Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

johnable23

User Profile Image johnable23
Member since : May-24-2009 (Verified)
1 Ideas, 2 Comments, 2 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

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.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas
12345678910….168169Next »

Comments Posted

johnable23 9 months ago
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!
johnable23 9 months ago
To make this happen, I believe Congress would have to reform the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which currently makes it very difficult to establish citizen groups that advise federal agencies.

Still, a good idea, especially in light of new social media technologies that could significantly increase government/citizen collaboration.