• Program Priorities --- Does the matter fall within one of the priority areas established for the Public Intervenor Office by the Committee?

• Advocacy Need --- Will public rights go unrepresented due to lack of adequate environmental advocacy? If the Public Intervenor is not involved?

• Available Resources --- Does the Public Intervenor have, or can it muster, the resources necessary to intervene effectively?

• Quality of the Resources Threatened --- Does the issue involve an irrevocable threat to an important or especially sensitive natural resource?

• Statewide Significance --- Does the issue involve a situation that is representative of a general or statewide problem?

• Precedent-Setting --- Is this an opportunity to establish a judicial, legislative, or administrative precedent --- either of policy or enforcement --- favorable to “public rights?”

• Likelihood of Success --- Is there a reasonable likelihood of success upon intervention?

• Environmental Advocacy Enhancement --- Will intervention enhance the cause of environmental protection and advocacy?

The Citizen Advisory Committee held many long soul-searching discussions with the Intervenors, as they tried to allocate the slim resources of the small Public Intervenor Office.  The following are some of the factors they had to weigh.  The bottom line was to choose a strategy most effective in protecting public rights in the waters and natural resources of Wisconsin.  Keep in mind that devoting more resources in one area required devoting less in another.

• Offense or Defense - Is now the time to prioritize a proactive or reactive environmental agenda with respect to legislation, litigation, rulemaking, or other means of advocacy discussed below, respectively?

• Federal, State or Local - Where will the action be and at what levels of government should we be participating?

• Regulation vs. Conservation - What should be the role of command-and-control regulation vs. self-administration and reporting, financial incentives or disincentives, or voluntary conservation/preservation programs (e.g., stewardship, farmland preservation, local “adopt a resource”)?

• Legislation - Should it be anticipated that legislation will require more or less time allocation by the PI than previously?

• Rulemaking - Should the PI devote more or less time to this form of policymaking?

• Litigation - Should the PI initiate or look for increased opportunities to participate in administrative or judicial litigation, e.g., contested cases, judicial reviews or as amicus?

• Education/Media - Should the PI be more or less active in media or other forums as a means of environmental education and advocacy?

• Community Organizing - Should the PI devote more or less resources to helping citizens affect local environmental decisions, such as becoming more expert in local zoning and regulatory process, creating how-to manuals, coordinating with groups, and training interns in local government law?

• Coalition Building - Is now a better time to work on coalition building with traditional and not-so-traditional allies to strengthen potential for environmental protection in the more distant future?  Should there be more or less outreach to traditionally antagonistic or environmentally neutral representatives?

• Committee Participation - How should we continue to deal with invitations to participate on agency or legislative “committees” with respect to priority and non-priority issues, respectively?