JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES
Review of the Department of Environmental Protection under the
Government Evaluation Act
The Government Evaluation Act
The Government Evaluation Act (“Act”) provides for a system of periodic review of the efficacy and performance
of state government agencies. The review of an agency’s finances and programs must include a review of agency
management and organization, program delivery, goals and objectives, statutory mandates and fiscal accountability
(3 MRSA § 951 et seq.). The law was enacted by the 117th Legislature to replace the old Government Audit
and Program Review Program and substituted a legislative audit of each agency on a rotating basis with an agency
self assessment. The first reviews under the Act will be completed at the end of the 118th Legislature.
The keystone to the Act is the agency program evaluation report which consists of a number of components required
by the statute. Essentially, the report is an agency self-assessment which the committee of jurisdiction uses
as a starting point for its evaluation of the agency’s effectiveness, efficiency and performance. The components
that must be included in the report are: the agency’s enabling state and federal legislation; program descriptions;
organizational structure, position count and job classifications; compliance with federal and state health and
safety laws; ten-year financial summaries; regulatory agenda; coordinated efforts with other sate agencies; constituencies
served by the agency; alternative delivery systems; and emerging issues for the agency.
Review Process
Pursuant to the requirements of the Act, the Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources notified the Department
of Environmental Protection of its intent to review the Department shortly before the end of the 118th Legislature’s
First Regular and First Special Sessions. The Department of Environmental Protection submitted its program evaluation
report to the Natural Resources Committee in November, 1997.
The Natural Resources Committee held three meetings to conduct its review under the Act. On January 7, 1998,
the Department of Environmental Protection presented its program evaluation report to the committee and the committee
began its evaluation of the report and its review of the Department. After this meeting, the committee invited
written comments from interested persons on the Department’s program evaluation report. Other than a follow-up
memo from the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, no comments were received on the report. The committee
met on February 20, 1998 to continue its review and to formulate its findings and recommendations, and again on
March 9, 1998 to discuss its recommendations.
Findings of Review
The Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources has reviewed the Department of Environmental Protection and
finds that the Department is operating within its statutory authority. The committee finds that the Department
is effectively carrying out its statutory mandate to preserve, improve and prevent the diminution of the State’s
natural environment.
The committee found four areas in need of further consideration: the Department’s funding mix, the Department’s
regional capability, the Department’s responsibility for solid waste issues and the Department’s coordination with
other natural resources agencies.
DEP’s Funding Mix
Highlighted as an emerging issue in the Department’s program evaluation report, DEP’s funding mix has been an
area of concern to the committee throughout the 118th Legislature. The committee raised this issue to the Joint
Standing Committee on Appropriations and Financial Affairs in the context of both the Part I Budget and the Supplemental
Budget.
The Department’s overall funding mix and staff support among the General Fund, federal funds and dedicated funds
has changed over the years, with General Fund support decreasing, federal fund support decreasing to a lesser extent,
and the reliance on dedicated funds increasing. General Fund positions have dropped from 144.5 in 1990 to 68.5
in 1997. At the same time, dedicated positions have increased from 197 in 1990 to 221.5 in 1997. In fiscal year
1997, dedicated fees represented 67.2% of the Department’s budget.
The implications of this dramatic shift away from the General Fund and onto dedicated funds are twofold. First,
because dedicated and federal fund positions are usually directly linked to the program area from which the fees
are derived, the Department and the Legislature have less flexibility to direct staff resources to where they may
be needed at a particular time.
Second, revenue from dedicated fees is less stable, and dependence on that revenue creates uncertainty for the
Department’s programs. When fees are structured according to the “polluter pays” principle, success in reducing
pollution may mean that the funding base erodes before the need for the program is gone.
The committee finds that the shift in DEP’s funding mix to a heavy reliance on dedicated revenues to support its
programs has resulted in an uncertain revenue base and an inability to use resources where and when they are most
needed.
Regional Capability
One of the questions asked by the committee in its review of the Department of Environmental Protection was whether
the changes that resulted from the Productivity Realization Task Force process were working. The committee heard
that one of the needs identified through that process was for services to be delivered close to the customer and
the resource being protected. Currently, the Department has three regional offices, located in Portland, Bangor
and Presque Isle. There is not a regional office serving central Maine, and not all programs have staff in all
three regional offices, resulting in some cases in insufficient resources to deliver services locally .
The committee finds that the Department’s current organizational structure may not provide the most effective
and efficient delivery of services across the State, and that other options for regional capability should be evaluated.
Solid Waste Issues
An issue not addressed in the program evaluation report, but one that has been raised in the Natural Resources
Committee several times, is that of solid waste and whether the responsibility for administering and enforcing
the State’s solid waste laws has been adequately defined since the Maine Waste Management Agency was abolished.
At the time the Maine Waste Management Agency was dismantled, its duties and staff were reassigned to the Department
of Environmental Protection and the State Planning Office. The committee has concerns about the current adequacy
of the solid waste program and the jurisdictional boundaries between the two agencies, and finds that these issues
should be studied to evaluate whether statutory or administrative changes are necessary.
Inter-agency Coordination on Natural Resource Issues
The Department’s program evaluation report includes a discussion of the inter-agency coordination efforts in which
the department participates, including the Natural Resources Subcabinet, the Land and Water Resources Council and
the Natural Resources Strategic Planning Team. During the committee’s review process, however, concerns were raised
about whether there is adequate coordination between the Department and other agencies on certain issues that cross
jurisdictional boundaries. Examples of issues that require coordination between related programs in different
agencies include nonpoint source pollution, nutrient management, pesticides, sludge and environmental standards
in the organized and unorganized parts of the State.
The committee finds that there may be a need for increased coordination and cooperation between the Department
and the other natural resources agencies to address issues that cross jurisdictional lines in order to better serve
the public and protect the environment.
Recommendations
As a result of its review of the Department of Environmental Protection, the Joint Standing Committee on Natural
Resources makes the following recommendations.
1. The Legislature and the Department of Environmental Protection should encourage a shift back toward a more stable and appropriate balance of General Fund, dedicated fund and federal fund support of the Department’s programs.
2. The Department of Environmental Protection should evaluate its regional service capability and identify options for improving delivery of services to all regions of the State. The Department should submit recommendations for improving delivery of services to all regions of the State to the Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources during the First Regular Session of the 119th Legislature.
3. The Department of Environmental Protection and the State Planning Office should jointly study their jurisdiction over solid waste issues and make recommendations regarding roles and responsibilities, including staffing arrangements, to the Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources during the First Regular Session of the 119th Legislature.
4. The Department of Environmental Protection should consult with the other natural resources agencies in evaluating their processes for coordinating on issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries and whether the current division of responsibilities is working well to serve the public and protect the environment. The department should report its recommendations for improving inter-agency coordination and cooperation to the Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources during the First Regular Session of the 119th Legislature.
Follow-up Review
The Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources will review the Department of Environmental Protection’s progress
toward carrying out the recommendations made in this report during the First Regular Session of the 119th Legislature.
The Department shall submit a written progress report, including its recommendations regarding regional capability,
solid waste issues and inter-agency coordination, to the Natural Resources Committee by January 1, 1999.
Return to GEA Reports
Return to OPLA Homepage