The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) remains, in many federal agencies, an antiquated paper-based process that does not use the power of Internet-based technologies to encourage and facilitate expanded public participation.
It is time to modernize this legal process to provide citizens the opportunity to fully participate in NEPA processes online. In particular, modern web-based technologies should be provided to make formal comments and to engage in direct and open dialog with the government officials who make environmental decisions.
Further, all NEPA actions government-wide should be available on a central site (e.g. NEPA.gov). At this site, visitors will find a standard user interface, navigable lists of all pending decision processes, and an archive of all past decisions, all of which will be fully searchable.
For example, citizens who want to fully participate in NEPA should be able to view all projects pending across the nation at NEPA.gov. They should then have access to simple user interface that allows them to post formal comments which become viewable and searchable by any other interested citizen (similar to this Open Government Dialogue site). These comments should also be made available in a common database format for download so any person or group could use their own software and methodologies to independently analyze comments in direct competition with the comment analysis of government officials.
Of course, all other data, reports, and documents related to a NEPA project should also be placed online within legally mandated time lines that allow sufficient citizen examination and review well before any decision is made.
Comments (8)
John --
Even though NEPA is 40 years-old, so few people
understand its legal requirement for citizen
involvement that I call it "The Secret Public
Participation Act of 1969".
I had NEPA in the back of my mind when I wrote
up my idea:
"MyGov.gov" --> Customized to What Affects You
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2929-4049
I suggest you go to GovLoop.com and join the group
called "NEPAtown" that I started. We just started
talking there about this aspect of NEPA.
vr,
Stephen Buckley
(my profile here)
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/pmd/3860-4049
http://www.UStransparency.com
Careful here. The last three elections were severely miscounted and the count continues because there are those who believe that Mr. Obama actually won by more than 6 million votes.
My point is that the machines that can make things so much more easy are also endlessly more hackable than sending a letter through the mail.
The need for computers that are easily checked remotely for bugs, viruses, or programs that change the results as many of the voting machines were found to have done is primary to any such "on line" accessibility.
Before we jump oin with expensive technology, let's look at the system first and understand if technology will help. Just because it is paper-based doesn't mean it is less expensive to automate.
Technology didn't make a difference for the automakers and won't for government either.
The Internet can be a useful tool in openness, participation, and making information available. It is only one tool, however, and should not become synonymous with participation.
I like the suggestion to mandate an online component of NEPA, but suggest a couple of details:
1. Citizens/groups should be able to subscribe to receive notices via email, based on certain search criteria (topic, location, etc). One should never assume that people will check a central database on a regular basis.
2. Any online initiative should include training initiatives/certification programs for public/academic libraries, which continue to be an important source of Internet access for many citizens. An in-person, local resource for understanding the NEPA process and how the database fits into the process would be critical for many.
Too many are not online. This is premature.
Dear fellow "Idea" brainstormers and commentors:
For news and moderated discussion (public, but unofficial) about the
continuing development and implementation of the "Open Government
Directive", you are invited to either:
1. send mailto:opengovernmentdirective+subscribe@googlegroups.com
2. visit http://groups.google.com/group/opengovernmentdirective
NOTE: Because I am posting this to the Comment section of some
(but not all) Ideas, you may see this message more than once.
I apologize for that.
vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com
As the creator of this idea, and in an effort to make this comment thread conversational, I'd like to address one of the comments above.
Folkwoman1234, thanks for your comment. It is an extremely common misunderstanding that the NEPA process is democratic, decided by the votes of participants. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Read the Council on Environmental Quality's Citizen Guide: NEPA is not a democratic process. It is not a referendum. No votes are cast. However, your analogy to an election in which your vote goes uncounted does have relevance to the NEPA process. But in NEPA, it is not the vote that goes uncounted, it is the submission you make that may be uncounted.
In a NEPA process, citizens are given opportunities to "comment" on each project. And while it is common for citizens to submit a statement that expresses favor or disfavor with a given project, such statements are totally irrelevant to the environmental analysis. Instead, all citizen submissions are subjected to "content analysis," which essentially means that they are read by government employees or consultants who then determine if they contain any substantive comments -- comments (a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph) that actually identify specific "issues."
In a lengthy submission, there may be several substantive comments that become part of the analysis, or the reverse is also true: it is common that not a single word of the entire submission will be considered to contain a relevant or substantive comment. And worse, currently it is usually impossible for the citizen to discover whether any part of their submission was found to contain substantive comments that were actually given consideration in the analysis. While this is not exactly like having your vote in an election uncounted, it is similar.
That is why putting the commenting part of the process on line, so that each individual can track their own submission (perhaps in the same way you can track a package shipped by UPS), each citizen can discover whether any part of there submission was given consideration. This ability to use existing technology to identify their contribution, or to know their submission was not given consideration, will greatly expand the right of citizens to participate.
Folkwoman1234, I will use your feedback in a revision of the idea to clarify this point. Thanks!
Dear Commentors:
Since this site will be open until June
19th, we can still "connect" by leaving
comments here during Phase 2 which
starts on Wednesday, June 3rd.
However, you are welcome to gather with
us also at this discussion (you need
not be a federal employee):
http://www.govloop.com/group/nepatown/forum/topics/nepa-and-the-open-government
P.S. The author of this idea
on "NEPA.Gov" (John Able) is there.
P.P.S. I also left a similar invitation
on the *other* NEPA-related idea by
Nicholas Dewar ("NEPA: turn the writing
of the EIS into an 'open-book' process"):
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2916-4049
vr, Stephen Buckley