PERCEIVED RISK AND THE SITING OF A CONTROVERSIAL ...

Another member of the Alliance recruited a well-known local engineer who
shared his knowledge of the historical and current wastewater and environmental
problems Waco was struggling with at an Alliance meeting; his comments were then
shared via mass emails. Still another member recruited a retired high level TCEQ
employee to explain regulatory procedures and rules. Both of these speakers
simultaneously increased and decreased the perceived risk. People who previously had
paid no attention to media reports of Waco sewage spills now worried about what would
happen to their creek if WMARSS discharged sewage effluent into it (increasing their
perceived risk). However, their conversations revealed they felt Waco’s history of
problems and enforcement actions, including a 5 million gallon raw sewage spill, would
present an opportunity to call for increased restrictions on the proposed plant which
attenuated their perceived risk (Smith, 2008b).
Similarly, the audience listening to the former regulator was initially discouraged
by his presentation because they were bluntly told WMARSS had experience and
substantial resources, resulting in increased risk perception. Various members publicly
expressed that it was not possible to win in a fight with Waco. However, during the
question and answer period, Alliance members were told they could capitalize on the
procedural structure of the permitting process and delay the issuance of the permit,
leading to a commitment to acquire more resources and capitalize on regulatory
processes that protected public interests. This led to a discussion on the upcoming public
hearing, the plans for the SOAH and a possible lawsuit in an Austin District Court,
70