Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality has launched an online commenting system to help the public weigh in on agency decisions.

The new process will first be used to accept comments on the state’s proposed changes to solid-waste rules.

“This electronic system allows the public to easily submit comments and upload supporting documents in response to public notices,” DEQ Director Todd Parfitt said in a statement. “It enables the agency to organize and respond to comments effectively and efficiently, while providing a better service to the public.”

The system could help the agency avoid conflicts about public notice and comments — like the one that has embroiled the DEQ regarding its effort to reclassify recreational waterways to allow more E. coli bacteria. The federal Environmental Protection Agency criticized the state for not meeting requirements to give public notice of a hearing on the issue at which comments would be recorded.

Wyoming has rejected those criticisms but will honor the federal request instead of spending time and money challenging the EPA in court. (Read the WyoFile story Water hearing to be held under protest.)

The hearing on recreational water reclassification is set for Sept. 16 in Casper. The new comment system was not developed in time to accept input on the water reclassification, agency spokesman Keith Guille said.

Wyoming’s DEQ has worked for about two years seeking ways to better communicate with the public, Guille said Tuesday. First, it needed a better website, which it now has, thanks to an upgrade.

It also sought a better public-notice system to accompany the website, he said. That’s also been acquired and today interested members of the public can get on more than a dozen DEQ mailing lists, he said.

“We needed to get all that work done first,” Guille said. He then began investigating methods to submit and receive comments, and that system was announced Tuesday.

As noted by Parfitt, the internet system allows people to comment and send attachments and also helps DEQ organize its responses to those comments.

“It will be assisting our agency as well,” Guille said.

The system will be employed next to accept comments on the DEQ’s Pavillion Investigation Report, the updated draft document related to oil and gas development, and the Air Quality Monitor Network Assessment. Pavillion is the Fremont County community where some residents blame fracking for pollution of their water wells.

“Pavillion will be a really great opportunity for the public to submit its comments,” Guille said.

In the most recent public-participation dust-up regarding recreational waters, DEQ’s proposed to reclassify 87,775 miles of streams — 76 percent of the state’s waterways — from primary to secondary recreational status. DEQ believes a model it used for the proposed reclassification accurately reflects which streams are not capable of being used for recreation.

The change would allow five times more E. coli in secondary waterways compared to primary ones. Some conservation groups have complained they weren’t properly informed about the proposal.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency said it couldn’t approve Wyoming’s E. coli reclassification proposal until the state holds the public hearing. The EPA will examine public comments and the state’s response to them before deciding whether to accept Wyoming’s reclassification.

Angus M. Thuermer Jr. is the natural resources reporter for WyoFile. He is a veteran Wyoming reporter and editor with more than 35 years experience in Wyoming. Contact him at angus@wyofile.com or (307)...

Join the Conversation

2 Comments

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. The new comment system was not developed in time to accept input on the water reclassification, agency spokesman Keith Guille said.

    This is incorrect — the comment system was developed at exactly the right time. I specifically suggested to DEQ to use the water quality standards as a test for the new comment system and DEQ declined because at that time they just planned to hold a public hearing and did not plan to accept any written comments.

    Shannon Anderson

    Reply

  2. Angus, you missed the real story by listening only to WDEQ’s pap. They were basically forced into this over the past four – five years by citizen harassment and petitions. And the AG’s intervention at the last EQC meeting has rendered that Council much less relevant than it once was.

    Bob LeResche

    Reply