Water in a time of community unrest

[H2O Man]

"The Syracuse University Environmental Finance Center (EFC) invites you to attend a focus group meeting .....The EFC has been working with Chenango County for over two years on a variety of drinking water issues with a goal of protecting drinking water sources. ... In case you have never attended a focus group meeting, the goal is to talk with people who share a common background or interest about specific issues, in this case, drinking water. ..."

Last month, I received this nice invitation from Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, to participate in a 5-9 community "focus group." Having an interest in all things water, I called and immediately accepted the opportunity to be group "limited to no more than 15" to talk about protecting private wells.

I asked how they got my name, and was told it was selected "totally at random, from the town's voter registration." Odd, I assumed voter registration was based on party affiliation, rather than the source of drinking water in one's home. But I was determined to keep an open mind when I went to this meeting last night.

The presenters were pleasant, and I'm convinced they were sincere about wanting to spread information regarding how individuals could protect their private wells. But I did notice two things that were cause for concern: they said that in two years, the local County Board of Supervisors had generally ignored their requests for assistance; and their current efforts were being funded by Altria Group (Kraft foods), which had recently closed one of their factories up the river from my town.

More, the presenters kept saying that they were able to assure us that our county did not have any problems with industrial wastes contaminating the water supply. After they said this for the third time, without anyone having suggested otherwise, I corrected them, and listed a half-dozen sites where industrial wastes definitely contaminated the area's water supply.

My point is this: these two people want to help people protect their water. They don't want to have people drinking water contaminated with poisons that will hurt them. However, in order to bring their message to the public, they have to focus on coliform and ignore TCE. They take money from a source that allows them to talk about the potential dangers of human and animal waste, but which forces them to ignore industrial wastes.

Maybe they are not that different from our congressional representatives.

After the meeting, I spent a few hours talking to a local democratic leader. I don't know him very well, but I enjoy talking shop with him. He told me about some of the problems that the party faces in our area: many of the break-downs are between people who favor Dennis K. or Dr. Dean or Senator Clinton. And it has gotten where there are efforts at the county democratic meetings to "control" the conversations that are needed to plan a coordinated effort at the local level .... and there are factions that strongly opposed to each other .... so much so that they spend more effort in-fighting than organizing.

Maybe that is not so different than what has been occuring on DU.

We aren't going to be able to protect our water supply if we don't sit down and talk shop. The topics shouldn't be limited by industry or some old dehydrated republican supervisors in distant offices. But the truth is, they don't present the immediate problem. As long as we have silly little in-fights, and all the stupidity that goes with it, the large corporations that are contaminating the water supply need not worry about our organizing, advocating for ourselves, and holding them responsible for their actions.

It was an interesting meeting.

[Me.]

1. Things May Be Getting Way Out Of Hand

We are all going to have to figure out where we agree, work with that and leave the rest at home until a solution or a compromise can be found. Right now we seem to be in a take no prisoners mode. This may be the Achilles' heel of the dems and why the other guys always seem to win.

[donsu]

2. the other guys win because they rig the voting

nt

[H2O Man]

3. At times, probably.

But certainly not always.

Republicans have a different type of discipline: they ALWAYS vote republican. They may have some disagreements here and there, but they enjoy an organized leadership, and when the leadership decides a policy, or a candidate, they tend to support that leadership.

That is a mindset that we do not want to copy, because it has an authoritarian streak that is unhealthy for the individual, although it benefits the party. But we do need to be able to focus more on what we have in common that is important, and less on the minor differences which divide us. That ability too often escapes us.

[donsu]

4. and some dem. always vote dems - so what. and I disagree that

we need to focus on what we have in common. that's jargon.

we need to focus on how to get these criminals behind bars.

[H2O Man]

7. Not really.

"What we have in common" might be jargon in terms of your vocabulary. "We need to focus on how to get these criminals behind bars" is shallow rhetoric in any case.

[redqueen]

5. We've been in compromise mode for decades.

It really hasn't worked all that well.

[H2O Man]

6. If you think

that I'm advocating compromise, either I did not make myself clear, or you misread. But because the word "compromise" came from you, not me, I suspect it wasn't my error. I am not in any way saying that people should compromise.

[redqueen]

8. I responded to someone else. n/t

[H2O Man]

9. My error. n/t