Business Report to DEP: “Do Less With Less”

Do you want less environmental protection?
“In this time of fiscal crisis, the challenge before the DEP is to … consider doing less with less”
Permit Efficiency Task Force Report to DEP – see: http://www.nj.gov/dep/permittf/docs/final_report_8_7_08.pdf

Bill WolfeLisa P. Jackson, DEP Commissioner

Today, – over a month late – DEP released the long awaited Report of the “Permit Efficiency Task Force”.
In anticipation of the release of this Report, on August 6, 2008, the day before the Report was due, I wrote this:
Controversial DEP Task Force Report Due
Stage Set – Deadline for Industry dominated Report tomorrow
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/08/controversial_dep_reform_task.html
Back in March, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson issued an Order creating the “Permit Efficiency Task Force”. Jackson directed the Task Force to issue recommendations on ways to streamline DEP permit programs. Task Force members read like a who’s who list of pro-development Trenton insiders with a long history in NJ environmental politics. (for the 19 original members, see: http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/08_25_3_task_force_membership.pdf
After our criticism of the business dominated composition, Jackson expanded the 19 member body to include 3 environmental group representatives. The reader of the Task Force Report would not be aware of this history, because only the final 24 member body is presented.
But our other criticisms were ignored, so, given the state of the economy, I was expecting a really bad Report.
But, it looks like the lobbyists who wrote the report were slick enough to dodge all the minefields, but yet at the same time they identified numerous major problems at DEP.
The public would be shocked to learn of some of the major problems the Task Force identified, but did not propose any solutions for. Perhaps this is due to the lack of technical expertise amongst the Task Force members:
1. Severe staff and budget cuts
The Task Force Report acknowledges that severe staff and budget cuts at DEP have hampered their ability to protect the environment:
“During the past two decades, despite an increasing number of rules and regulations, with a corresponding increase in responsibilities and workload, DEP staff levels have been reduced by more than 1,000 employees – about 25 percent. Further reductions are continuing to take place as of this writing.”
2. Erosion of science
The Task Force documented that DEP’s once nationally prominent scientific capabilities have been eroded:
“In the course of Task Force deliberations, two issues arose which were outside the charge of the Administrative Order but which directly impact the efficiency of the DEP. The first is the quality of science and research that provides the underpinning of the policies, guidance, directives and regulations of the DEP. Through the first two decades of the DEP’s history, the Office of Science and Research was one of the most highly regarded programs in the country. However, during the past two decades, budget cuts and reorganizations have undercut the quality of the program. While the Office still does excellent work, the staff simply cannot keep up with the breadth and scope of DEP needs.”

3. Pervasive politcal influence on decisions
The Task Force admitted that DEP is pressured by lobbyists and decisions are often politicized:
“In the absence of a process to establish DEP permit review priorities, individuals and representatives of various constituencies frequently seek to establish preferences in permit review schedules. Such activities are rarely transparent to the public and can add to inefficiencies in the permitting process.”
4. Bureaucratic silos
The Task Force documented that single purpose programs operate in “silo’s”
“The second issue, which has been mentioned in several places in the report, concerns the sometimes overlapping, conflicting and too often overly complex maze of regulations governing the workings of the DEP. As with many governmental bureaucracies, little attention was paid over the years to the cumulative impact of new statutes and regulations.”
5. Failure to consider cumulative impacts
The environmental community has long called for DEP to develop enforceable science based standards to protect ecosystems from what are known as “cumulative impacts”. Instead of addressing this issue, the business dominated Task Force ignored the environment and complained about the cumulative impacts of regulations on the economy:
“Finally, while not a specific focus of the Task Force, there are instances in which the cumulative impact of nearly 40 years of statutes, executive and administrative orders, guidance documents and policy directives has been conflicting, overlapping and counterproductive regulations that have a troublesome impact on permitting efficiency.”
6. Sustainble development and global warming given short shrift
Jackson’s order purported to address sustainable development and global warming:
“b. The report of the Task Force shall also provide recommendations for operational, policy and regulatory changes at the department to provide incentives for and to advance sustainable development projects that contribute to achieving statewide greenhouse gas limits, economic growth opportunities in urban areas and meaningful affordable housing and that, as a result of their location and design, have little or no impact on public health and safety, the environment or natural resources;”
There simply are is no there there – There are no technical recommendations to satisfy this Jackson directive. This calls into serious question DEP’s commitment to sustainable development and global warming policies.
7. Public relations campaign
Instead of substantively addressing any of these complex scientific, legal and policy problems, the Task Force called for more spin over substance:
“On a parallel track during the first month following release of the report, the DEP should make it a priority to brief the executive office, legislative leaders, the regulated community, environmental groups and other community leaders on the details of the report and solicit their support for the effort and their ideas for implementation. The DEP also should carry out a public outreach program which includes media outlets and editorial boards.“
If you’ve read this far, you won the Wonk Award!
I will do a followup post explaining the Report in more detail.