The Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper is rightly concerned about polluted runoff from construction sites, but the keeper’s web video on the topic Mud in the Run, is going to leave a lot of viewers scratching their heads instead of demanding more stringent enforcement.

Of course it’s perfectly clear to you and me why the riverkeeper made this film and what’s he’s mad about. But here’s why it’s not clear outside of the college-educated green elite:

• Few ordinary citizens realize that mud (sediment) is a form of pollution that smothers stream habitat
• Shockingly large numbers see stormdrains on the side of the road and don’t realize they drain to the nearest creek. Most have simply never given this matter any thought at all.
• Probably only a few people living in the area even know that the creek he mentions — Codorus Creek — is a tributary to the Susquehanna River.

Add all that ignorance up, and here’s what you get: A video that has to explain too much and hits no emotional hot buttons. I suspect that most viewers will lose the thread and click away before the video is over, wondering why the riverkeeper is tromping around a muddy construction site with a video camera instead of cruising around in his boat doing his job.

This could be a perfectly fine video with some improvements to the narration. Here’s a nudge in the right direction:

Developers are accountable to Pennsylvania’s nature protection laws that require them to take steps to avoid polluting nearby streams or burying them in mud. But developers and other corporations have more than a legal responsibility, they have a moral responsibility to balance their profits with the needs of future generations and wildlife for clean water.

Compare this “muddy” messaging to Clean Ocean Action’s clear, compelling web video on the same subject.

Listen to the Radio Ad (30 seconds)

“Let me know what you think,” Michelle wrote about the WaterSmart MONTANA campaign she launched with the Missoula Valley Water Quality District this week. Her goal: persuade folks to stop cutting down cottonwoods, willows, and other native vegetation growing along the stream and riverbanks. So here’s what I think: the campaign has great messages, but I have a question about who it’s aimed at.

First, effusive praise for:

• Deftly connecting the issue of native vegetation (sorry botanists, it’s a yawner for your fellow citizens) to much higher priority issues:clean water and wildlife.
• Using empowering language: telling citizens they can make a difference and what they can do
• Injecting a note of humor, too. The radio ads poke gentle fun at traditional nature documentaries and the newspaper ad features a faux latin taxonomy (”Filterus Outus Pollutants”) that I find appealing.

So the messages are well crafted and persuasive — but I wonder if newspaper and radio ads are the best way to get them out there for this campaign. It all depends on who is cutting down the trees. If it’s creek and riverfront property owners generally, then then newspapers and radio ads are a good a way to reach them.

But if what we’re really talking about here is a handful of developers that are subdividing former farms and ranches and bulldozing the cottonwood groves because they block the water view from their mini-mansions, then that’s a different story. Radio and newspaper ads are a roundabout and inefficient way to reach such a small number of people. It’s like
spraying pesticide on the whole field when you could just pluck a couple of weeds by hand.

If we’re really concerned about a small number of developers, the campaign might have more influence on them if they reach out more directly through their trade association and newsletters, or even setting up one-on-one meetings to make the case in person. Not as glamorous, but more precise.

So Montanans, weigh in. Click the comments link below and share your thoughts on who’s cutting down riverfront cottonwoods and what the best channel is to reach them.

Generally speaking, I frown on trying to squeeze an environmental education into news story soundbites or 30 second public service announcements, but an hour long documentary is something else entirely. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department produced a striking and ambitious film this February that reminds me what a powerful educational tool video can be — if you give yourself enough time to do justice to a big story.

It’s a joy to watch. The film was narrated by Walter Conkite and the beautiful videography is ready for the big screen plasma jumbotron TVs that dominate the American living room these days. After watching it, I’m suddenly very self-conscious about the tiny, grainy, jerky Internet video and amateurish narration you get here at Water Words.

The content and interviews are also well balanced — problems to get your attention, solutions to inspire hope, and profiles of real people making a difference. People of the “if they can do it, I can, too” variety. You can learn a lot about good conservation communication by watching this video — and comparing it to Leonardo DiCaprio’s well-intentioned but otherwise awful “Water Planet.”

I’ll blog about this video again, but for now I’m tipping my ten gallon cowboy hat to the TPWD. So here’s a question for the producers: why did you mail me the DVD anonymously? Who are you? Show yourself!

Visit the companion site
Download a trailer for the film
Buy the DVD

A couple of other people have blogged about the film:

Shaine Mata
nativerave

Over at the Urban Watersheds blog, Kevin is riffing on the distinction between “restoration” and “rehabilitation” when undertaking an improvement effort on a stream in an urban setting.

It’s a thoughtful post on some distinctions that concern practitioners. But which of these words — rehabilitation or restoration — should those professionals use when they present their intentions to community members at a hearing?

I have no idea. What I do know is that when you tell the attendees you’re going to improve the health of the stream, most will think “that’s nice” but not get too excited. A handful of suspicious types might concoct a rationale to get upset. The way to get more heads nodding in agreement is to open up by talking about the bad things that won’t happen.

Will the project reduce the chance of a flood in the neighborhood? Will the project prevent an eroded streambank from collapsing and jeapordizing a road the community uses? Is curbing flash floods essential to preventing a major sewer pipe break? Start your presentation with the bad things you will prevent first, and then offer the benefits and improvements to close the deal.

Sad but true, it’s just human nature to prioritize attention that way.