I’m dimly aware of an issue before Congress that some of you are working on: The Clean Water Restoration Act. A story in the Washington Post yesterday reminded me of it. If you’re involved in any issue advocacy, this post is for you. Here’s the key quote from the Post story:
In the past five years, 44 percent of Americans — about 100 million people — have contacted their elected representatives in Washington. Most of them did so at the prompting of a third party — often a lobbying group — according to surveys done for the Congressional Management Foundation.
However, other social research (admittedly using different methodologies) usually pegs the number of Americans who recall contacting elected officials about nature protection and pollution control at only 10% to 20%. Yikes!
Why is that? I think the key phrase here is that most citizens who write Congress “did so at the prompting of a third party.” That means somebody like you called them on the phone, mailed them a letter, or sent them an email saying “please write your Senator” about this important issue.
Which is exactly what the good folks at Clean Water Action are up to right now, trying to close a loophole in the Clean Water Act. Let’s check out their pitch to their members:
The Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 to protect all the nation’s waters. However, the Bush Administration, at the urging of special interests, has interpreted the law to apply only to some bodies of water. This is not what the law intended or what the American people want…Many waters are at risk. Some of these waters and wetlands are homes for birds, fish and waterfowl, filter pollutants and/or reduce flooding. Now is no time to abandon three decades of progress restoring and protecting America’s waters.
Source: Clean Water Action petition
I won’t mince my words here: that’s as about as motivating as an abstract in the Journal of American Limnology. Let’s try that again with some punch — using water words that work:
The Bush presidency has always been accountable to polluters, and recently they gave their corporate sponsors a handsome present — a giant loophole in the clean water and nature protection laws that help keep you and your family safe from pollution and floods. But it’s not too late for you to make a difference about this. Tens of thousands of Americans are working together to stand up for strong, fair laws that protect citizens like you. Won’t you please join us? Write your Senator today and tell them that you want future generations of Americans to enjoy clean water, healthy wildlife populations, and natural areas they can enjoy with their families. Ask your Senator to support pending legislation (S.1870) that would reverse the Bush administration’s irresponsible actions.
Now… my rewrite may make you lobbyists out there wince, but here’s the key question — which of those two approaches will get more people to actually write Congress?
Comments
At the risk of sounding like a renegade, I’d like to point out that, by removing the term “navigable waters” and by including terminology to regulate activities “near” the water, and not just discharges “to” the water, our elected officials have just opened up the entire country to massive taxation. We will need entire new levels of federal and state beauracracy to monitor, regulate and implement the program and assess fines. We will need new staff to support these federal employees, new paperwork, new buildings in which to house the new offices, more office equipment, more electricity useage, more vehicles on the road to get the staff out to the sites to monitor activities “near” any body of water…
Will there be H2O Police at every boat landing, every private home, every stream, every vernal pool? Will there be knocks on every door in every town in America, as these staffers roam your backyard woods looking for water bodies that you might be conducting activites “near”?
Lawyers will be able to put their grandkids through college on all the litigation fees that will be spawned from this legislation.
Education is the better tool than legislation — simply slapping fines on people for violating some vaguely-termed regulation isn’t going to help them to understand why the behavior should be modified. It’s like smacking your kid and shouting “NO!” when they poop on the floor, instead of showing them the toilet, with the simple explanation that it’s cleaner to poop in the potty. They may learn not to do the bad behavior, but they won’t learn what to do instead.
