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.