Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (April 29, 2016)
12 CapitalPress.com April 29, 2016 What’s Upstream ad campaign: What we know so far Dec. 28, 2010 — EPA awards six-year, $18 million grant to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for projects in the Puget Sound region. The Swinomish Indian tribe receives a portion of the money. April 24, 2012 — Swinomish tribe environmental policy director Larry Wasserman reports to the EPA Puget Sound intergovernmental coordinator that a consultant (Seattle PR firm Strategies 360) had been hired. Oct. 24, 2014 — Strategies 360 submits a “What’s Upstream marketing report,” outlining ways the website is being promoted, “... to insert the campaign’s messaging and themes into coverage of water-quality and other environmental issues.” Oct. 25, 2012 — EPA assigns new “sub-tasks” to tribe which include another statewide survey, newspaper ads, social media, so-called earned media and “creative” advertisements. April 30, 2013 — Wasserman foreshad- ows focus of What’s Upstream. “Regionally targeted messaging to raise awareness of non-point source pollution problems and potential solutions will be delayed until December ...” CONTINUED from Page 1 Wyoming property-rights attorney Karen Budd-Falen, who has followed the en- vironmental movement for years, said she’s reviewed a lot of EPA-funded projects, but nothing quite like What’s Upstream. “I have never seen any- thing this bad,” she said, while taking her fi rst look at the What’s Upstream website. “This is really amazing.” The website included a “Take Action” button that al- lowed visitors to send letters to Washington legislators urging the mandatory buffer zones, which promoters say would prevent farm runoff from reaching rivers. The let- ters made no mention of EPA funding or involvement. “To fund a program that tries to infl uence the state Legislature, that I fi nd totally shocking,” said Budd-Falen. “If that’s the goal, I don’t be- lieve it is a legitimate goal.” Swinomish tribal Chair- man Brian Cladoosby said the tribe’s goal is to draw at- tention to water pollution that threatens the tribe’s treaty rights. Stronger federal and state laws are needed, he said. “At the end of the day, we have to do what we think is right. We didn’t do anything wrong by trying to educate the public on agricultural practices,” he said. “You call people out for pollution, and they’re going to react like you’ve seen them react.” Ongoing controversy The “Take Action” button has been removed from the website, but the controversy remains. In addition to condemning the campaign, some members of Congress question whether lobbying laws that may carry fi nes have been broken. W March 20-23, 2014 — Another Strategies 360 survey finds farmers and ranchers are popular, but most voters also say they support mandatory 100-foot buffers between farm fields and waterways. July 15, 2014 — Inspector General for the EPA releases an audit of Puget Sound grants which states EPA “... should improve oversight of subaward monitoring policies and activities.” The EPA’s Northwest office disputes the critical audit. July 8-11, 2012 — Strategies 360 survey finds voters satisfied with water quality; environmental issues are the least of their concerns. However, a Strategies 360 memo to Wasserman describes voter opinions as “malleable.” EPA Oct. 24, 2013 — What’s Upstream, an online ad program to drive web traffic, is launched. April 30, 2015 — After consulting with Strategies 360, Wasserman files a report with the fisheries commission which states, “An increased expenditure of funds will begin in mid-May with a focus on north Puget Sound.” Courtesy of Save Family Farming Sept. 30, 2015 — In another report to fisheries commission, Wasserman states, “Project has been delayed as a result of extensive reviews and engagement by EPA.” March 2016 — What’s Upstream ads appear on public buses in Whatcom County in northwestern Washington. Transit officials quickly remove the advertisements. Oct. 30, 2015 — Wasserman reports to fisheries commission: “As a result of extensive review and engagement by EPA, we have been revising the website, and have to (restart) media outreach.” March 25, 2016 — EPA says it’s neutral on the content of the What’s Upstream website, which includes a “Take Action” link that allows people to send a form letter to state lawmakers urging mandatory 100-foot farm buffers. Dec. 14, 2015 — Government Accountability Office finds EPA misspent federal funds on a “stealth” campaign to promote new Waters of the United States rule via social media platform Thunderclap and select websites. EPA has yet to report to Congress on the matter. Courtesy of EPA April 16, 2015 — On a visit to Washing- ton state, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy meets with Swinomish tribal leaders. She then tours the Skagit River with a group that includes the tribe’s chairman, Brian Cladoosby, and Wasserman. The meeting and tour are closed to the press. In the meantime, the EPA has disassociated itself from What’s Upstream, but mem- bers of Congress want to know how deep the agency’s involvement was and how the agency will prevent grants from being misused in the fu- ture. Sen. Deb Fisher, R-Neb., confronted