Follow-up information: In the December issue, I shared information about the growing use of roundabouts in rural settings. Jupe Hale, a roundabout designer with WSB in Minneapolis, MN, sent me a link to a case study conducted by the Federal Highway Administration detailing a rural roundabout in Scott County, MN. The study relates the success of the roundabout in a rural high-speed setting and I think you may find it valuable information. Please check it out at: http://safety. fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/ fhwasa09027/252.htm. Thanks, Jupe, for the great information. “I’ve been trying to follow some court cases involving the Environmental Protection Agency and individual states or regions concerning the regulation of stormwater flow as a pollutant. Anything new happening there?” You’re correct. There are several cases filed by states against the EPA that could have major consequences to all of our agencies. A federal court in Virginia ruled in early January that the EPA could not force Virginia to regulate stormwater flow because stormwater itself is not considered a pollutant. The basis for the case stemmed from regulations the EPA established in April 2011 that limited the rate of stormwater allowed into Accotink
Creek, a tributary of the Potomac River. The intent was to limit the amount of sediment entering into the creek, since EPA believed it had a negative effect on organisms in the river. Virginia officials argued that the EPA overstepped its bounds by attempting to regulate stormwater levels and that the Clean Water Act only gave them permission to regulate pollutants themselves— and stormwater is not a pollutant. The case will likely go to appeal but could have an impact on other jurisdictions; some in Missouri have already faced this, but it is not known how great the impact might be. No one seems to know why EPA chose to use stormwater as a “surrogate” for sediment, which is what they were intending to limit, as opposed to limits directly on sediment itself. Stay tuned. We’ll probably hear more. “We have tried to pass a bond issue twice and can’t seem to get our residents on board with the needs for the funding to upgrade our infrastructure. Very few residents even attend our public hearings when we conduct them or even informational meetings. We post lots of things on our web pages and even have used social media but it hasn’t seemed to make it any easier to get in touch with people. Any ideas how we might communicate better with them?”
This is an age-old question. How can we involve our residents when they either don’t seem to care or are not willing to be educated and involved in our issues? Sometimes it may pay to think outside the normal methods of communication. For one thing, don’t wait to open the lines of communication when you’re ready to propose a bond issue or a special use fee or extending a sales tax for transportation purposes. That’s almost too obvious. “The only reason you want me to participate is to convince me to vote for your project.” And, that may be true. However, it may be that something more open and less threatening could be the solution. How about having just an Open Forum with the only purpose to get acquainted with your residents and to give them the opportunity to get acquainted with their elected officials, department heads, and other pertinent staff without having a specific agenda in mind? Have you considered having your informational meetings at a more neutral location, such as a school where it might be perceived as an “educational” opportunity rather than a “political” one? Some small cities are using this format as a way to open the lines of communications before you need the residents’ support so that a level of understanding and trust can be built that may pay dividends when you need them. Don’t just expect your residents to flock to your meetings when you need them. Try this informal approach to building March 2013
APWA Reporter
51