By David Dahlbacka

In Part 1, I described the structure of oral testimony to be given in a public hearing. In this part, I provide an example based on testimony I gave to the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization some years ago. I have annotated it with italicized notes indicating its structure. Key phrases are in boldface. I suggest that you read this testimony aloud with vigor to a person who has never heard it or read it before. Afterwards, ask them what they remember from it and whether they found the repetitions helpful or annoying. I am confident that they will remember the key points easily and that the repetitions added force to the testimony and were not at all annoying.

If you want practice in giving oral testimony or presentations, you might consider taking a course in public speaking or joining Toastmasters International, a nonprofit club whose purpose is to train people in public speaking.

Introduction   

Good evening. I am David Dahlbacka from Somerville. Thank you for allowing me to speak today, and thank you very much for supporting the Green Line Extension to Medford and Somerville. As you consider the transit commitments of the Ozone State Implementation Plan, I ask you to consider the following points.

Point #1. Key phrase: health effects are local, three repetitions

First, health effects are local. Current measures of air quality are regional. “Hot spots” are areas downwind from major pollution sources like Interstate 93 and other arterial highways. Regional air quality measures combine these hot spots with cleaner, more remote suburban areas, producing a level lower than that found in the hot spots. But health effects are local. Studies in southern California show that people who live close to major arterial roadways are at much higher risk for lung disease than those living in more distant areas. Next to I-93 in East Somerville, students in the public schools experience a high incidence of asthma. East Somerville itself is a disadvantaged area falling under the Commonwealth’s Environmental Justice policy, which forbids overburdening impoverished areas with environmental hazards. Please take this policy into account as you evaluate the Ozone SIP transit commitments. Health effects are local.

Point #2. Key phrase: air quality affects water quality, two repetitions

Second, air quality affects water quality. Current air quality regulations ignore effects on water quality, and vice versa. The “EPA Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of the Clean Air Act 1990-2010” showed that nitrates are major sources of water eutrophication in rivers, lakes, and oceans. Nitrates in the air derive from automobile exhaust. Degraded air quality is not the only consequence of traffic congestion; degraded water quality is a consequence as well. Please take water quality into account as you evaluate the SIP transit commitments. Air quality affects water quality.

Wrap-up. Points #1, #2: key phrases, final repetition

If you remember nothing else from today’s presentations, please remember that health effects are local, and that air quality affects water quality. I am confident that through you, the Commonwealth will do the right thing as it evaluates the Ozone SIP transit commitments. Thank you.

To view part 1 visit: How to give oral testimony, part 1 of 2