EPA Adminis- trator Gina McCarthy about What’s Upstream at a budget hearing April 19. “At what point did your agency become aware of the misuse of the EPA funds for the What’s Upstream cam- paign and what role did EPA have in reviewing that bill- board and website?” Fischer asked. McCarthy said she didn’t have an exact date and that the campaign was the result of a “subcontract.” However, EPA records show the agency’s involve- ment was hands-on. EPA spent more than four years and more than a half-million dollars directing the campaign to lobby Washington state legislators to impose on agri- culture rules tougher than al- lowed under the federal Clean Water Act, according to EPA records. The campaign was de- signed by a Seattle public re- lations fi rm to grab attention. And it did. As a result, the EPA has stopped taking questions about What’s Upstream, in- cluding an important one: How much has the agency spent? EPA records are incom- plete. An estimate by the Capital Press puts the fi gure at roughly $570,000, though neither the EPA, the fi sheries commission nor the Swin- omish tribe have answered requests for a full accounting. The EPA responded to a list of questions for this story with a brief statement, saying the agency expects the fi sher- ALTER IMPLEMENT April 5, 2016 — EPA reverses course and says its grants should not have been used for What’s Upstream. ies commission to cut the fl ow of money to the Swinomish tribe and to review the tribe’s actions. EPA declined to an- swer follow-up questions. The fi sheries commission also declined to comment. Some lawmakers — in- cluding U.S. Senate Agri- culture Committee Chair- man Pat Roberts and Senate Environment Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe — have compared EPA’s funding for What’s Upstream with the “covert” campaign last year to promote the Waters of the United States rule. In that case, the Govern- ment Accountability Offi ce faulted the methods EPA used to rally support for the controversial rule, spreading messages via social media and outside websites without disclosing EPA’s involve- ment. What’s Upstream has sometimes not disclosed EPA funding on its materials. Billboards that were erected in Bellingham and Olym- pia made no mention of the EPA’s involvement. The bill- boards have now been taken down, but for a time they overshadowed the website. Roberts called them “ma- licious,” and McCarthy said they were the most “egre- gious” aspect of What’s Up- stream. “I can’t believe two bill- boards got that much atten- tion,” the tribe’s Cladoosby said. “We didn’t see that coming at all.” Besides the letter-writ- ing campaign and inade- quate disclosure about EPA funding, the content of the website and the rest of the campaign has become the issue. “This is just a new low,” said Washington state ag- riculture lawyer Toni Mea- cham. “It’s shocking to me our tax dollars went for that.” March 31, 2016 — Responding to a Capital Press inquiry, EPA acknowledges that What’s Upstream billboards in Olympia and Bellingham should have disclosed EPA’s involvement in campaign. April 4, 2016 — Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., calls billboards “disturbing” and “malicious.” He and Senate Environment Committee Chairman Roberts Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., write the inspector general for the EPA, Arthur Elkins, asking for an investigation. Corrective action? The EPA initially defend- ed the campaign as “public education” on Puget Sound fi sh recovery, but on April 5, the agency reversed course and blamed the fi sheries commission and the Swin- omish tribe for misusing EPA money on the campaign. The EPA said it would take cor- rective action. However, more than four weeks later, the What’s Up- stream website remains on- line. Asked about the cam- paign’s future, Cladoosby said, “Stay tuned.” The EPA’s McCarthy as- sured the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on April 19 that her agency was “distressed by the use of the money and the tone of that campaign.” One year earlier, on April 16, 2015, McCarthy spent the afternoon with Swinomish tribal leaders, according to EPA records and photographs posted on the EPA website. McCarthy met with the lead- ers for 30 minutes and then went on a 90-minute walking and boating tour of the Skagit River with a group that in- cluded Cladoosby, the tribe’s environmental policy direc- tor Larry Wasserman and the EPA’s Northwest administra- tor, Dennis McLerran, The meeting and tour were closed to the press. An EPA spokesman said the agency had no information to indi- cate that the What’s Upstream campaign was discussed. Cladoosby said McCarthy visited in response to Presi- dent Barack Obama’s call for leaders in his administration to visit Indian Country. The What’s Upstream campaign did not come up, Cladoosby said. EPA’s involvement Public records show the EPA has been aware for sev- eral years that the tribe hired Seattle public relations fi rm Strategies 360 to develop a message and campaign strat- egy. Strategies 360 has offi ces in 10 states and the District of Columbia and lists Shell Oil Co., Starbucks and Microsoft among its clients. Strategies 360 employees also spoke to reporters on behalf of Central Washington dairies that were sued over groundwater pollu- April 12, 2016 — House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway, R-Texas, writes EPA Administrator McCarthy requesting records related to its Conaway involvement with What’s Upstream. April 18, 2016 — EPA inspector general Elkins states in a letter to Roberts and Inhofe that his office will investigate three grants awarded to the fisheries commission totaling $20.5 million. April 19, 2016 — McCarthy tells the Senate Environment Committee that her agency has stopped funding What’s Upstream. Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., asks McCarthy when McCarthy her agency became aware of the campaign. Answers McCarthy: “I can’t give you an exact date, but I can assure you that EPA also was distressed about the use of the money and the tone of that campaign.” Don Jenkins and Alan Kenaga/Capital Press Source: Capital Press research tion in 2013 in what became the landmark Cow Palace Dairy case. The EPA was kept in- formed as the tribe recruited some of agriculture’s sharpest critics as partners and wanted the outcome to, as the EPA records put it, “increase the level of regulatory certainty.” The EPA issued specifi c directions, including demands for advertisements and the placement of news stories, which in turn did not disclose EPA’s involvement. The EPA also reviewed the website, but did not prevent What’s Upstream from add- ing the “Take Action” button to send letters to state legisla- tors. The EPA also received a marketing report in the fall of 2014 from Strategies 360. The fi rm reported that people were going to the What’s Upstream website as long as $1,000 a week was being spent on ad- vertising. The EPA posted the reports from the tribe’s Wasserman and Strategies 360 online on the agency’s Puget Sound Financial and Ecosystem Ac- counting Tracking System. According to the agency, the system allows anyone — from the White House to the press — to monitor how EPA money is being used in the Puget Sound. EPA adds its ex- pectations to the report. According to an EPA fact sheet, the reports “will give EPA and awardees the ability to tell a story.” The reports, the fact sheet states, “Will al- low us to make a strong case for additional Puget Sound in- vestments.” Campaign’s nature The campaign’s partners include the environmental groups Puget Soundkeep- er, Spokane Riverkeeper, Western Environmental Law Center and the Center for Environmental Law and Policy. The groups vigorously de- fend the campaign, saying the protests are the sound of an agriculture industry playing the part of the wounded vic- tim. “The truth hurts some- times,” Puget Soundkeeper Executive Director Chris Wil- ke said. What’s Upstream angered Washington farm groups only partly because EPA funded it, Odessa, WA 509-982-2644 1-800-572-5939 18-7/#14 18-4/#8 farm advocates say, adding that the campaign’s line of attack — that agriculture is “unregulated” — is fl at-out wrong and vilifi es producers for water pollution that’s the sum total of rural life and ur- ban development around the Puget Sound. “No one is disputing water quality is an issue that needs to be addressed,” said Gerald Baron, director of Save Fam- ily Farming, a farmer-fund- ed group formed this year to push back against agricul- ture’s critics in northwestern Washington. “It’s not honest to say it’s not an anti-farming campaign because it blames all the water issues on farmers,” he said. Cladoosby acknowledged that it may overstate the case to say agriculture is unregu- lated. “It’s possibly not 100 per- cent true, not 100 percent lie,” he said. Campaign’s claims The What’s Upstream bill- board image turned out to be a picture from a stock pho- to service labeled, “Amish Country cows in stream.” A similar photo on the What’s Upstream website shows cows standing in a bu- colic stream. The photo is also available from a stock photo service and was taken by a British nature photographer. Asked where the photo was taken, the tribe’s Wasser- man, who’s in charge of the website, said he didn’t know. Another photo meant to link farming to dead fi sh showed a spawned out salm- on. Wasserman and the envi- ronmental groups have de- fended the website as factu- al, saying links back up the claims. For example, the website states: “In Washington, over three-quarters of state water pollution clean-up funds were used to clean up waters con- taminated by agriculture be- tween 2005 and 2013.” The statement links to a Washington Department of Ecology report on federally funded pollution-control proj- ects. The website claim appears to be based on the percentage of projects funded in Eastern Washington. Actually, 46 percent of the funds statewide were spent on agriculture-related proj- ects. In the Puget Sound area, where the Swinomish tribe is based, more money was spent to control urban sources of pollution. Asked about the website’s images and some of the claims, Wasserman responded by emailing a report issued in April by the Western Environmental Law Center. The 151-page re- port presents a case for stricter regulations on agriculture. The report includes a com- mentary by Wasserman on the importance of streamside vegetation buffers but does not answer questions about What’s Upstream.