 20 miles away.  I’m not just flitting in and leaving. I have my own reputation and my good name that I intend to keep. I think they take me more seriously because of that.

I also have a good sense of when it’s time to shut up, drop it, or leave. (I hope.)

Eric: Do you talk to farmers the same way you talk to your professional peers? 

Lena Beth: No. I’ll admit that I have used conversations discussing “what it looks like from the road” because that’s what the community can see.  One farm in particular, will do things for social standing.  But they are not actually seen by the community as “SomeBody”.  Their social standing is all in their head. Doesn’t matter to me.  I can still use that, too.

One meeting, I called a particular farmer about 30 minutes before the meeting, and said “you’re coming, aren’t you?” of course he said,” is that today?” and I said, “Yes, and I’ve forgotten an extension cord to run my projector for my presentation. Can you bring me one?” He did.

Of course, I had an extension cord all along.

Yep, I’m manipulative. I’m a mother.

Eric: What kinds of things can you talk a farmer into doing with this approach?

Lena Beth: On one farm, my project built a fence to make a “sacrifice lot” at the top of the hill, near the parlor (creek is at the bottom of the hill maybe 200 yards).  We installed two 6-hole waterers in the lot.  The hillside was seeded down toward the creek.  The farmer was to buy and install the gates, which he was slow to do, and often does not close them now. 

It is amazing how the cows choose to stay on top of the hill, in the level sacrifice lot, and drink the clean water provided for them.  I have pictures of them staying there, even with the gates wide open.  The hillside stays grassed.  The cows will go to the bottom in the heat of summer, to get shade, but they have not demolished the vegetation. It has worked really well. 

It’s also right beside the road, so that’s good for the neighbors to see.

The Seattle Times is laying off about 10% of its staff, according to its competitor the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Not only is print ad revenue down, but online ad revenue is down as well. One editor at the paper told the bleak truth about the move:

Hopefully this will be enough to ensure the company’s survival.

I could do a whole blog chronicling what becomes of laid-off environmental beat reporters, but it’s more fun to talk to neat people like Lena Beth who roll up their sleeves and talk to people directly.  

California’s water woes are the stuff of legend, and environmentalist Mindy McIntyre (California Planning and Conservation League) and bureaucrat Lester Snow (California Department of Water Resources) square off this week in the Los Angeles Times, offering competing visions for how to providing enough clean water to balance the needs of families and wildlife in the state. Two things to keep in mind before I grade their work:

• The LA Times is losing readers and writers faster than the industry as a whole, so this worthy debate won’t have the influence on opinion it would have had five or ten years ago.
• Everyday citizens find these “he said she said” debates to be hard to follow. According to a 2005 Yale University study, more than half of Americans (53%) agree with this statement: “There is so much information and disagreement in the media that I don’t know who to believe about what is best for the environment.”

This second point means that the likely “winner” of this debate will be the one who states their case the most clearly to readers. Now the critiques:

Lester Snow: “Don’t be fooled by the rain — we’re in a water emergency.” C+

Snow uses only a few words that work: “investment” several times, “healthy” once, and “conservation” a few times. He could use a lot more: The whole piece is basically a call for Californians to work together, plan ahead, and… um… build more dams (not your humble blogger’s solution of choice).

Snow makes some word choice mistakes that environmental professionals often make: he uses “climate change” where he could use “global warming,” he uses “water quality” where he could use “clean water” or “enough clean water,” etc… Insisting on using professionally-correct lingo sucks some punch out of his piece.

But I think the biggest mistake Snow makes is structure his piece like a scientific paper: facts first, conclusions last. He should reverse that — Snow should make his point (”We need to work together, plan ahead, and build more dams”) before he provide the facts that prove his point (snowpack, global warming, delta smelt, cfs, hydrology, blah blah blah). As is, many readers will lose interest before he gets to the punchline.

Mindy McIntyre, “Old solutions won’t solve today’s crisis.” B-

McIntyre is also bit sparse with the words that work: “conservation” a few times, “nature” once, and “healthy” a couple of times. She could use a lot more: Her whole piece is basically a call for Californians to work together, plan ahead, and use the water they have more wisely (Your humble blogger prefers this approach).

I give McIntyre bonus points for a pararaph where she writes that some California fish species are facing extinction, rather than writing that they are “endangered.” The term “endangered” is polarizing — your friends love you more, your enemies fear and hate you more. But nobody likes extinction.

McIntyre’s big mistake is venture into economic arguments. She’s not a credible messenger on this point. And if Californians believe that more dams are the only or best way to keep the water flowing, they’ll say “to hell with what it costs.”

I declare McIntyre the winner by a nose here, though. This line is a killer:

We cannot rely on strategies from the past to solve the problems they created and address the water issues of the future.

If she’d opened her piece with this, she’d have knocked Snow out cold. As it is, McIntyre wins the first round but there’s more to come.

Hat tip to the fine Aquafornia blog for spotting the debate.