News coverage of stormwater issues has been getting increasingly sophisticated, thanks in part to the public outreach programs that so many cities launched as part of their NPDES Phase II efforts or even before. For decades - since the Cuyahoga River dramatically caught fire in 1969 and the advent of the Clean Water Act in 1972 - most people have had at least a vague idea about the importance of dealing with water pollution. But nonpoint-source pollution was a new idea to many and a more difficult one to convey. Those of you in charge of public outreach have clearly made significant progress.

People tend to pay attention in two kinds of situations: (1) when something goes wrong and (2) when something is likely to cost them money. A flood, a beach closure, a proposed user fee - these have always been news. But the most successful Phase II public education, involvement, and outreach efforts are getting through to specific groups, sometimes divided up by age, or by the recreational uses they make of local waters, or by types of pollution they're likely to generate. And as their general awareness of stormwater issues increases, local news media can assume readers have some basic knowledge and delve more deeply into the salient facts rather than spending precious column inches or bandwidth on the basics.

Many articles take the form of - report cards - "often generated by private groups or government agencies -on the state of infrastructure or water quality, and these are useful for summing up an issue for a busy readership. However, a very informal survey of headlines in several newspapers around the country shows many are dealing with issues in greater depth: not only reports of beach closures, but potential sources of the bacteria that cause them; not only the costs of infrastructure improvements, but fairly complex explanations of why they're necessary; not only the fact that the city is installing underground units to treat urban runoff, but detailed categorizations of what's in that runoff and how it got there.

For example, an article on efforts to clean up a salt marsh can discuss how highway runoff affects it (Boston Globe), a local paper can choose to detail new stormwater and erosion control rules and their implications (Wisconsin State Journal), and the state of a population of endangered salamander can be tied to runoff from new development (Austin Chronicle). It seems worth reporting in many places that citizen groups are monitoring and documenting storm drains (New York Times), that flood zones are being remapped and new stormwater rules proposed (Philadelphia Inquirer), and that a debate is ongoing over techniques to filter highway runoff (Los Angeles Times).

How well - which is to say, how thoroughly and accurately - are stormwater, flooding, and water-quality issues being covered in your area? Does your program have something to do with it? Are your public education efforts having a noticeable effect on the general public's level of knowledge and interest or just on those of particular groups? I'd like to hear about your successes - or frustrations- in getting the word and include a summary of them in a future issue.

Send Janice an email

SW - July/August 2003